Is the dog inherently a pack animal

In looking at pack theory and it’s role in terms of dog training, there appears to be two distinct camps, those who believe that the dog needs to have a definite ‘boss’ to which the dog must be subservient, and if they are not there will be physical consequences; while the opposing view puts forward the notion that a dog is happy to be a member of a group with a leader that both instructs the dog in what is expected, rewards when the dog gets it right, and leads by example.

Many training methods have based their methodology on the wolf pack theory, which is born out of studies carried out on groups of captive wolves, in these studies the individual wolves were often unrelated and fights would break out over resources (mainly food and breeding rights) in which one animal would be the aggressor and the other submissive; this has been interpreted as one individual having dominance over the other. These theories have been utilised by dog trainers, who believe that using behaviours that were interpreted from the study such as the alpha role, and scruff shake, are correct tactics to use to keep the dog in the subservient role, and subsequently get a more obedient dog.

Coppinger & Coppinger (2001) suggest we should not compare the wolf-pack social structure to the dog’s and then base a training regime on that comparison; because the behaviour of any pack is much more fluid than just social hierarchy; and that focussing only on this aspect of behaviour takes no account of the adaptations dogs have made to fit into the modern domesticated setting. They also suggest implementation of intimidation tactics, by a trainer pretending to be the alpha leader, isn’t sending the message the trainer thinks it is; it is more likely to be interpreted as threatening and lead to aggression as the dog learns to anticipate physical punishment, then escalates from initial submission to aggression to avoid that punishment.

Casey (2009) highlights coercive training techniques as compromising the dogs welfare (by increasing aggression and subsequent surrender to shelters because of this issue); while McConnel (2006) believes that aggression is increased because coercive training methods take no account of the fact that dogs are highly social animals, which use a complex range of postures and vocalisations to avoid the very dominant-submissive conflict, pack theorists site as a legitimate training method.

Physical coercion, and the associated injury risk, is avoided as much as possible by dogs, and many household dogs, will use deference rather than dominance to achieve harmony (Bradshaw et al 2009). In terms of training Bradshaw et al, suggest we look at what we want from the dog, and expend our energy helping the dog to understand what we are looking for, in terms of demonstrating calm, correct behaviour, and use of a rewards based program to achieve that. Yin (2009) supports Bradshaw et al suggestion that rather than physical reprimands and aggressive interactions which can damage the person-dog relationship, our role is to show what we want from the dog in a constructive and compassionate manner.

McConnell (2002) puts forward the idea that compassion isn’t the same as being a ‘push over’, and that most species be it human or dog, benefit from having a reliable, structured and benevolent environment, she suggests that to avoid a dog growing up with little tolerance to frustration, young puppies should be trained using a rewards based program, that is provided by a patient and benign leader, and that during the critical development periods any physical punishment has the potential to damage the dogs ability to cope. McConnell suggests that if a punishment is needed it should be one of social isolation, rather like the ‘naughty step’ for children, and that this social isolation is more potent a punishment as any physical treatment, without any aggressive consequences.

In looking at this subject it is clear that the debate over the effectiveness of using the pack/dominance theory as a basis for training, as opposed to the familial/co-operative theory will continue for some time, the idea that dogs and humans can form a pack is also debatable, Coppinger and Coppinger (2001) suggest that packs tend to be conspecific (the same species) and that the idea that dogs see us as the same species is unlikely, they suggest that we are more likely to think of our dogs as human, than vice versa, and that the close relationship we have with dogs, due to domestication has led us to share a level of co-operation and communication that is rarely seen in wolf behaviour, and subsequently to use the wolf pack as the basis for our interactions does a disservice to that special relationship.

References

Bradshaw, J.W.S. Blackwell, E.J. Casey, R.A. (2009) Dominance in domestic dogs-useful construct or bad habit. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour June 2009, pp. 135-144

Casey, R. (2009) Notes on behaviour consultation. University of Bristol Department of Clinical Veterinary Science. Downloaded March 2013 from http://www.sciencedaily.com/release/2009/05/090521112711.htm

Coppinger, R. Coppinger, L. (2001) Dogs A new understanding of canine origin, behaviour and evolution. University of Chicago Press.

McConnell, P, B. (2002) The other end of the leash. Random house. Canada.

McConnell, P, B. (2006) Dominance theory and dogs. Downloaded March 3013 from http://4pawsu.co./pmdominance.htm

Yin, S. (2009) Dominance vs. unruly behaviour. The APDT Chronicle of the Dog, Mar/Apr 2009, pp 13-17

Is selective breeding reducing the dog gene pool?

Many dog breeds today show little resemblance to their ancestors from the pre-dog show era (just over 100 years ago), with many modern day dog breeders selecting individual animals for their asthetics at the detriment of temperament, or welfare: with abnormal temperament reported as among the top 12 important issues by breeders of pure bred dogs (Beaver 1999). The genes responsible for genetic diseases are often recessive, needing two recessive genes to come together to display the trait; inbreeding by using mother to son, sister to brother mating, used to achieve the ‘perfect look’, increases the likelihood that genetic abnormalities will be displayed in the offspring.

Scott and Fuller (1974) suggest that by paying attention to one narrowly defined category, for example ascetics, in the breed standard, the result will almost inevitably lead to the selection of various undesirable characteristics, albeit by accident. They suggest that including regulations relating to health, behaviour, and focusing on hybrid vigour (by having a large number of parent strains to choose from), within the breed standard, will ultimately produce superior animals, as opposed to what Scott and Fuller term “freakish traits” for example the Bulldog’s head which they cite as inferior to the natural confirmation.

Paedomorphosis (the retention of juvenile characteristics into maturity) is actively sought by many breeders, for example the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, and by actively selecting for physical traits such as a larger eye to face ratio, the resulting smaller cranium has less room to accommodate the brain, leading to a painful condition where the hindbrain prolapses out of the back of the skull, and the well-documented condition Syringomyelia (cyst on the spine) which affects 25% of pedigree Cavalier King Charles Spaniels by 12 months of age and up to 70% by 6 years of age (Parker et al 2011). Asher et al (2009) suggest this frequency may be as high as 50% in other small-cranium breeds, and that at least one heritable defect, related to breeding for physical confirmation, could be found in each of the top 50 pedigree dog breeds in the UK. To the other extreme large giant breeds are predisposed to conditions such as hip or elbow dysplasia, brought about by selectively breeding for large body size and fast-growth; while Summers et al (2010) report their findings show the nervous system as the most commonly aversively affected body system, in pure bred dogs.

In examining pedigree dog breeding in the UK Rooney (2009) gives numinous examples of exaggerated anatomical features, and the effect these exaggerations are having on the animal’s quality-of-life.  Increasing body weight in giant breeds has amplified their health problems, and led to a dramatically reduced lifespan for individuals over 30 kg (an average dog weight), with breeds like the Great Dane living on average only 7 years while a Toy Poodle can average over 14 years, one reason for this disparity is the disproportionate incidence of cancers, particularly osteocarcoma (bone cancers), in the act of selectively breeding for size (Kraus 2013).

Many physical attributes that have been selectively bred for, mainly through mother to son and brother to sister mating, has inadvertently led to behavioural issues:  in the German Shepherd, breeding for the sloping spine and a lack of genetic diversity through in-breeding has resulted in increased nervousness and fearfulness, which over a short time period has changed the breed’s characteristics from dependable, reliable, guard dogs to fear biters.  The exception to this is the black long hair phenotype, which is less likely to be fearful; these individuals also lack the breed standard’s sloping spine, it would seem reasonable to infer that selective breeding for the sloping spine may have led to temperament changes. Another breed with recognised behavioural issues inadvertently caused by seeking a certain phenotype is the Cocker spaniel, some individuals experience an uncontrollable fighting trait, which veterinarians term an avalanche of rage; this is associated with breeding for the solid red and gold coloured individuals whereas solid black individuals rarely exhibit it (Rooney & Sargan 2012). While the rage syndrome experienced by Cavaliers is coincidental, one breed which has been specifically bred to alter its behaviour is the Border Collie, breeding to “show eye” (stare), has led to an increase in stereotypical behaviours such as staring at blank walls or shadow chasing, which Beaver (1999) suggests is a stress relieving measure.

The rapid breeding cycle of the domestic dog means that genetic abnormalities leading to behavioural issues can be compounded, or improved in only a few generations as demonstrated by Belyaev’s experiments with foxes. In his experiments he sought to change the temperament of the foxes, and extended the socialisation period to make them easier to handle. Belyaev chose only the friendliest of the foxes and bred these, over about 40 generations the fox’s temperaments improved and a side effect was a change in coat colour from black to piebald, along with a reduction in cortisol levels that measure the animal’s stress levels; however when Balyaev’s experiments ended and natural selection regimes returned the foxes reverted to their usual temperament and colour within only a few generations (American Scientist 2013).

We can see that in striving for the breed standard we have altered many breed’s genetic make-up, and subsequently it’s physical and behavioural characteristics, and that this isn’t always the best outcome for the dog. If the emphasis on aesthetics continues, there is little chance that the health and behavioural welfare of pure breeds will improve; but it is also possible to reverse these disadvantages is a short time frame with the introduction of new genetic material, and the will to change.

References

American Scientist (2013) Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Fox Experiment Downloaded March 2013 from http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/1

Asher, L. D, Summers.G, McCreevy. J.F, Collins. P.D (2009). inherited defects in pedigree dogs. Part one: disorders related to breed standards. The veterinary Journal, vol. 182 pp. 402 – 411.

Beaver, B. V. (1999). Canine behaviour: A guide for vetetinarians. Saunders.

Kraus,C. (2013). Why small pups outlive large dog breeds. Livescience.  Downloaded March 2013 from http://www.livescience.com/27676-why-small-pups-outlive-large-dogs.html.

Parker, J.E, Knowler, S. P, Noorman, E, Jeffery, N. D. (2012) Prevalence of Syringomyelia in Cavalier King Charles Spaniels. Veterinary record. 186 pp 667-669

Rooney, N.J. (2009) The welfare of pedigree dogs: cause for concern. Journal of veterinary behaviour, vol 4 pp 180 -186

Rooney, N.J, Sargan, D. (2012) Pedigree dog breeding in the UK: a major welfare concern. Downloaded March 2013 from: http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232712491490&mode=prd

Scott, J.P., & Fuller, J.L. (1974). Genetics and the Social Behaviour of the Dog. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Summers. J. F, Diesel. G, Asher. L, McGreevy P. D, Collins. L, M. (2010) Inherited defects in pedigree dogs. Part 2 Disorders that are not related to breed standards. Veterinary Journal Jan 183 (1) : 39-45.

Well we had a fantastic time today, first day back with the students, so lots of high fives, treats and cuddles, they haven't seen me for 3 weeks so they have Fin B withdrawals. Then the best bit (after eating sardines for breakfast) was search training this evening with mum and dad. I had two finds both of which were met with lots of tuggy toy. I had to find somebody upstairs on a balcony, they had hidden from me, but i could smell them from the found and had to work out to go up the stairs to find them but i did it! Now I've had tea (chicken necks) and I am fast asleep on the couch, doesn't get much better than that. Tomorrow going on protest march with mum against party pill testing on my furry friends, tell you more later.