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