How to deal with dogs that fear strangers...

This is a great article by Sophia Yin.

Why Fido Snaps at Friendly People
By Dr. Sophia Yin

The main problem here usually is that Fido didn't have enough positive experiences with a variety of unfamiliar people during his sensitive period for socialization and beyond. From three weeks to three months of age, puppies are primed to explore and form bonds. Such that if they meet and greet all types of people in many types of environments and good things happen to them simultaneously, they generalize to understand that people overall are friendly. Then if this socialization continues through their adolescence, the relaxed demeanor around people becomes part of their overall personality. Those dogs who didn't get the type and amount of experiences they needed given their individual genetic make-up and early experience can end up being fearful around some or all unfamiliar people.

How People Make the Problem Worse
Of course people inadvertently make the problem much worse. For one, they forget the Golden Rule - ask to pet, first. Instead, well-wishers approach too quickly, crowd too closely or loom over like a thunderstorm ready to dump its load. Under this pressure some dogs will freeze or shrink, pretending it's all a bad dream. Others take action - usually a reflex bark or low-level growl. A few successes here, and the message is loud and clear: when strangers approach, growl and bark to keep them away. Pretty soon, your sweet, slightly insecure dog has turned into a mass of defensive rumbling.

Some owners respond by reprimanding or punishing their dog. This can teach Fido that he'd better hide his fear from you but it doesn't make the internal fear disappear. As a result, your dog may no longer show signs that he wants people to back away, instead he holds it in until he can't take it anymore and then he explodes in a full-blown bite.

Why Do Friendly People Look Scary?
Many humans can't understand why their dogs would be afraid of them when they're obviously making friendly human gestures. Turn the tables around and the picture becomes clear. Say you're afraid of spiders and your friend shoves her pet tarantula in your face. If she simultaneously reassures you, "She's a friendly tarantula. See her amicable expression?" or "She can't cause harm, she's just an innocent baby," would you suddenly feel safe?

No, in fact the only way you could get used to the spider is if you greeted it at your own pace. That means it would have to be on a table or in some locations where you could control your distance from it. Then when you were ready you could gradually approach for a closer look and to even touch it. The same goes for dogs. All dogs are not outgoing or used to meeting many types of strangers, especially if they were already shy when you adopted them or have received minimal supervised socialization with many types of humans. If you walk into a dog's personal space or even stand and reach out to let him sniff you hand or to pet him he may feel threatened or be unsure of your intentions. To him, your hand might as well be a meat cleaver.

If however, you stand straight up or crouch down on one knee while looking slightly away, then he can approach and sniff you at his own rate. You can speed up the friendship if you inconspicuously drop tasty treats close to you. If he's taking these without any hesitation, you can hold treats in your hand while averting your gaze so that shy Fido can choose to take them.

Often people manage to get through the initial greeting with Fido okay but then they make a quick or inappropriate move that scares him into snapping or running away. This is still similar to the situation with the giant spider. Even when you're finally comfortable enough to examine and touch the tarantula, if it suddenly moves its mouthparts or waves one of its legs in the air you might jump away out of fright. To you these movements may conjure images of the tarantula leaping at you and taking a bite whereas to the tarantula the movements may just be a subconscious change in position or even a signal that it's your friend. So the trick to ensuring that you don't frighten Fido even after the initial greeting is to gradually get him used to you in different positions. Avoid learning over him or reaching over his head or grabbing and hugging him so he feels confined. Instead move slowly and smoothly in order to give him a chance to back away.

Read the Dog's Signals
Probably the biggest issue with these dogs who are uncomfortable with some human greetings is that their humans as well as the unfamiliar greeters fail to recognize the neon sign flashing in the dog's body postures and movements. It says, "Help! I'm scared. Go Away." Fido may be tense with eyes darting back and forth or his gaze looking away while he's cowering. Or he may be yawning, licking his lips or panting when he shouldn't be hot. Sometimes Fido starts moving in slow motion like he's sneaking around, or his ears suddenly going out to the sides or back while his brow is furrowed in a worried look. And often his tail is down low, even between his legs. These are all signs of anxiety or fear.

What to Do if You See Signs of Fear
If you see these signs in your dog as someone reaches out to pet him, quickly move away so he's out of range of the approaching petter. Like the person who's about to pick up litter but stops because the litter starts to blow away, the signal you send by moving away is to stop. At the same time you can explain "He's afraid of new people that approach him quickly." Simultaneously get Fido's attention on you and reward him for something good such as sitting or looking at you or performing tricks. The goal is to change his emotional state from scared to happy, so that he can eventually learn to associate unfamiliar people with good things. Consequently his fear can go away. Strangers can also toss treats while looking away, but unless you're absolutely sure that you can tell when Fido is permanently comfortable with them, I'd avoid letting them pet him unless you have a professional coach you through the procedure.

For People Greeting Unfamiliar Dogs
It's important that you watch body language too. The dog may take treats from you but that doesn't mean he's ready to be touched. Watch the response to everything you do because sometimes a split second freeze or lift of the lip is the neon sign that says "That's too scary for me. Now I'm going to bite." Instead, just be happy to give treats and admire the dog without touching and know that you've given him a good experience.

What Body Language Indicates the Dog is Safe?
The body language you'd like to see when greeting a dog is one that says this whole business is ho-hum. The dog should remain relaxed and his gaze should be steady and soft. His tail should either wag or hang loosely down.

The Solution
If humans would let dogs approach them at their own pace and would even make treats magically appear on the ground around them without pressuring the dog to allowing being petted, they would experience many good dog greetings and help Fido have positive experiences around unfamiliar people, too.

Is your dog travelling safely?

Time and again I see dogs travelling unsecured in cars. Hatchback owners are the worst culprits but plenty of people driving estate cars and 4x4s are guilty too.

I see them every day, sprawling on the back seat, sitting on the arm rest, happily perched on the passenger seat - even on the dash board or the parcel shelf. What do all of these pups have in common - none are travelling safely and all could get injured or injure others.

You wouldn't let a child travel in this fashion so the question is, why let your dog. By leaving your dog loose you are putting yourself and other road users in danger. An unsecured dog could try and move from the rear seats to sit with you in the front or could start barking and lunging at dogs it sees on the other side of the windows. This is distracting at best and at worst could cause you to collide with another car or even another person.

Added to this is the force an unsecured dog has when involved in a car crash. Remember the seatbelt campaign from a few years ago, the one where the child didn't have a seatbelt on and slammed into the front of the seat pushing the driver into the steering column? Well it doesn't have to be a person to have this effect. If you are driving at speed and have an unsecured dog in your rear seats the force of any braking or impact will throw the dog forward. Not only could the dog get injured, or even die if thrown from the car, but you and any other people travelling in the car could suffer as well. And what about if your dog managed to get loose, say on a busy road or even a motorway. Yet another disaster waiting to happen.

Nowadays there exist a wide variety of products to ensure your dog stays safe while on the road. You can buy custom built car travel crates made to measure, sure to fit even the most oddly shaped car, alternatively and slightly cheaper are the ready to buy standard travel crates, there are also a plethora of soft travel crates that can be secured to seat belt points, then there are doggy seat belts. Most require your dog to wear a harness, if they fixed to a standard collar then sharp breaking could seriously damage your dog's neck. The harness is then attached either to the seatbelt point or the seatbelt itself.

My preferred methods of transporting our pups are a partitioned travel crate in the rear of the car. A travel crate differs from your dog's standard crate in that it is more solid and features front and back doors so that if the rear of your car is damaged you can drop the back seats and open the crate from that end. I also use a great system called the Kurgo auto bungee - this looks quite complicated but features a sturdy harness, a tight line that fixes between the coat hooks above the rear passenger doors and a carabiner and belt system that anchors your dog while allowing it limited sideways movement along the rear seat. It comes in a variety of sizes and can be used on any size dog from toy breeds to giants.

Another thought to consider is whether your dog walker transports your dog in a safe fashion. All too many pet professionals are keen to fit as many dogs into one space as possible. This means cars and vans crammed with dogs all unsecured and forced to get up close and personal with each other. Not only is this dangerous for all the reasons mentioned but it can lead to fights among dogs and make the process of being transported and taken out for a walk a stressful and unpleasant experience. All responsible pet professionals will be happy to show you how they transport your dog and reassure you that they do so safely.

The cuteness curse - ask before you say hello

This is a great piece by Barker Behaviour in the U.S encouraging us to think before approaching dogs, no matter how cute they are, something especially true of small dogs.

The Cuteness Curse

BY BARKER BEHAVIOR

Look at this face.  You want to pet him, don’t you? Have you ever wondered if he wanted you to pet him?  Just because a dog is cute and looks good to you does not mean he or she loves to be touched; especially by strangers.

I am not suggesting that you get on hands and knees, wiggle your bum and ask every dog you meet if they want to be touched nor am I saying that we should all roll onto our backs and let dogs pet us.  We do, however, need to remember that OUR desire to touch an animal may not be received with enthusiasm.  Some tips to remember the next time you MUST say hello to a ridiculously cute dog:

Ask.  If you are walking into someone’s home or meet a dog on the street, ask if you may say hello to their dog. I can not tell you how many times I am out with Finn or a client’s dog and folks just rush us, without permission.  Just ask.  It is polite and prevents a bite from a dog who downright does not like people.

Listen. If the dog’s guardian tells you his or her dog is shy, do not reinforce those fears by mimicking Godzilla as you chase their dog into a corner.

Watch. If the super cute dog walks away from you, lowers their head or hides behind their owner; those behaviors clearly indicate varying levels of disinterest in you.  If you give in to your desires and force your affection on the dog to feed your own satisfaction, you could make the fears worse or get bitten. Remember, flight or fight? If flight does not work, your actions might be met with fight. Not good for you or the dog.

Help. If you sit in a chair and avoid eye contact, it can help the dog feel less threatened. Crouching helps too but if the dog has ANY history of biting, you put yourself in a dangerous position by getting on the floor.  Some dogs respond well when guardians give amazing treats for confident behavior in the presence of strange people, treats go away when the strange person goes away.  Some dogs do well if the stranger drops (no tossing overhand) amazing treats on the floor for the dog.  Again, remember coming at or over the dog can be scary.

Remember, the way a dog looks is not an indicator of their personality.  If you LOVE dogs, remember this the next time you meet a new one and you may help the adorable little (or big) dog become more confident around new people.

Patricia McConnell weighs in on the dominance issue

This article was published in Bark magazine in September 2011. Yesterday I posted a piece written by Roger Abrantes on dominance and I thought it was worth adding another dog behaviour guru's thoughts on the whole dominance palaver. Enjoy!

Published on The Bark (http://thebark.com)



Down with Dominance
by Patricia McConnell, PhD
Originally appearing in Issue #66, Sep/Oct 2011
Both Ends of the Leash

Here are some “rules” for you dog lovers out there (that is, if you’re given to following just
anyone’s advice, whether or not they’re qualified to give it):

• Don’t pet your dog unless he works for it first.
• Don’t let your dog move his head so that it is higher than your own.
• Don’t feed your dog until after you’ve eaten.
• Don’t step around your dog if she’s in your path; make her get up and move, even if she’s
sound asleep.
• Don’t let your dog sleep with you or cuddle with you on the couch.
• Don’t clean up after your dog while she’s watching you.

But, never fear. Here’s what you can do:
• Spit in your dog’s food.
• Wipe your baby’s dirty diapers on the wall.

Why, you might ask? Because each action is said to either cause your dog to think he’s
dominant over you, or — in the case of the spitting and the wiping — tells your dog that you
(and your baby) are dominant over her. Seriously. There are people out there telling us that
these tips are critical to our own happiness as well as that of our dogs.

Oh my. Are we really still having this conversation? Are we really still talking about whether
or not we need to “get dominance” over our dogs? Ten years ago, I wrote a column for Bark
titled “Alpha Schmalpha,” in which I explained that dominance is one of the most misused
and misunderstood words in the English language, at least in relation to dog training. As I
and many other trainers and behaviorists repeat endlessly in books, blogs and seminars,
dominance is simply a description of a relationship between two individuals who want the
same thing.

One animal is said to be “dominant” over the other if he or she always has primary access
to the pork chop that falls on the floor, or the favorite toy, or the cozy lap of a dozing
guardian. Thus, it’s about the resolution of situations in which there might be competition
for a resource. It is not about coming when called, or sitting when told to sit, or accepting
unfamiliar dogs into the yard.

We’re not even sure how the concept relates to interactions between dogs, much less to
interactions between two entirely different species like people and dogs. At present,
thoughtful ethologists and behaviorists are re-evaluating the concepts of “dominance” and
“social status” as they relate to the domestic dog. Although there are questions and
quibbles about some of the finer points, experts almost universally agree that the concept
of “getting dominance” over our dogs is, at best, not useful, and more often is harmful to our
relationships with our best friends.

Yet, the idea that we must “dominate” our dogs lives on, zombie-like, in spite of years of
research and experience that demonstrates “being dominant” over our dogs does not
improve obedience. In fact, we know that using positive reinforcement results in the best
behavior, the fewest behavioral problems and the richest relationships. Given that, the
question we need to ask ourselves is this: why is the concept of achieving dominance over
our dogs so seductive? Why is it so hard for people to give up?

This is most likely not a question with one answer. Given that humans are complex
animals, I suspect there are many answers. And, of course, all we can do is speculate.
Perhaps thinking about what might motivate us to hang onto this age-old concept can help
us finally give it a respectful burial.

Surely one reason that so many people are enamored of the concept is that social status is
highly relevant to our species. No matter how egalitarian we are, the fact is that in
restaurants, some people get better tables than others, and most of us can’t walk into the
governor’s office just to have a chat. We address physicians as “Dr. Johnson” but we call
nurses “Anita” or “James”; we ask the judge for “permission to approach the bench”; and if
we are lucky enough to be given an audience at Buckingham Palace, we still, still, bow or
curtsy to the queen.

However, we don’t seem to make the mistake within our own species that we make with
our dogs, confounding social status or control with teaching or conveying information. We
may take away our children’s cell phones to make them spend more time studying algebra,
but we don’t think that our ability to do so actually teaches them algebra. And yet, we tend
to do that with our dogs all the time. Dogs are supposed to come when called, refrain from
jumping up on company and walk at perfect heel just because we tell them to. Each of
those actions requires learning; they are not natural to dogs and have to be taught, much
the same as we had to be taught how to solve an equation like 2x – 3 = 5.

Perhaps another reason we are so susceptible to the fallacy of “getting dominance” over
our dogs is that it makes dog training seem simple. One-step shopping — just get your dog
to accept you as “alpha,” and voilà! Your dog will stop jumping up on visitors and will
quietly walk through the neighborhood at your side, ignoring all the interesting stuff, like
squirrels and information left by other dogs as they passed by.

No training required, either for your dog or, as importantly, for you. No need to learn timing
and reinforcement schedules and how to know when your dog can learn and when she is
too tired or distracted to understand what you are trying to teach her. In a world of instant
rice and instant messaging and instant information on demand, no wonder a simple, blackand-white concept is attractive.

No matter that dominance has no relation to these issues, or that the way it is presented
often equates more to bullying than to social status. Sure, it’s appealing to think that one
overriding concept will take care of a host of behavioral issues. And hey, how hard could it
be to talk your dog into believing that you are the alpha? You’re the one who can open the
door, you’re the one who brings home the dog food and you’re the one with the opposable
thumbs and the big brain. Of course, opening doors has nothing to do with sitting when the
doorbell rings, but surely being “dominant” will mean that when you say “Sit!” she does
What else would she do?

Well, actually, there are many reasonable responses that a dog can make to a noise
coming out of a person’s mouth, such as: have no idea what sit means because she hasn’t
been taught to understand what she was supposed to do when she heard the word; or be
unable, without training and practice, to control her emotions and sit down when she is
overwhelmed with excitement.

Finally, and perhaps most compellingly, the concept of dominance feeds into our desire for
control. Let’s face it: we all want control, at least over some things. Influencing the behavior
of others is crucial to members of a social species, and is most likely one of the driving
forces behind language, facial expressions of emotion and the importance that movie
directors pay to the musical score. Heaven knows our desire for control is satisfied rarely
enough: world leaders pay no attention to our solutions to one crisis after another —
granted, we’ve only been talking to our friends about them, but then that’s my point. We are
awash in events that we read about, hear about and post blogs about but have little or no
control over. How satisfying then to say “Sit” and have our dogs hear us, do it and look up
with a grin.

The idea that all we need is respect (cue Aretha here) and our dog will behave perfectly is
understandably seductive. Too bad it’s incorrect. Far worse, it can lead, at best, to a dog
who performs because he is intimidated, and at worst, to a dog who is abused. The fact is,
dogs will respect us only if we are consistent, clear and fair. They will love and trust us only
if we are loving and patient and are able to communicate to them in ways that they
understand. That does not mean we need to “spoil” them and allow them to behave like
rude and demanding house guests. However, we need to teach them how to behave in the
society of another species, rather than expecting them to do what you say just because
they “want to please us.” That foolish fantasy is as realistic as a Disney cartoon.

Ah, we all love a good fantasy, don’t we? However, separating fantasy from reality is an
important part of being a grown-up. Let’s make it an important part of being a good
guardian for our dogs.

I’d write more, but I have to go spit in my dog’s dinner.

Dominance - an uphill battle to re-educate owners

Unfortunately the idea of dominance is still one that crops up all too often when we talk about canine behaviour. Not only are an unacceptable number of trainers still advocating the use of dangerous and damaging methods such as alpha rolls but even more worryingly, due to the predominance of a certain TV trainer, the general dog owning public has come to the conclusion that most unwanted behaviours are the result of their dog seeking to assert themselves over their owner, to be dominant. I encounter people labelling their dogs as dominant on an almost daily basis. Alas it seems we have a lot of work to do to re-educate people as to what their dogs' behaviour really means.

The below article (sorry it's long but it wouldn't link) is well worth reading and is by Roger Abrantes a very experienced vet and canine behaviourist. Many owners would do well to take this information on board, and realise that dogs aren't wolves and aren't out for world domination.

Dominance—Making Sense of the Nonsense

DEC 11

Posted by Roger Abrantes

The possible combinations of aggressive, fearful, dominant and submissive behavior in social canines (From "Dog Language" by Roger Abrantes, illustration by Alice Rasmussen). Copyrighted illustration.

The discussion on dominance has run away with us. There is only one thing more absurd and futile than that of taking pains to prove that dominance exists and this is to attempt to prove that dominance does not exist. In the following, I shall commit the first of these futile acts.

Dominance means in daily language “power and influence over others.” It means supremacy, superiority, ascendancy, preeminence, predominance, mastery, power, authority, rule, command, control. It has so many meanings and connotations that it’s difficult to know how to use it as a precise scientific term in the behavioral sciences. Additionally, the scientists who use it (as well as those who repudiate it) haven’t gone to great extents to define it accurately, contributing to the present confusion, to meaningless discussions, fall-outs, and nonsensical claims.

Wolf-dog hybrid (Image via Wikipedia).

It is my intention to remedy this firstly by demonstrating that dominance does exist, then, by establishing that it refers to one and the same class of behaviors independent of the species being discussed. I will then present a precise, pragmatic and verifiable definition of the term, which is compatible with evolutionary theory and our body of biological knowledge. Finally, I shall argue that even though it is true that a good (profitable and stable) relationship does not rely on continuous displays of dominance/submission from the same individuals toward the same individuals, this does not imply that dominance does not exist in dogs (or any other species). Denying that dominance exists in dogs has become a popular argument to defend the claim that we must not build a good relationship to our dogs on dominance.

It is absurd to argue that dominance does not exist when we have so many words to describe whatever it relates to. If it didn’t, we would not have even one word for it. That it exists means that we have seen it somewhere around us. We can argue that we observed it and that the term (1) refers only to particular human relations, or that (2) it refers to particular relations among humans as well as some other animal species. The second option seems more appealing, considering that it is highly improbable that a particular condition would exist for only one single species. It would conflict deeply with all we know about the relatedness and evolution of species.

In a stable pack, wolves display mostly dominant and submissive behavior and seldom aggressive and fearful behavior.

However, there is nothing implausible in stating that the term does not apply to describe the behavior of some particular species. On the contrary, two species which diverged from a common ancestor billions of years ago have evolved and developed characteristics of their own and differ both from the common ancestor and one another. By the same token, species closely related, only diverging from a common ancestor a few thousands year ago, will show various characteristics, similar or equal to the common ancestor and to one another. Some species share many common attributes as to phenotype, genotype and/or behavior, others less, some none at all. It all depends on their common ancestry and their adaptation to the environment.

Humans and chimpanzees (Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes) diverged from their common ancestor about six millions year ago and so we can expect them to be more different from one another than wolves and dogs (Canis lupus lupus and Canis lupus familiaris), only diverging from a common ancestor probably about 15-20 thousand years ago (and in no circumstances more than 100 thousand years ago). The human and the chimpanzee DNA differ in a higher degree than the DNA of wolf and dog (which is almost identical except for a few mutations). Humans cannot interbreed with chimpanzees; wolves and dogs can and produce fertile offspring. Humans and chimpanzees are two completely distinct species. Wolves and dogs are two sub-species of the same species.

These facts considered, we could expect wolves and dogs to show a great number of similarities, which they do, not only physically but also behaviorally. Any laymen will attest to that. Their similarities at one level or another is what makes it possible for them to mate, produce fertile offspring, and communicate. Nobody has questioned that wolves and dogs have a very large common repertoire of communication behaviors; and rightly so, for multiple observations have confirmed that they do communicate perfectly well. Their facial expressions and bodily postures are remarkably similar (except for a few dog breeds), with small differences being smaller than cultural features among some human geographically separated settlements.

If wolves and dogs can communicate, it follows then, that the basic and crucial elements of their languages must be the same. This means that even though they evolved in apparently distinct environments, they kept the most anchored elements of their genotypic characteristics. This may be for three reasons: (1) the common genotypes are vital to the organism, (2) the environments were not so crucially distinct after all, (3) evolution needs more time and more selective conditions (since it operates on phenotypes) before the genotypes begin to differ radically. (1) means that there are more ways of not being alive than being alive, or, in other words, that evolution needs time to come up with different, viable life forms. (2) means that even though wolves and (pet) dogs now live in completely different environments, the phenomenon is yet too recent. It is only in the last century that dogs became thoroughly humanized. Until then, they were our companions, domestic animals, but still had a large degree of freedom and the successful selective factors were basically the same as always. They weren’t pets yet and breeding was not totally (or almost totally) controlled by human selection. (3) means that we might one day (in a million years or so) have two completely distinct species, wolves and dogs. By then, they will not mate, will not produce fertile offspring and will show some completely different characteristics. They will have changed name to maybe Canis civicus, or Canis homunculus. However, we are not there yet!

Recent trends claim that “dominant behavior” does not exist in dogs, which poses some serious problems. There are two ways to argue in favor of such thinking. One is to dismiss “dominant behavior” downright, which is absurd since, for the reasons we saw above, the term exists, we know roughly what it means and we can have a meaningful conversation using it. It must, therefore, refer to a class of behaviors that we have observed. Another argument is to claim that wolves and dogs are completely different and that therefore, even though we can apply the term to explain wolf behavior, we cannot use it to describe dog behavior. If they were completely different, the argument would be valid, but they are not, as we have seen. On the contrary, they are very similar

A third alternative is to build a brand new theory to explain how two so closely related species as the wolf and the dog (actually sub-species) can have developed in such a short period (thousands of years) so many radically different characteristics in one aspect, but not others. This would amount to a massive revision of the entire complex of our biological knowledge with implications far beyond wolves and dogs and one which I find unrealistic.

A far more appealing approach, it seems to me, is to analyze the concepts we use and define them properly. This would allow for their more meaningful use when dealing with the different species, without running into incompatibilities with the entire body of science.

A proper definition of “dominant behavior” is important because the behavior it encompasses is crucial to the survival of the individual, as we shall see.

It appears to me a poor approach to dismiss the existence of facts underlying a term, just because that term is ill-defined, not to mention it being politically incorrect (which means that it doesn’t suit our immediate goals). Dominant behavior exists, merely that it is badly defined (when defined at all). Most discussions involving it are meaningless because none of the parts knows what exactly the other is talking about. However, we don’t need to throw the baby out with the bath water! Therefore, I suggest precise definitions of dominant behavior as well as all the terms we need to understand it, what it is, what it is not, how it evolved and how it functions.

Dominant behavior is a quantitative and quantifiable behavior displayed by an individual with the function of gaining or maintaining temporary access to a particular resource on a particular occasion, versus a particular opponent, without either party incurring injury. If any of the parties incur injury, then the behavior is aggressive and not dominant. Its quantitative characteristics range from slightly self-confident to overtly assertive.

Dominant behavior is situational, individual and resource related. One individual displaying dominant behavior in one specific situation does not necessarily show it on another occasion toward another individual, or toward the same individual in another situation.

Resources are what an organism perceives as life necessities, e.g. food, mating partner, or a patch of territory. The perception of what an animal may consider a resource is species as well as individual related.

Aggressiveness (aggressive behavior) is behavior directed toward the elimination of competition while dominance, or social-aggressiveness, is behavior directed toward the elimination of competition from a mate.

Mates are two or more animals that live closely together and depend on one another for survival. Aliens are two or more animals that do not live close together and do not depend on one another for survival.

Dominant behavior is particularly important for social animals that need to cohabit and cooperate to survive. Therefore, a social strategy evolved with the function of dealing with competition among mates which caused the least disadvantages.

Animals show dominant behavior with various signals, visual, auditive, olfactory and/or tactile.

While fear (fearful behavior) is behavior directed toward the elimination of an incoming threat, submissive behavior, or social-fear, is behavior directed toward the elimination of a social-threat from a mate, i.e. losing temporary access to a resource without incurring injury.

A threat is everything that may harm, inflict pain or injury, or decrease an individual’s chance of survival. A social-threat is everything that may cause the temporary loss of a resource and may cause submissive behavior or flight, without the submissive individual incurring injury.

Animals show submissive behavior by means of various signals, visual, auditory, olfactory and/or tactile.

Persistent dominant or submissive behavior from the same individuals may or may not result in a temporary hierarchy of a certain configuration depending on species, social organization and environmental circumstances. In stable groups confined to a defined territory, temporary hierarchies will develop more readily. In unstable groups, changing environmental conditions, in undefined or non-established territories, hierarchies will not develop. Hierarchies, or rather the involved strategies, are Evolutionarily Stable Strategies (ESS), always slightly unstable, swinging forth and back around an optimal value depending on the number of individuals in the group and the single strategies each one adopts at any given time. Hierarchies are not necessarily linear, although in small groups and with time, non-linear hierarchies seem to have a tendency to become more linear.

Some individuals will have a stronger tendency to show dominant behavior and others to show submissive behavior. This may depend on their genetic makeup, early learning, history, etc. We are not saying that there is one single factor determining this, rather a complex mixture. Let us call this a natural tendency, again not saying that it is not modifiable. It is a fact that some individuals are more assertive than others, while others are more condescending, for many reasons. We are not saying that it is good or bad, just stating a fact—whether it is good or bad, not in a moral sense, rather meaning more or less advantageous depending on context. On one to one encounters, all things being equal, individuals will more likely adopt the strategy they feel most comfortable with, hence maintaining their history of mostly dominant or mostly submissive.

When in a larger group, they will have the same tendency to play the roles they feel most comfortable with. However, this may change due to the accidental makeup of the group. Imagine a group with many individuals more often prone to showing submissive behavior than dominant and with only a few members of the opposite tendency. In this scenario, a naturally submissive individual would have a chance to gain access to resources by showing a more dominant behavior and being successful. Success breeds success and, progressively, this otherwise mostly submissive individual finds itself being mostly dominant. If the scenario opens the possibility for one individual to change its preferred strategy, then others will also have the same opportunities. The number of dominant individuals will increase, but the number of dominant individuals a group can sustain is not unlimited because at a certain point, it will be more advantageous to play the submissive strategy, all depending on benefits and costs.

Therefore, the number of dominant and submissive individuals in a group depends not only on the natural tendency of the individuals, but also of the make-up of the group as to these characteristics. Whether it pays off to play a dominant or a submissive role is ultimately a function of benefits and costs and the number of individuals that adopt the one particular strategy.

Understanding the relationship between dominant and submissive behavior as an ESS (Evolutionarily Stable Strategy) opens up exciting perspectives, which could help to explain the behavior adopted by any given individual, at any given time. A submissive individual will learn to play submissive toward more dominant ones and dominant toward more submissive ones. This means that no individual is in principle always dominant or submissive, it all rather depends on the opponent and, of course, the values of the potential benefit and estimated costs.

As a corollary, hierarchies (when existing) will always be slightly unstable depending on the adopted strategies by the individuals forming the group. Hierarchies don’t need to be linear and will only be in small groups or sub-groups.

In the opinion of this author, the mistake we have committed hitherto has been to regard dominance and submission as more or less static. We haven’t realized that these characteristics, as phenotypes and as all other traits, are constantly under the scrutiny and pressure of natural selection. They are adaptive, highly variable and highly quantitative and quantifiable.

As such, dominance and submission are dynamic features depending on different variables, a view which is compatible with the development of the behavior at the individual level, genetic functions, the influence of learning and, not least, evolutionary theory.

Dominance and submission are beautiful mechanisms from an evolutionary point of view. They are what enables (social) animals to live together, to survive until they reproduce and pass their (dominant and submissive) genes to the next generation. Without these mechanisms, we wouldn’t have social animals like humans, chimpanzees, wolves and dogs among many others.

If an animal resolves all inter-group conflicts with aggressive and fearful behavior, it will be exhausted when subsequently compelled to go and find food, a mating partner, a safe place to rest or take care of its progeny (all decreasing the chances for its survival as well as that of its genes). Thus, the alien and mate strategy originated and evolved. It is impossible to fight everybody all of the time, so a mate is confronted using energy-saving procedures.

Submissive and dominant behavior also control population density, since they rely on individual recognition. The number of personal recognitions an animal is capable of must have a limit. If this number exceeds a certain level it makes recognition inefficient, switching off the mate/alien strategy; fearful/aggressive displays, then, replace submissive/dominant behavior.

The strategy of submission is wise. Instead of vainly engaging in a desperate fight, waiting may prove much more rewarding. By employing pacifying and submissive behavior, subordinates are often able to shadow dominant animals and profit from opportunities to gain access to vital resources. By showing submission, they also gain advantages from the membership of the group—particularly defense against rivals.

Hierarchies work because a subordinate will often move away, showing typical pacifying behavior, without any obvious signs of fear. Thus, the dominant animal may simply displace a subordinate when feeding or at a desirable site. Hierarchies in nature are often very subtle, being difficult for an observer to uncover. The reason for this subtlety is the raison d’être of dominance-submission itself: the subordinate animal generally avoids encounters and the dominant one is not too keen on running into skirmishes either.

Fighting involves a certain amount of risk and can lead to serious injury, or even death. Evolution, therefore, shows a tendency towards favoring and developing mechanisms, which restrain the intensity of aggressive behavior. Most species have clear signals that show acceptance of defeat, which end combat before injury occurs.

To recognize sign-stimuli is the most important task for the infant immediately after birth. It saves its life. Compromise is the most relevant lesson a social youngster may learn after having learned fundamental life-saving sign-stimuli. It maintains the fitness of the social life of the group. Natural selection has proved this, as it favors individuals that develop behavior enabling them to stay together. Other animals, the solitary predators, do not need these social traits. These organisms found other ways of dealing with the maintenance of their metabolism and reproduction.

Learning to be social means learning to compromise. Social animals spend vast amounts of time together and conflicts are inevitable. It is sensible for them to develop mechanisms with which they can deal with hostilities. Limiting aggressive and fearful behavior by means of inhibition and ritualization is only partially safe. The more social the animal is, the more effective mechanisms are obligatory. Inhibited aggression is still aggression; it is playing with fire on a windy day. It works well for less social or less aggressive animals, but highly social and aggressive animals need other mechanisms.

In the long run, it would be too dangerous and too exhausting to constantly resort to aggression and fear to solve banal problems. Animals show signs of pathological stress after a time when under constant threat, or constantly needing to attack others. This suggests that social predators need mechanisms other than aggressiveness and fear to solve social animosities. It is my suggestion that social animals, through the ontogeny of aggression and fear, develop two other equally important social behaviors. If the meaning of aggression is ‘go away, drop dead, never bother me again’, the meaning of social-aggression is ‘go away, but not too far, or for too long.’ Equally, social-fear says ‘I won’t bother you if you do not hurt me,’ while existential-fear does not allow any compromise—‘It’s you or me.’

The significant difference between the two types of aggressive behavior seems to be the function. Aggression deals with the alien and social-aggression with the mate. Conversely, fear and social-fear deal with alien and mate. These are qualitative differences that justify the creation of new terms, hence dominance and submission.

What does this mean for our understanding of our dogs and our relationship with them?

It means that we all show dominant (self-confident, assertive, firm, forceful) behavior as well as submissive (insecure, accepting, consenting, yielding) behavior depending on many factors, e.g. state of mind, social position, resources, health status, opponent—humans as well as dogs (and wolves of course). There’s nothing wrong with it except when we show dominant behavior where it would be more advantageous to show submissive behavior and vice versa. Sometimes we may be more dominant or submissive and other times less so. These are highly quantitative and quantifiable behaviors, with many variables. There is not one single correct strategy. It all depends on flexibility and the strategy adopted by others.

Of course, we don’t build stable and profitable relationships in the long run by showing dominant or submissive behaviors’. These are necessary behaviors to solve the inevitable social conflicts. We build relationships on the necessity of partnership—we as well as dogs (and wolves of course)—to solve common problems related to surviving and preferably with an acceptable level of comfort. We do not build relationships on hierarchies, but they do exist and they do perform an important role in certain circumstances—for humans as well as dogs (and wolves of course)—sometimes more, sometimes less and sometimes not at all.

We build our particular (good) relationship with our dogs on partnership. We need them because they give us a sense of accomplishment that we don’t seem to get anywhere else. They need us because the world is overpopulated, the resources are limited and an owner provides food, protection, health care, a safe place and companionship (they are social animals). It’s too hard to be a little dog all alone out there in the big world! Sometimes, in this relationship, one of the parties recurs to dominant or submissive behavior and there’s nothing wrong with it as long as they do not both show the same behavior at the same time. If both show dominance or submission, they have a problem: they either run into a conflict that they will solve most of the time without any injury (the beauty of dominance and submission), or one of them will have to get his act together and find the bearings for both.

A good relationship with our dogs does not involve any particular and mysterious mechanisms. It’s basically the same as with all good relationships, taking into consideration the specific characteristics of the species and individuals involved. We don’t need new terms. We don’t need any new theories to explain it. We aren’t, after all, that special, nor are our dogs. We are all built from the same concept and with the same basic ingredients. All we need are good definitions and a less emotional and more rational approach. Use your heart to enjoy your dog (and life) and your reason to explain it (if you need it), not the other way around. If you don’t like my definitions, make others which are better (with more advantages and less disadvantages), but don’t waste your time (or anyone’s) with meaningless discussions and knee-jerk reactions. Life is precious and every moment wasted is one less bite of a cake that you’ve devoured without even realizing it.

This is how I see it and it looks beautiful to me—enjoy your cake!

R-

Related articles

• Wolves in France – the Hunting is on (rogerabrantes.wordpress.com)
• The primary ancestors of the domestic dog (retrieverman.wordpress.com)
• Someone’s wrong on the internet, Part II (retrieverman.wordpress.com)

References

• Abrantes, R. 1997. The Evolution of Canine Social Behavior. Wakan Tanka Publishers.
• Coppinger, R. and Coppinger, L. 2001. Dogs: a Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution. Scribner.
• Creel, S., and Creel, N. M. 1996. Rank and reproduction in cooperatively breeding African wild dogs: behavioral and endocrine correlates. Behav. Ecol. 8:298-306.
• Darwin, C. 1872. The Expressions of the Emotions in Man and Animals. John Murray (the original edition).
• Estes, R. D., and Goddard, J. 1967. Prey selection and hunting behavior of the African wild dog. J. Wildl. Manage. 31:52-70.
• Eaton, B. 2011. Dominance in Dogs—Fact or Fiction? Dogwise Publishing.
• Fentress, J. C., Ryon, J., McLeod, P. J., and Havkin, G. Z. 1987. A multi- dimensional approach to agonistic behavior in wolves. In Man and wolf: advances, issues, and problems in captive wolf research. Edited by H. Frank. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Boston.
• Fox, M. W. 1971. Socio-ecological implications of individual differences in wolf litters: a developmental and evolutionary perspective. Behaviour, 41:298-313.
• Fox, M. 1972. Behaviour of Wolves, Dogs, and Related Canids. Harper and Row.
• Lockwood, R. 1979. Dominance in wolves–useful construct or bad habit. In Symposium on the Behavior and Ecology of Wolves. Edited by E. Klinghammer.
• Lopez, Barry H. (1978). Of Wolves and Men. J. M. Dent and Sons Limited.
• Mech, L. D. 1970. The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species. Doubleday Publishing Co., New York.
• Mech, L. David (1981). The Wolf: The Ecology and Behaviour of an Endangered Species. University of Minnesota Press.
• Mech, L. D. 1988. The arctic wolf: living with the pack. Voyageur Press, Stillwater, Minn.
• Mech, L. D., Adams, L. G., Meier, T. J., Burch, J. W., and Dale, B. W. 1998. The wolves of Denali. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
• Mech, L. David. 2000. Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center,
• Mech. L. D. and Boitani, L. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press.
• Packard, J. M., Mech, L. D., and Ream, R. R. 1992. Weaning in an arctic wolf pack: behavioral mechanisms. Can. J. Zool. 70:1269-1275.
• O’Heare, J. 2003. Dominance Theory and Dogs. DogPsych Publishing.
• Rothman, R. J., and Mech, L. D. 1979. Scent-marking in lone wolves and newly formed pairs. Anim. Behav. 27:750-760.
• Schenkel, R. 1947. Expression studies of wolves. Behaviour, 1:81-129. 
• Scott, J. P. and Fuller, J. L. 1998. Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog. University of Chicago Press.
• Van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M., and Wensing, J.A.B. 1987. Dominance and its behavioral measures in a captive wolf pack. In Man and wolf: advances, issues, and problems in captive wolf research. Edited by H. Frank. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Boston.
• Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
• Zimen, E. 1975. Social dynamics of the wolf pack. In The wild canids: their systematics, behavioral ecology and evolution. Edited by M. W. Fox. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. pp. 336-368.
• Zimen, E. 1976. On the regulation of pack size in wolves. Z. Tierpsychol. 40:300-341.
• Zimen, Erik (1981). The Wolf: His Place in the Natural World. Souvenir Press.
• Zimen, E. 1982. A wolf pack sociogram. In Wolves of the world. Edited by F. H. Harrington, and P. C. Paquet. Noyes Publishers, Park Ridge, NJ.