# Dominant / Submissive theorie



## trish07 (Mar 5, 2010)

Just wondering what you think about the dominant / submissive theorie things.

I live in Quebec/Canada. I read a lot on GSD and dogs in general ont his forum, but also on few other ones.

I can say that the ways of thinking are really diffrent between this forum and another one in Europe (I will call it "my Europe forum").

I do not beleive in the dominant/submissive attitude. On my Europe forum, they do not think that dogs come from wolves or act like them. They think (and I) that dogs and wolves are different species. Based on this theorie (which has been proove and reinforced by recent scientific studies), we do not beleive that dogs act dominant or submissive, but are more opportunist than anything else.

If a dog lay on your couch, it doesn't mean he wants to dominate you. If, when you ask him to get off, he barks or snorts at you, it doesn't mean he try to dominate you, but only that he do not understand why you ask him to get off. In nature, no dog would have ask him to get off for any reason. Other dogs would have take is place when he would have leave it.

This theorie is based of the fact that wild dogs do not live like wolves. In wolves pack, no wolf can quit or enter the pack freely. They are all family members. In wild dogs "communities", any dog can quit or enter the community. This one exemple shows that there is no hierarchy like wolves pack because they accept strangers and no male or female act like "Alpha".

Also, it shows that priorities are different depending of the dog: for one dog, food is #1 priority. For another one, water is #1 priority. For the other one a toy is #1 priority. This means that any dog could act agressively (see dominant) to protect his "#1 thing". This dog acts agressively (see dominant) toward others when there is food, and this other one will act agressively if antoher dog try to catch his toy.

Based on this, those scientifics think that no dogs is dominant or submissive. For sure, a dog can have a bigger caracter than another one, but it is not pure dominance. Dominance is something humans project to explain how a dog react, but isn't necessary true.

what is your beleif?


----------



## brucebourdon (Jun 2, 2010)

Hi Trish, that's a very interesting theory.

I have seen the opportunistic behavior that you describe in my other breeds (like the couch thing you mentioned). 

I'm too new with GSDs to comment other than to say it seems that it could be a mix of these behaviors.

In any case, it is always nice to look at things from a different perspective, thanks for sharing this!

Bruce.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

I find it very difficult to buy into a theory that doesn't recognize *some* correlation between wolf behavior and dog behavior.

I mean, I love to watch nature shows. I see a huge similarity between the way a litter of wolf cubs approaches an adult wolf and the way a litter of domestic dog pups approaches an adult domestic dog, or the way the approach the breeder. 

Dogs and wolves are nearly identical at the level of DNA sequence. Molecular studies now indicate very strongly that domestic dogs and wolves are closely related, and the domestic dog is now normally classified as a subspecies of the wolf.

In a study between Poodles and wolves, there were only 13% of wolf behaviors not seen in the Poodles. 64% of the behaviors were seen in both the Poodles and the wolves-with no modification, and 23% of the wolf behaviors were seen in modified form in the Poodles. Of those modified behaviors, many were closer to the behavior of a juvenile wolf (such as prey behavior that was closer to play, continued chosen association and markedly less fearful behavior).

I just can't look at studies like that and not see a correlation between dog and wolf behavior. I am not saying we need to treat our domestic dogs like a wolf pack, but I also don't think we should ignore the similarities. And dominance/submission models are a part of that (for me).
Sheilah


----------



## Pusur (May 31, 2010)

sit said:


> I find it very difficult to buy into a theory that doesn't recognize *some* correlation between wolf behavior and dog behavior.
> 
> I mean, I love to watch nature shows. I see a huge similarity between the way a litter of wolf cubs approaches an adult wolf and the way a litter of domestic dog pups approaches an adult domestic dog, or the way the approach the breeder.
> 
> ...


I think you are missing the point. The point is not that the dog is not closely related to the wolf, but rather that the wolfs behaviour has been misinterpreted in relation to dominance.

Read this and the links in the text there:
Doggone Safe: Wolf Pack/Dominance Myth

(I am a norwegian, hav beein lurking on this forum for a while, I think it is a good forum. This topic brought me to write here, sorry about the lack of introduction of my self. Excuse my imperfect english language.)

Otherwise, related to the same topic, I would advise reading Turid Rugaas books, ex Calming signals Amazon.com: Calming Signals: What Your Dog Tells You: Turid Rugaas: Movies & TV

Read also the Q&A from the same author:
Questions and answers from Turid Rugaas


----------



## trish07 (Mar 5, 2010)

Pusur said:


> I think you are missing the point. The point is not that the dog is not closely related to the wolf, but rather that the wolfs behaviour has been misinterpreted in relation to dominance.
> 
> Read this and the links in the text there:
> Doggone Safe: Wolf Pack/Dominance Myth
> ...


Great things to read! Thx!


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Pusur said:


> ...................Otherwise, related to the same topic, I would advise reading Turid Rugaas books, ex Calming signals
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you have ever read her book, one thing to note is that almost ANY behavior a dog makes is a "calming signal" and it is really wide open to interpretation what all of them may mean. Reminds me a little of the fairy tale where one of the characters says in response to a question "It means whatever I say it means!"

For example a "play bow" means an invitation to play except when it is used by a dog to indicate something else.


----------



## Stray (Mar 29, 2009)

Dominance theory was started by a single study of captive wolves about fifty years ago, if I recall correctly. Dogs do come from wolves, and DNA testing has proved this (rather than coming from jackals or other "wild dogs.) Dog are frankly very much like wolves, but more specifically wolf puppies, which is why you have fun words like neoteny. A dog is a permapuppy. 

Dogs have been very, very domesticated for a very long time. Looking at lupine behaviorism can tell us fun stuff, but it's really like looking at bonobos or great apes for parenting advice. We can see some fun behaviors that may have been exploited or may remain, but it's two different animals. 

The whole "alpha" thing isn't even correct terminology when it comes to lupine behaviorism anymore, and being all Ceasar Milan and thinking your dog is trying to dominate you at every turn is a rather oversimplified view. Dogs act "dominant" because like every other social mammal, they are looking to do what they want until understanding the rules for functioning in said society.


----------



## trish07 (Mar 5, 2010)

For sure, dogs and wolves are similar species. Human and pigs have similar DNA too 

I didn't mean dogs were absolutly not, in any cases, like wolves, but they have evoluated differently.

You can, in our days, compare a Bulldog to a wolf, seriously. Human have completly change the dog's physic, but also the mind.

A wolf hybrid will still act like a wolf. But a Bulldog, or a Pittbull, or a Caniche.....I doubt! Each breed of dog has been so "modified" physically and mentaly. Each breed of dog has been programmated for something to do. This is why, I think, you cannot compare, now, breeds of dogs to wolves, even if wild.


----------

