Last updated August 9, 2001

The following are your very well thought out
and very consistent thoughts on the subject of pack theory:

Kim Imel:

"I've been thinking about it and will continue. Lets face it, there is pack structure. And this is not a phenomenon that is solely canine. All social creatures, including humans have a structure, a hirearchy, what ever you want to call it. It just seems to play out differently among the different species. I remember watching the chimps at the LA Zoo. My mom and stepdad and a friend of ours stood there, no joking, for 2 or 3 hours watching the interactions of the chimps. It was obvious who was the patriarch, matriarch, etc. (not sure what the formal name of a primate social structure is), and so on. It was facinating.

I think we see problems, and debate, when 2 species, who speak very different languages, collide such as dogs and humans. An argument is raised that there is no such thing as pack structure, but is that becuase the human is viewing the dog with the eyes of a human? What I mean (forgive me if this does not make sense. Can't quote anything/anyone about this, just my thoughts and gut reactions) is, if we speak different languages, isn't it only fair to try to learn some dog language? You cant simply say to the dog "Elmo, I am the leader of this house. I say when you eat dinner, and when you go outside. You are just the dog." All he hears is "Elmo, blah blah blah, dinner, blah blah blah, outside, blah blah blah, dog." (I love that cartoon..). But if I show him thru body language, I go first, I eat first, and so on. He catches on. Why does clicker training work? We do not use words but rather work fairly silently at first. The dog sees the picture and learns. Also, we can say that this is learnig by example. (?)

I like to look at Elmo, Jacob, and Claire as my kids. They are just kids of the four legged variety. As such I am going to make the point that I am a parent and they are not. Even with human kids, verbal language is not enough. You have to show them. But then that leads me to another topic. I would be curious to see the corrilation of the "disipline/parenting" styles/patterns of childeren and the problems with pack structure issues in the same house. Some parent definately let the kids run the house. It is amazing what little I have seen of kid comming into the clinic. I have wanted to slap a gentle leader on them rather than the dog. But if there is no clear leadership amongst the humans, how can we expect there to be with the dog. I dont know. I could be way off base here, but those are some of my thoughts. Like I said, I really dont have anything to back them up other than personal observation. Sorry this is so long.

Lisa Lucas:

"Pack Theory Stuff

A couple weeks ago I posed a question to many of my doggy friends about the play style of male vs. female. Patricia McConnell, PhD, one of the "experts" of the day, says there are clear differences between the way males and females play. She says that field researchers who are studying primates often determine their sex by the way they play, with the males tending to have a more "rough and tumble" style. Three of my husky friends who have lived with many dogs for many years strongly disagreed.

So, what is my point? As dog-people trainers in the field we need to be careful about adopting the opinion of the experts without testing it or experiencing it ourselves. Likewise, my experience with my pack of five huskies can't necessarily be generalized to all breeds and all people in all situations.

So, what do we do? We read everything we can and we study our dogs, our students' dogs and our students. We then take all of our in-the-trench work and discuss it among the Ruffians and go out and test it some more.

So, my opinion about pack theory is this:

Dogs do not see us as another form of dog. However, their hard-wiring is that of a pack animal. So, to understand them on the most basic level, we MUST give credence to their pack animal origin. Their most rudimentary form of communication comes from the pack perspective. Calming signals are used to maintain order in the pack. Likewise their most rudimentary urges and behaviors can be tied to pack survival – prey drive and resource guarding.

With respect to hierarchy, a pack needs a leader and some followers to survive. So does every company in corporate America. So do the birds flying south for the winter. In corporate America there are people who have the temperament to lead and many others who do not. In corporate America people who are good followers are just as important to a company as a few good leaders. People who are not good at either leading or following impede the success (survival) or the company.

In corporate America a good leader is flexible. The best leaders have a talent for bringing out the best in the followers. How? Ideally they use a little intuition or "gut instinct". There are books written about this very topic. They nurture a little, reward a little, ignore a little and give direction. The very best leaders give the follower very clear guidelines and parameters (job description). Without clear guidelines the follower is set up to fail.

So, we can best begin to communicate to our dogs using the language they understand and respecting their pack-oriented urges. How can we be good leaders (use our intuition to bring out their best and set them up to succeed) unless we can COMMUNICATE with them at their most basic level?

The next step is to bring them into our world by teaching them some human language. What about the dogs in our lives who are truly our partners? Maybe our pet therapy dogs. Our communication seems to be telepathic. Their motivation seems to have nothing to do with pack dynamics.

In my pack of five I have a dog, Halo, who is my spiritual partner. Our relationship completely transcends most anything "pack-oriented". I have another dog, Denali, who is strongly motivated by prey and pack urges. My training protocol is completely different for each of them. I talk to Halo like a person. I do a lot of body language with Denali.

When one of my dogs lay in a doorway it means something different then when a different dog lays in a doorway. Sometimes when I am petting a dog and Denali comes over he is being a butthead and sometimes he is just saying "gee can I have some too?"

So, Carol, you asked for our opinion about pack theory. This is as concrete as I can get. Each dog has something different to teach its human…something different to bring into the life of its human. Every dog is NOT cut from the same pack-hierarchy mold."

Diane Baker:

"About the pack leadership stuff, here's a few of my expert wannabe thoughts:

---the experts and expert wannnabes are STILL learning

---Pack leadership exists.

Most, maybe all species have it, from the lead bird in a v-shaped flock flying, to bees from the queen down, to dogs, to humans. Human families who don't have good pack order and leadership are disfunctional, lack boundaries, and expectations, and the underlings don't know how to fit in, thus they keep trying things that get them in trouble. If the leaders don't act like leaders because they didn't have good leaders when they were young for whatever reason, well, disorder runs downhill from generation to generation.

I feel much of the debate over pack leadership is "dancing with definitions" . Some of those who say they don't believe in pack leadership function in a way that makes it clear that they live it, they just aren't calling it that. Some who say they don't believe in it and don't live it to boot live with chaos and dysfunction like the lady at the dancing seminar. There has to be order in any group, or things don't go well.

---To address Jean Donaldson and "they know we aren't dogs": Of course they know we aren't dogs. We know they are aren't human. But both species are desiring to live together in harmony and respect, so both are trying to learn and communicate in different languages. When the humans are willing to learn about dog communication, it's much easier, even though still puzzeling sometimes. The dogs do their best to teach us. We have more baggage to sift through than they do, and we are trying to be leaders in spite of our lack of understanding. Through all the things I've learned in the last few years, my pack functions much better than it would if I didn't know what I know now. And I know the tip of the iceberg.

---Pups eating first. This seems obvious to me, that a species will take care of their vulnerable young who can't yet fend for themselves. We take care of our young too. In the case of youngsters, it's not an issue of pack leadership. The pups (and hopefully the children, though not often enough, remember I work in a pediatrics office!) are clear on who's the leader, and it's not dependant on eating at this stage of their life. It might be later.

---Doorways. I think doorways are a matter of politeness, and knowing what to do rather than a big leadership issue. Dogs going out a door are focused on their needs rather than anyone elses, untill they are taught about doorway manners. To have them not trip us, or to keep them from running out into the street for their own safety, they need to be taught to pause at doorways to recieve further instructions. Susanne Clothier commented that "the dog that charges out the door first could just be the one that has to pee the worst". It could be that simple! In the event a dog needs the NILIF program, doorways are a good part of that training, as it teaches manners, and the need for the dog to defer to the human for instructions, rather that blast ahead on his own at every chance. So, even if it's not specifically a major "pack leader" thing, manners in general are, and doorways fit into teaching the dog that his is not the only opinion that counts. It's a respectful thing.

---Nature vs. Nuture. Might as well hit this too. They both play into who any living creature is. To think only one applies is like choosing your heart or your lungs as the organ that sustains life. Both! One may play a more important role in certain situations, but we all are a product of both. In the case of nature/nuture, hopefull they compliment each other. They can conflict. Life is complicated!

That's my 2 cents. Will be interesting to hear form the rest of us. ps--Did anyone yet read that book that disbelieves in pack leadership? Still wondering what they say....I think Kimberly had it at the seminar. Any input from her? "

Cathy Fox:

"The more I learn about how packs work and pack leadership, the more I love it and the more I realize that I have an awful lot to still learn. The way I see it, packs work because they are structured around total common sense, very simple common sense at that. Whether there is 1 dog and some humans in the pack or 6 dogs and 1 human in the pack, everybody has a job, and there absolutely must be a leader --not a dominator -- a leader. The leader is responsible for the care, safety, guidance, mealtime, lessons, discipline, and overall general health of the members. The members will follow a confident leader that they feel safe with.

The comment you made about the misunderstood (putting it mildly) pack theory stuff and using alpha rolls is important, I think. Those people who use alpha rolls have no concept of true pack theory and that there is a big difference between being a leader and being a dominator. They are disciplining their dog with intimidation and sheer terror. There is no leadership. There is no trust. There is no feeling of safety. And these people wonder why they are having behavior problems with their dog. (I'd hate to meet their kids).

I don't know what the answer is with regard to wolf pups eating first when mom brings something home except that possibly that is what she went out there for in the first place, or maybe she ate first before she came back to the den?

Like I said, I have a lot to learn. I do, however, buy into this pack theory stuff. It has become one of my favorite subjects along with calming signals."

Comments on Your Comments and a Few of My Own ...

I am so thrilled with your responses to the question and the time you took to really think about it and answer. Many of your thoughts and reasoning were echoed across the board. You are all "experts" in my book!

Here are some things that I like about "pack theory":

It helps us give our students the blue print they need to begin to identify and control resources and in so doing, begin to establish themselves as the leader. Of course, just going through the motions isn't enough - they have to really understand what it means to be stable and consistent and *live the role* otherwise they will still fall to the bottom of the pack -doorway rules, eating first, kicking them off the bed or not. But the progress that they see and the empowerment of seeing the dog respond to their control over resources the dog needs is a positive step toward change in their relationship.

Should we eat first? or feed them first cuz it's more convenient to get them out of the way before we start clattering pans in the kitchen? Do we make them move or step over? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I imagine there are those times when our dogs roll their eyes and go "what IS your problem?" "Real leaders" can be inconsistent and not follow the bed/door/food rules because they simply "are" and it's understood and an accepted way of life. A leader is the one with the CHOICES. Followers follow the leader, no matter what he chooses. He or she has earned the position and they are respected and adored because of the security and trust that leadership brings.

I like pack theory because it takes the personal baggage and human expectation out of how dogs fit into our world. It helps us understand them better and have a tiny glimpse at what it must be like to be a dog and how our dogs view the world. It cuts down on the anthropomorphizing. Dogs are not humans in fur coats. They don't share our values, our guilt or have personal vendettas to get back at us or make us look stupid. He did it because he was "mad at me." If I had a dime for every time I've heard that spoken ... in fact I heard it again just last night.

The part I don't like about "that pack theory stuff" ...

Sometimes focusing on it too much makes the dogs out as always looking for our weakness - plotting for a way to take over the house and come out on top ... Us against them. Us needing to *win* the leadership chair - instead of earning it. I'm the boss - I'm bigger than you ... I'm gonna make you do it cuz I'm the boss. That's wannabe stuff. And when we run around posturing for the sake of it, we become wannabe's, too.

This is where we get into the dangerous realm of confrontational corrections. "Because I said so." "Because you have to." "Because I'm the boss"... when we act out these phrases, we are then bound by the "or else" negative side of the training coin. We can actually PROVOKE a stand off situation instead of setting them up to succeed. Example: The dog looks away and we grab his face and forbid him to look anywhere but us. You can hold his face all you want, but his mind is not on you unless he chooses it to be. We have to help him WANT to. Proactive, not reactive. No anger or frustration or confrontation. No negative energy. No "or else."

If we can take the unhealthy emotion out of the relationship by seeing dogs through a purely behavioral model, it will help us address the purest aspect of the behavior and not our interpretation of what we think they are thinking or an imagined motive behind their behavior.

It enables us to break a behavior down, analyze the action and reaction and how our behavior is reflected by their behavior. When we get emotional, they get emotional. Both of us stop thinking and start reacting.

Not that emotion is entirely a bad thing - without it we are reduced to sounding like the Lone Ranger and Tonto "dog sit" "you want go outside?"... So where's the happy medium? Can we give them the credit they deserve for being the intuitive beings that they truly can be, without putting the burden on their innocent shoulders of being as narrow viewed as we humans?

Having worked in hundreds of pet therapy settings I know for a fact that there are so many things our dogs "know" that we can't begin to imagine. But it must be cultivated - it's based on the bond of trust and understanding between human and dog, not the training. Sometimes therapy dogs fail to respond to commands because they "know" there is something more important that they must do first. Sometimes in that relationship, we let them lead.

Have you ever looked into the eyes of a dog who has been raised with little expectation and no true give-and-take communication? When our greyhound came to live with us, he was a zombie. Barely a piece of furniture that ate and pooped. A four-year-old dog who had never communicated with a human. It took awhile before he made the discovery that we were actually LISTENING to him, that his behavior could affect ours. That he could express himself and that we understood and would answer! He never smiled until he found out.

And what about the stressed tension of the dog who has been raised with nothing but negatives? When that training "works" the dog is "well-trained" - a robot. Afraid to make a wrong move for fear of doing something wrong and toeing the line the whole way. He works hard because he is trying SO hard to be right and is incredibly needy of any morsel of approval to tell him he's on the right track. The tense smile and the low tail wag are from sheer relief of beating the correction and getting that praise. There is so much fall-out.

Pet Parents.
I love the example that being a good dog owner is like being a good parent ... and it is so true! But the example only works to your advantage when the person you are talking to IS a good parent or had good parental examples. The problem is, people have their own perspective on the parenting model - some of us had good examples and some didn't. Some were raised with "spare the rod" and others "Leave it to Beaver" ... some with "the Simpsons"... To some, it means spoiling, catering to, nagging at. A sad number of our students are learning about parenting by being in our classes! So the parent/child model can backfire badly and lead to anthropomorphizing and projecting guilt and ulterior motives on top of it.

Another problem with the "pack theory thing" is, it's full of labels ... Dominant, aggressive, submissive ... these are emotional labels and open to the interpretation of the listener. Sometimes a student will say "my dog is aggressive" when he means "assertive" or "bossy" - for some, being beta, showing appeasment signals, is a sign of being beaten - not a just a soft dog showing conflict resolution through calming signals. Just the simple word "discipline" can be taken differently by the listener. To "discipline" your child could be to spank it. The root word of discipline is disciple ... a whole 'nother connotation ... follower? worshipper?

"Dogs who put their feet on you are being DOMINANT. Don't ever let them do that." When blanket statements like that are made, it puts a labels on a behavior that, without knowing the entire relationship between the dog and handler, is probably A. not true and B. more damaging than helpful to the relationship. "The dog thinks he's higher on the pack pole because you do or don't do X, Y or Z." We can't ever know what they are thinking. We can only guess. When a dog jumps up on our bed and pees on it - what is the meaning behind the behavior? Is there one? There could be a million reasons for this behavior. It's not all that uncommon. If we label the dog as dominant and assume that bed peeing is the dog trying to "own" the bed - we are ignoring 999,999 other reasons that it could have happened and the very real fact that it may never happen again.

What about "using their language" to communicate? Alpha rolls as correction are obviously flat out wrong - they are based on outdated information and cause a stress/fear/self-preservation/confrontational response in the dog. There is no good reason to use physical attack as discipline. But what about teaching deference by conditioning them to be manipulated and rewarding them for relaxing when we roll them onto their backs or stand over them? Teaching them to accept and comply to physical handling? (Your vet and groomer will thank you if you do!) What about using calming signals - or clicking for them?

I like Leslie Nelson's perspective. "Dogs do things because of the consequences - not because we told them to." Behavior observed as a particular organism's basic response to its surroundings based on prior learning history, with a little nature and nurture thrown in. We are all animals. We all come with individual personalities and baggage which guide and affect how we respond to the world, our parents, our husbands and our children.

Claire Duder DVM says, "I think the key is NOT in certain arbitrary and, at least to the dog, hugely artificial, rituals (yeah, like wolves have front doors), it is in the give and take of a social group. My dogs all have a standard of behaviour to adhere to, and (relatively) meaningful rituals that they must follow. I control and dispense food, toys, attention, games and all the good stuff, in return for decent manners, and this is instilled in my dogs from the get-go. Do my dogs think I am GOD? Do they think thay are so smart for figuring out how to get me to do stuff? Do they think I'll whoop 'em if they don't smarten up? Do they think I am a fun playmate? Probably all of the above (except the whoopin') at one time or other, and that's just fine by me (and them). "

PART TWO:

From an e-list post: "What I am going to tell you is surprising and against everything
we learned about wolf pack behavior. Dogs don't understand when humans try to
mimic pack behavior, it can even confuse them because

"DOGS AREN'T PACK ANIMALS."

In their book, "Dogs, A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution", Raymond & Lorna Coppinger studied the origin of the dog and discovered that our domestic dog is the descendent of the scavenging dogs who live in the village dumps. When humans started to settle in villages, 15 000 years ago, some wolves, who were less afraid of humans, started to feed in the dumps. These animals physically and behaviorally changed to adapt to their new method of feeding and environment. These dogs don't live in packs and are semi-solitary. Wolves need a social organization and cooperation to kill large prey, dogs don't need this to feed in dumps. Researches about wolves pack behavior discovered that it may not be genetic and is a response to a specific habitat. These researches observed that some populations of wolves never pack. ."

What do YOU think?

Cathy: Carol, I don't like this one. I don't feel even remotely qualified to address it. But I love you anyway.

Lisa: "Dogs don't understand when humans try to mimic pack behavior, it can even confuse them because...." Puhleease! If they are confused by our attempts to mimic pack behavior, then how come our dogs become easier to live with when we implement some Pack Leadership Rules. As our ruffians pointed out pack behavior is inherent through life outside of the canine world. Everyone understands pack behavior on some level. I saw Ray in California and had a very stong instant dislike of the man. I couldn't stand to be in the room while he was lecturing. Soooo, it is unlikely I will readily embrace his theories. *S*

Me: HONESTLY ... whether they hunted as a group or were scavengers does not affect the fact that they have a social structure. There is a hierarchy amongst all groups of animals (and people) that live together. My cat has a relationship and understanding of where she "fits" in the household. She is not a pack animal, but she knows to respect the space of dog faces while they are eating, she knows which dog she can play with and which tails you just don't pounce on. She throws beautiful calming signals when they get too rowdy. She respects the space of the "alpha dogs" and chases Dave unmercifully. Is she "higher" than Dave and "lower" than Basil? It would appear so.

Check out this article by Melissa Alexander on the history of pack theory ...

Especially the last quote by Ray Coppinger ...
Comments? Thoughts?