The Dog Welfare Campaign has this wonderful page that explains the problem very well.
Dogs are much more open to “social learning” than wolves are, and wild wolves don’t live in a group ruled by an absolute monarch.
As they often are, things are more complicated than that.
Remember that the theory of dominance and the “pecking order” comes from the Norwegian zoologist Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe. He was studying chickens. The last time I checked dogs are much more complex in their behavior than chickens are. (And chickens have pretty complex behavior.)
The idea that this could be applied to dogs actually comes from studies of captive packs of European wolves– wolves that were unrelated and put in the same enclosure at the Basel Zoo. Rudolf Schenkel developed this whole theory on wolf hierarchies from these animals, and this theory is has been how we base virtually everything about dogs.
Unfortunately, dominance concepts in our species are very appealing to people. There are too many people who would like to be a Stalin over something. Believing in strict hierarchies in domestic dogs give people an excuse to be a bit of a totalitarian.
And that’s why I think these theories are still so popular.
Dogs do need to learn rules. They can be trained to do things.
However, they also need to be themselves.
Scottie, you are all over the map. Now dogs don’t have pecking orders?
Elephants do, whales do, humans do, meerkats do, chimpanzees do, Gorillas do, wolves do, but dogs don’t?
I asked you six questions yesterday. Looking forward to your answers.
;)
Patrick
They don’t have linear pecking orders. Dogs are all over the place when it comes to what kind of social structures they develop. Some of them live in huge colonies where there are no fights– well, heck, that’s what a foxhound pack is!
And whatever societies they develop, there is much more give and take.
Wolves have variable societies. The packs that are the most successful tend to be those that don’t have rigid hierarchies– see Douglas Smith’s research.
I answered all six questions if you can find the comment.
When dogs are puppies, this stuff makes sense, but when they become adults, it’s time to start giving them more freedom and more choices over their lives.
I think socialization is so important that it’s hard to say what “dogs” do.
Also, some dogs are more successful in some structures than in others.
I have one dog who clearly is happy to follow, unless it needs to lead, in which case it is happy to lead, and other dogs seem willing to follow. Very fluid. We’re more of a team than a dog and handler. I imagine this dog would be fine in most any pack. I have another dog that needs desperately to follow, however if it doesn’t have a leader, by God this dog will lead! It can change roles, but it’s not fluid–it’s dramatic, and it finds the change unwelcome. I am very disciplined with this dog–rather than working together, this dog works for me, and it’s happiest that way. I think pack life on this dog could be very stressful and even dangerous, if it’s not the right pack.
They were socialized very differently. They are also very different dogs to begin with. But who knows which force is stronger? And who knows how these things work in every and any dog?
There’s more than one way to handle a dog–and for good reason.
One point on the questions:
One of the questions you asked requires a longer post.
In Temple Grandin’s newest book she raises that question about unrelated groupings of domestic dogs.
And I’ve thought about it for a while.
I do have an answer.
It’s just going to take a full post to answer it.
http://www.dogwelfarecampaign.org/if-not-dominance.php
Plus, chickens actually have a pretty fluid social structure. Like Dr. Yin points out, the position of “dominance” is not set in stone, and it pays to be flexible with one’s social hierarchies.
I’m not saying dogs don’t have societal structures.
I’m saying that they are fluid and complex– and sometimes alternating.
Oh no, I agree. I just was pointing out that chickens don’t have as strict of a “pecking order” as many people think…they’re more like dogs than people think. :)
At one time, I considered getting a Silkie bantam for a pet.
I’ve heard that they are very gentle as chickens go.
One of the best chickens I’ve ever had the pleasure to know was a silkie hen – Phyllis. I loved her. She died of throat cancer.
One of the worst chickens I’ve ever had the displeasure to know is a silkie rooster – Ferdinand. He’s a jerk. None of the hens like him. He’s fine with people.
I think one of the most gentle types of chickens are commercial brown layers. They’re bred for docility. Even after living sensory deprived lives on egg farms, they want to be with people and are super curious about their environment. We just rescued some and a few already love sitting on laps.
This dominance concept is also very simple to understand. Either the dog does what you want and is therefore submissive, or doesn’t do what you want and is therefore dominant. People do seem to prefer things black and white.
What you guys don’t seem to realize is that wolves and dogs are all extremely individualistic. Some are hierarchichal tyrants, others are more laid back and easy going. But there ALWAYS is a khierarchy of sorts–just because you don’t see regular evidence of it does not mean it does not exist. When you DON’T see constant domination displays, this means that everyone is satisfied with their place and accepts it–this is most common with secure, easy going, respectful leaders, be they dogs, wolves OR humans! And hierarchies can shift according to whatever is going on–the REAL Alpha may be quite happy to let a pack/team member take over certain tasks, but make no mistake, he/she is still the Alpha. Unless their position gets toppled, for some reason(usually a very obvious occurence when it happens). Among wolves in the wild, tyranical leaders get driven out eventually, or killed. In captivity they usually get killed, because they can’t get away(as do “scapegoat” wolves). Among humans, alas, they seem to become MORE powerful the crueler they are(until they get killed or exiled, but they tend to get away with it longer than wolves!). There’s no absolute rule regarding any of this, and it is as unique as each situation!
My goodness, someone check for the end of the world!!! I totally agree, Lane. ;)
I don’t know if we posted at the same time, or if I didn’t see you, but I gave an example with my own two above.
I agree with you on wolves.
In the wild, it is to the wolves’ benefit not to be very rigid. Why?
Maybe we should think of it like a labor market. Wolves can leave their natal packs at any time. However, if they do leave, that means one less helper to raise pups and one less helper to bring down large prey. The breeding pair seem to understand this, because they tend avoid this sort of behavior in the wild. The parents know the young wolves will leave at some point, but they want to get as much out of them as they can before they do.
Now, in captivity, wolves can’t leave whenever they are pissed off. Extra wolves aren’t really needed. Indeed, they are just a hindrance whenever ther roadkilled deer are brought in. So what you get is a bunch of squabbling wolves that wouldn’t normally be doing this but are because they are captive.
However, most dogs are a tabula rasa when it comes to what sort of social situation they are going to take.
Sometimes dogs have rigid hierarchies. They usually don’t. Jess gave a good example of how one could develop. You take a bunch of dogs and breed from them, keeping some of the offspring for life. They never disperse. To keep order, they develop a social system that reduces conflict.
Of course, most domestic dogs can’t disperse either, but domestic dogs don’t always relate to each other in this fashion. Much of dog behavior can be developed through training. A dog is not as set in stone as a wolf is. A wolf will mature as its genetic code says it will. A dog will mature in concert with training, socialization, and the genetic code.
The real reason why domestic dogs get aggressive may have to do with dominance issues, but the real reason is their lives are so boring. They live in the house all day long, get access to a fenced yard if they are lucky, and many never really get to run around off leash with other dogs ever. Because their brains aren’t being used for anything else they start using them to do nasty things– like control people with aggression.
I’m not convinced that golden retrievers are capable of forming packs with hierarchies. They are too socially tolerant of each other to form a structure. Our two goldens never asserted dominance over each other. They would even chew the same bones at the same time!
I’ve never known an aggressive free-roaming farm dog. I have known plenty of little house dogs that would bite your fingers off. They get this way because they never get a chance to use their brains as dogs normally do.
Among my ‘family’ dogs it’s very rare to see any kind of traditional dominance display. There’s no need for it. Most confrontations come down to an older dog disciplining a younger one. Just because you don’t see obvious displays doesn’t mean that there isn’t a hierarchy.
Among my non-family dogs the most obvious dominance issues come from younger intact males that haven’t accepted their position in the hierarchy. The ones that are happy in their place do not see the need to challenge other dogs and simply ignore dogs that attempt to challenge them, unless they get too cheeky about it.
A lot of this behavior seems to be breed dependent; my IGs are really terrible about dominance issues and are hyperaware of their place in the hierarchy. They use a lot of dominant body language even if they are not actually wanting to make a play for a higher spot. It’s a Really Big Deal for them.
In a wild wolf pack, those young males with those issues would have already dispersed, so the conflict that wouldn’t develop. Remember, wolves don’t reach sexual maturity until they are two years old, and the bitches don’t reach hormonal maturity until they are about 5.
Since many wolves die before they are three– espcially in Yellowstone– most wolves never see real maturity.
“This dominance concept is also very simple to understand. Either the dog does what you want and is therefore submissive, or doesn’t do what you want and is therefore dominant. People do seem to prefer things black and white.”
Dominance, in animal behavior, is defined: high status in a social group, usually acquired as the result of aggression, that involves the tendency to take priority in access to limited resources, as food, mates, or space.
I think this is the ultimate debate, and it is a vocabulary struggle. You say submissive, and I say easy to work with, mold-able as it were, soft. You say dominant and I say independent, head strong, challenging.
I find these to be human terms (alpha, dominant, submissive) which domestic dogs don’t seem to give a shit about… at least the ones I’ve lived with (own/foster) don’t.
People are bad about projecting their egos onto dogs.
And that’s the problem.
“many never really get to run around off leash with other dogs ever. Because their brains aren’t being used for anything else they start using them to do nasty things– like control people with aggression.”
wait.
are you saying that never running off leash has an impact on aggression tendency? Or are you saying something else?
Dogs who never get to be loose around normal dogs might never learn appropriate dog behavior but I’m not sure that they then turn to using aggression to control people.
That’s exactly what I’m saying.
I’m saying that a lot of dog aggression comes from the pathologies of living in very contrived situations. That most of them can handle living in a house with very little opportunities to exercise or act out normal dog behavior (or even learn what that is), they start developing their own ways of keeping things interesting. Learning how to control people does require a lot of mental stimulation.
That’s what I think is happening to many aggressive dogs. They are using mind games and aggression to break up the boredom of their lives.
Dog bites are less of a problem in France than they are here, and that’s largely because the dogs are very well exercised and socialized.
Define what you mean by ‘aggressive.’
I’m talking about dogs that decide they want to use their teeth and body language to control the humans in the house.
To say this is about the dog’s desire to be a king himself is a violation of Morgan’s canon.
We have a far better answer. The dogs aren’t well socialized and they aren’t well exercised. So they come up with these little games.
You didn’t really answer my question. Do you mean like a dog that resource guards the couch?
I don’t think that kind of behavior has anything to do with boredom. It has to do with a dog that has learned that a certain behavior gets it what it wants. If it’s owners had taught it that we don’t always get what we want in the first place, it wouldn’t exhibit the behavior, assuming it didn’t arrive with those behaviors already in place. McConnell’s books are filled with examples of dogs that have learned to manipulate humans by growling or snapping, or that have no tolerance for frustration of any kind. I think it has less to do with boredom than with what the dog learns it can get away with.
Resource guarding may have some genetic basis. In golden retrievers, there are some lines that totally guard food. They are almost impossible to break. Normal golden retrievers do not resource guard. It’s a major behavioral fault.
I think in other breeds it has more to do with insecurity– which is what you get from having a lack of socialization. Dogs that have been starved are also going to resource guard.
I’m talking about dogs who use aggression to get people to move in the house, who use aggression to take things. I’m also talking about dogs that fight all the time. Some of it may be rank, but some of it may be that they’re just bored, so let’s fight.
A dog that guards the couch is a dog that has learned to use aggression to control the couch.
That actually probably is dominance aggression.
But if the dog actually were doing something productive with its life, it wouldn’t be so concerned with the furniture.
Where I grew up, aggressive bands of dogs were unknown, but free roaming dogs were the norm. Dogs had other things to think about besides status issues inside the house.
Retriverman, I asked six questions in the previous post and you STILL have not answered them.
The wolf experts are VERY clear that there are hierarchies in wolves, and if you had worked with a lot of dogs you would know that is true for them too. It’s not hard to see, but YES you have to pay attention, same as at the office.
The fact that people who are subordinate to me at my office, and the people who are over me in my office do not have fist-fights is BECAUSE we understand hierarchies. Step out of line, however, and see if things are not set right. Insubordination is not allowed.
And you do NOT think this works this same way with every other pack animal in the world? I assure you it does!
From what I can tell You have no real idea how wolf or fox or lion prides work. It really is not complex, and it is designed to both maintain genetic variability AND decrease battles. There is one mature male, a harem of females, and the young. Young males are driven out before they become a threat to the adult male. Yes, this is a pure dominance issue and it happens every year with every whelp. Lifespans are not too long for most predators, however, and turnover among the top male and the top female means that every few years a new top male or female has to swings in, one way or another. Those slots are WON, they are not given. This is BASIC to predator family dynamics and it is true for fox, wolf, dingo, coyote, lion, etc. There is ONE mature male (not two or three or four) and while there may be several females, only ONE female is ever in estrus (not two, or three or four).
What do you think happens to young male wolves when they reach maturity? Do you think they hang around? They do not! And they do not leave on their own — they are driven out. And YES that is dominance. Do you think young male lions hang around when they reach maturity? They do not! They are driven out, and that is dominance.
As for dog packs, as someone who has been hunted and bitten by them, and who seen them hunting deer in the forest, they exist and not just overseas. They are in VA and if you talk to animal control in your area, they will tell you they have them too. In fact, I do not have to go back very far to find a HUMAN killed by a pack of dogs. Do you not remember that? Story and links here >> http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/08/pack-of-dogs-kills-georgia-couple.html
You seem to be repeating and copying nonsense from people who have NO IDEA what they are talking about.
Patrick
Which wolf experts?
The Nazi ones– Konrad Lorenz? He’s one who thought a lot of dogs were derived from jackals.
Or Kipling?
The scientific literature on wolves has evolved.
Doug Smith and Mech don’t agree with your assessment. There are hiearchies, but they are complex. They are not linear.
And they are not maintained with aggression. Wolf packs are maintained simply because the parents know the adult kids will leave if they tick them off too much. If they leave, they don’t have a helper.
But enough about wolves.
Dr. Sophia Yin has this to say about dog dominance (and she’s an authority on this. Unlike Cesar Millan.):
“Note that dogs evolved for the past 10-15,000 years [probably older than that]… with a promiscuous mating system. That is, free roaming dogs mate with multiple members of the opposite sex. Virtually all males get to mate. Consequently a rigid hierarchy and high rank would not confer a huge advantage compared to, say high rank in a group of bulls or chickens.
This is also very different from wolves, where the pack must cooperate to provide enough resources for the offspring to survive and consequently generally only the highest ranking male and female pack members mate and have puppies.”
http://www.drsophiayin.com/dominance.php
The dominance concept is not entirely bogus, but it is way over-used.
Dogs respond aggressively for lots of reasons. I don’t think the boredom issue has been explored enough. And it might explain why teaching dogs behaviors (such as sitting) results in
One question: Have you ever heard Cesar say that a dog’s issue were the result of something other than dominance? I haven’t. It’s always dominance. If the dog is scared and won’t do something, it’s dominant. If the dog stalks shiny objects, it’s being dominant.
For all my complaints about Raymond Coppinger, he did say something right. His theory on domestication is nonsense, but he’s observed more domestic dogs than you have (I guarantee it):
“The village dog origin of our modern dogs won’t in itself change dog training techniques. Dog training has been changing rapidly over the past few years anyway. Besides, we never found that dog trainers paid very much attention to evolutionary theory.
Dog trainers would tell you that you should dominate the dog like the leader of a pack of wolves, and then tell the dog in a high squeaky voice, “Good Boy!” We think the importance of DOGS may be that it helps dogs more than their owners. A view of dogs as essentially village scavengers that are easily adapted to people and kind of fun to play with, opens many new windows for people in their relationships with their dogs. Relationships should be based on positive situations, play, having fun.
The alpha wolf model of dog training certainly does appear frequently in print, but we wonder if it was ever really incorporated into serious dog training. We suspect it was never very useful in training dogs, and that almost everybody intuitively knew that. It was “say one thing, do another.”
Certainly all the new techniques, such as click and treat, are not based on dominance. We’ve watched top trainers like Terry Ryan and Ken McCort, and never saw any hint of “I’m the dominant wolf.” People who try modifying aggressive dogs don’t try to “dominate” them into submission. Everybody agrees that would be a disaster. Imagine training a wolf by dominating it. Quick way to get killed.
It is a mistake to think that because dogs are descended from wolves, they behave like wolves. Wolves do not show the “alpha roll,” or any other hierarchical behavior, except in specific circumstances, particularly during reproductive and feeding behaviors. Wolf packs on a hunt are working cooperatively, and hierarchy goes by the board.
Training dogs is fun for me and for the dog, as it should be. Our sled dogs ran because running is fun and feels good. Endorphins are released, social interactions are increased. Try running while you’re being submissive. Dogs aren’t pulling sleds because they are forced to or are submitting to some person’s will. Everybody who ever drove dogs knows that you absolutely cannot force them to do.”
http://www.workingdogweb.com/Coppinger.htm
Maybe Jack Russells are so aggressive that they can’t be handled any other way.
But most other dogs aren’t.
More– this time from Patricia McConnell”
http://www.4pawsu.com/pmdominance.htm
When it comes to dog behavior, she’s the final word for me.
http://www.gundogmag.com/training/GD_wolf_1109/
That’s hardly a PETA rag.
And gun dogs require more training than any other hunting dogs. It takes years and years of training to have a competent retriever.
As usual, Burns is blowing ignorance out of his ***
“There is one mature male, a harem of females, and the young. Young males are driven out before they become a threat to the adult male.” Not universally true. Wolf packs have a component of young males who help feed the pack and guard the pups. And it’s usually the female who makes decisions about hunting, mating, denning etc. Sometimes subdominant animals mate with the dominant ones. Sometimes –GASP– the dominant female may mate with a subdominant male though I know this fact must rock Burns’ world of hierarchy in which the males must be “dominant” over all. Young wolves as often CHOOSE to leave a pack as they are “driven out.”
Animals don’t read the textbooks. Burns has read some old textbooks and only read the parts that follow his dogma. Animals don’t follow rigid rules. “Dominance” is a rule made up by humans. Here’s a nifty quote from someone Burns evidently thinks doesn’t know anything about wolves (though everyone else regards him as one of the foremost experts) “The point here is not so much the terminology but what the terminology falsely implies: a rigid, force-based dominance hierarchy.”.Mech, L. David (1999). “Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs”. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. (Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1196-1203).
p.s.: McConnell has a wonderful blog:
http://www.theotherendoftheleash.com/
I didn’t see that one.
Wolves don’t have harems. It’s a pair bond with grown offspring acting as helpers. Lions have harems, as do equines and virtually all hoof stock.
The only wild dogs that have been found to have harems are some populations of red foxes. All wild dogs are at least serially monogamous. Domestic dogs are unique in that they don’t have this sort of relationship.
Cats have something like harems. Usually one male has a big territory in which several related females have their territories. The male in that big territory is overthrown every so often, but the females remain through the generations. The change in males prevents inbreeding.
Ethiopian wolf packs have been found to have more males in them than females. That’s not a harem.
In Alaska, wolves disperse at around 3 years of age: http://books.google.com/books?id=_mXHuSSbiGgC&lpg=PA12&ots=cNf8_usZlc&dq=dispersers%20wolves&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q=&f=false
In Yellowstone, it is about two years of age.
Wolves disperse for a variety of reasons. One of which could be strife within the natal pack.
I don’t know how these wolves would ever have packs if their daddies drove out all the males. They don’t have that many pups per year.
My experience is that male dogs, in general, are less likely to have issues with other male dogs, but females can have real issues.
Wolves do not have harems. Lions have harems.
Boitani and Mech (real wolf scientists) describe the composition of a wolf pack (first full paragraph):
http://books.google.com/books?id=_mXHuSSbiGgC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=dispersers+wolves&source=bl&ots=cNf8_usZlc&sig=1usCSsuf531WK-bk6yZHLp0lV7s&hl=en&ei=MTqYS-WZBJLJlAfb1KCqDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=mated%20pari&f=false
It typed “harem” into the search function for that book, and there was no mention of it.
Some red foxes do have a kind of harem system (MacDonald): http://books.google.com/books?id=0P77hjBcgFoC&lpg=PP1&dq=red%20fox&client=firefox-a&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q=mated%20pair&f=false
I really like Burns’ blog, but he is sort of a dick.
I picture him out hunting, having Bobby Knight-style tantrums, throwing shovels, and yelling if you don’t dig right.
You don’t mince words, do you, Bill?
I love the blog, and I usually agree with him.
However, on this issue, the science is pretty clear that we’ve been building a house of cards.
Wow, enough comments on here.
I’ll just say what I keep saying: that “training”, as in teaching them to do tasks, is not the same as “socializing”, which is creating functional social behaviours. Any idiot could train a dog, though in practice, most idiots aren’t consistent enough to do it. Socializing a dog requires a certain level of functional behaviour in the human, which most people lack.
Also like most people who “don’t believe in dominance”, I think you’re stereotyping “dominance” as some kind of little house Nazi. “Dominance” just means “leadership” and it happens in any association of sentient creatures. Socializing a dog does require the human having the leadership role, otherwise by default, the dog will, and that causes nothing but trouble.
Dogs need to be taught the rules. I don’t disagree.
Dogs also need to be taught how to do their tasks.
But after that, they don’t need to be micromanaged. Cesar Millan micromanages all of his dogs.
Dogs can be trusted.
Socialization requires no skill. Just take a puppy younger than 12 weeks old out to meet as many people and strange situations as possible.
“But after that, they don’t need to be micromanaged. Cesar Millan micromanages all of his dogs.”
Agree with this.
Dogs are not machines. They don’t live in the land of always and never.
Hmm…I suspect whether or not a dog needs to be micromanaged depends on the dog in question. Personally I think the life of a “reactive fear biter” would require a lot more micromanagement than a “stable couch hound”.
A dog that is a fear biter is not a dog that has learned enough, and it requires training.
It can’t be left to develop its “own mind.”
No you’re right. He gets a lifetime of passes in my book, for saying what’s right about dogs every day. I was actually not all that surprised when i read that he was mentioned in the Madoff whistle-blower (Markopolis’) book.
This discussion is over my head, but I really hope that I am not too far outside the mainstream, just because I use occasional physical corrections as part of my (probably unrealistic) goal of having happy, confident spaniels that do exactly as i say, whether at home or I the field.
Here’s my view. Corrections are okay. E-collars are fine.
Just so long as the dog loves doing what he’s doing. He’ll be what we retriever people call “honest.”
As obvious as it is what paradigms I follow, let me just say that it’s interesting (“fun” is the wrong word here, so is “disturbing”) to see the smoke everyone blows. I see moral superiority, tentative speculation, outright agreement, words of war, and basically every tier on this here speshul pyramid…and it’s just intriguing to read based on what I know about people here–which is next to nothing, aside from basic opinions and stances on various topics. Even though I may not agree with the points I obviously don’t believe, it’s not hard to see who’s taking the mature way out, and I’m actually more inclined to read their statements than I am someone who begins with the verbal equivalent of sticking their nose in the air.
Funny thing is, debates mostly involve people who are set in their opinions. The ones who stand to learn anything either don’t participate or join in only to ask for clarification on a point. Guess that’s what makes it fun, is to see who can beat down the other side the hardest, no matter the topic, since no one’s going to change their mind.
I’m obviously adding nothing to this fine debate here, but just thought I’d add the point of view on the general commentary from a somewhat analytical perspective.
I normally avoid dog behavior discussions, simply because of this sort of thing.
That’s why I’m not directly contributing to the whole “dominance” thing.
Redirection FTW.
Unfortunately it has the side effect of dragging the whole thing off-topic. Not really my intention…sorry O:)
Hmmm, trying to figure out whether I’m taking the mature way out.
There are people who can’t help but turn it into a black and white issue – either you wi’ us or agin’ us, you must either accept every golden word that drips from Millan’s mouth, or none of them.
Which is ironic since this post is about how there is no black and white in dog training.
If you must see it as a debate with two clear sides that “no one can win”, then that’s your loss, I guess. Those of us paying attention are probably learning some things, here.
People like black and white, because it tells you what to like and dislike without actually thinking about why you should like or dislike it.
I think that pryamid is a Scientology graph, right?
Nah. Just something fun that breaks down types of disagreements that was developed by Paul Graham, who seems to be more into programming-type stuff than That Fake Religion.
Nice try, though.
Viatecio, you are an ass hat.
Kidding. Nice analysis. Here’s a very cool article from Smithsonian Magazine, January 2010: The Truth About Lions.
The photo gallery scared me to death. Disclaimer: I only made it through the first half or so of The Ghost and the Darkness.
I watched a great documentary about Packer several years ago in which he was doing an experiment to see whether lionesses were attracted to dark-maned lions or blond-maned lions. It turns out that they prefer lions with dark, very thick manes.
He found these mannequins on which he placed several types of manes. Dark ones. Thick ones. Thin ones. Blond ones.
It turns out that the lionesses showed affection and curiosity to the mannequins with the darkest manes.
I read Col. Patterson’s The Man-eaters of Tsavo, and I wanted to see the film.
I was horribly disappointed.
The real lions were these maneless male animals that had developed a taste for human flesh.
Boy, do I have a hard time keeping up with all you guys, but I love reading this stuff! Subjects that most “normal” people I have conversations with have no interest in! And I am severely limited in my responses by overuse of my right index finger! But I have so many comments on these subjects I hardly know where to begin…..Thing is, ALL of you are right to a degree. Wolf/dog/human society and interactions are incredibly variable and individualistic. Hierarchies exist, but are not set in stone. “Dominance” and “Alpha” should not be negative words–I relate it to being a leader, and you can be a benevolant leader, or a tyrant. I believe in giving dogs(including my wolf crosses) lots of freedom, as much as possible, but for their safety and survival, I still MUST be the boss when it comes down to brass tacks(does anyone use that saying anymore?) Otherwise, dogs get killed in fights, get hit by cars or shot by hunters/farmers for not listening and staying close and coming when called. I am more concerned by the welfare of my animals than what other humans think of me, and I will use whatever I must to make it work….Yes, I was dissapointed somewhat in “Ghosts Of Darkness” too, having read Patterson’s book many years previous to viewing it–but still enjoyed it since it at least involved subject matter I was interested in. But why, why why does Hollywood have to dinker with actual history to try and “spice it up?”–one of my pet peeves with Hollywood!!!!! Michael Douglas’s character in the movie did not really exist(but he was one of the producers–and had to write himself a role, I guess), and yes, the interesting thing about male Tsavo lions is their typical absent or scanty manes–but I guess that was just too different for the general public’s idea of a lion. And what those lions did was NOT unusual for man-eating big cats–in fact, it was textbook typical behaviour! The fact that they got away with it so long due to human fumbling and panic did lead to some amazing, even supernatural seeming incidents! A good, entertaining movie, but, everyone, go read the REAL account, which is every bit(moreso!) gripping and incredible!
<3 this response.
A good relationship is not a dictatorship, although it might have to be slightly more strict at the beginning if you have a dog that gives you the Finger on a regular basis.
My dog's freedom is based on her respect of the boundaries I've set for her and the fact that she needs to keep an ear cocked in case I call her, as well as my trust in her to make good decisions with that privilege. Makes for a great give-and-take relationship, but in the end, I still call the shots and expect to be listened to when the chips are down.
And we all know that, when the chips are down, the buffalo is empty :D
Excellent!
I don’t disagree with that either.
Once the dog learns the rules, then it can start getting more freedom and more control over its environment.
I worry that people are ignoring encouraging dogs to think.
A dog that cannot think is a dog that isn’t worth having.
Hey, Retrieverman, “Ghost In The Darkness” and other tales of maneaters seems like a really good subject to post/discuss on your blog(hint hint)……..
A useful book to read on this topic is “100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs” by Alexandra Semyonova She has developed a new theory on the social structure of dogs which fits my understanding and experience of dogs living with humans.