Pack Heirarchy In Dogs

[jesomil]

I would be interested in peoples opinions on this topic especially some of the gurus.

First up in a pack there is the leader, then there are the others. I think we all agree on that.

Do you think the others are are in set rank position right down to the bottom dog or do you think the rank is something that changes regularly or do you think there is no rank at all??

Can you number exactly which dog is in which position?

I am interested in peoples opinions because i would not know who was what with my dogs. They seem to all be fairly equal. Sometimes one of them seems a little more dominant but then the next minute another may seem dominate. Never anything major, just little subtle things.

My boy is dominant with other dogs out of the house but in our little pack, they all seem to be the same.

Thanks for your opinions

[Sayreovi]

I believe that there is no set pack order and that a dogs rank is different over different objects/occasions.

With my two there is no real top dog, they have never fought and both have their boundaries that the other learnt quickly. My older boy is more dominant when out as my younger isnt as out going but at home it changes and Nova will submit to Darcy on occasion.

Even when i have a foster dog that is a little dominant in certain areas is easily dominated in others.

Edited July 30, 2007 by tollersowned

[JulesP]

Yes I think there is a pack order. None of my doggies have ever had fights and it is a very gentle pack order but it is there. And it includes the cats!!!

Me first (of course), then old black cat, then old border girl, younger border, younger cat. Younger border doesn't challenge the rank at all, younger cat has a go!

[Cosmolo]

Here are my thoughts-

Pack structure is fluid, not stagnant and can change depending on the value of the resource/ issue in question (if there is one) to the individual dog. Although i question whether we should be using control of resources to determine pack position.

We have 4 dogs, who are virtually divided into two pairs- the 2 older dogs who are at the top of the pack and the two younger dogs at the bottom. As for splitting them up further than that- this is where it becomes a grey area.

Of the two older dogs, if i had to choose, the male would be alpha of the pack purely because of the way he goes about asserting his position- quietly, calmly with very little body language/ posturing required for the other 3 bitches to move/ back down etc. The older bitch tends to have to assert herself a little more, with more in the way of obvious teeth displays, growls etc to the younger bitches if required. The dog is virtually silent in his pursuits. However, if we look at individual resources- the bitch always wins any kind of toy, while i watched the dog move her from a bed last week with a simple step and look.

I think its important to not just look at the what a dog wants/ gets when determining pack structure- but HOW they go about getting it. Otherwise we bring different resource values into play which will not only vary from dog to dog but also from time to time. eg. on monday dog 1 is very hungry so pursues food more than usual.

As far as my two younger girls go- i couldn't split them if you asked me to. I run 3 bitches and a dog together with and without supervision with no problems. I believe that it can be very hazardous to start trying to choose or dictate who is top dog in a pack. (Of course great leadership from the human component is crucial)

If you get it wrong because you're talking more about resources rather than behaviour- you can cause alot of disharmony

So resources and behaviour are two different things, i think sometime we get too caught up just looking at the control of the resources themselves rather than the behaviours associated with it. Hope that makes sense

[Erny]

i think sometime we get too caught up just looking at the control of the resources themselves rather than the behaviours associated with it. Hope that makes sense

It does - and a good post Cosmolo. In a nut-shell, we need to look at the 'big picture' and avoid disection to the absolute finite detail.

[Gottalovealab]

If you look at a wolf family structure, they are in order, From the Alpha, Beta and all the way down to the Omega. In their society, pack hierarchy maintains stability and allows the pack to function well.

Certainly, thousands of years of human impact, would have changed this some-what. But i still believe they are all in order.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Gottalovealab

[Erny]

... to fuction well.

Oops. Spelling error.

Yes - there's the Alpha and generally speaking, the Beta and Omega. In the wolf packs I think I recall reading that there is the virtual "vertical" heirarchy system. Being in the wild - open to predation as well as being completely reliant on predatory (ie hunting) co-operation - I think it is important for social animals to have a 'system' of pack order so that the organisation runs smoothly and continues to do so in the event of change (eg. Alpha becoming maimed or killed).

But I do believe that different environments within which the dogs live has an impact on the way packs are organised. I think that there is commonly the alpha amongst the dogs (excluding the human 'pack leader') but that it does not go to follow that there is always a Beta and so on and so forth until the very last, the Omega. I think that there are small groups that are not so vertically arranged as their wolf cousins perhaps are. I read about this somewhere and it was something I meant to return to - and I THINK it was Coppenger, or perhaps Lorenz?. Regardless of who it was I read (and it may have been more than one reading/author source), the gyst of it was that the greater the degree of predatory risk and pressure, the greater the import of having precise pack structure.

I do think that some dogs amongst the (albeit small) packs we have in domestication, fall into the non-descript category of "follower", but that a specific role may be metered out to it (or contested by it) in the event of heirarchy upheavel/change (eg. dog-leader aging; loss of dog-pack member etc.).

Edited July 30, 2007 by Erny

[Gottalovealab]

... to fuction well.

Oops. Spelling error. :p

Yes - there's the Alpha and generally speaking, the Beta and Omega. In the wolf packs I think I recall reading that there is the virtual "vertical" heirarchy system. Being in the wild - open to predation as well as being completely reliant on predatory (ie hunting) co-operation - I think it is important for social animals to have a 'system' of pack order so that the organisation runs smoothly and continues to do so in the event of change (eg. Alpha becoming maimed or killed).

But I do believe that different environments within which the dogs live has an impact on the way packs are organised. I think that there is commonly the alpha amongst the dogs (excluding the human 'pack leader') but that it does not go to follow that there is always a Beta and so on and so forth until the very last, the Omega. I think that there are small groups that are not so vertically arranged as their wolf cousins perhaps are. I read about this somewhere and it was something I meant to return to - and I THINK it was Coppenger, or perhaps Lorenz?. Regardless of who it was I read (and it may have been more than one reading/author source), the gyst of it was that the greater the degree of predatory risk and pressure, the greater the import of having precise pack structure.

I do think that some dogs amongst the (albeit small) packs we have in domestication, fall into the non-descript category of "follower", but that a specific role may be metered out to it (or contested by it) in the event of heirarchy upheavel/change (eg. dog-leader aging; loss of dog-pack member etc.).

Thanks for the spelling, Erny, its late

I would like to see the article in question, sounds like an interesting read. Again, you are right in regards to environmental pressure and the impact it has. Right down to the amount of pups a wolf has in a year (but i am going a little OT here). You have put it into a perspective that i did not look at previous, it makes a lot more sense.

I think maybe the pressure being lifted somewhat have made our domesticated dogs.... soft?? (for the want of a better word) if im in the same mind frame as you

Spelling again

Edited July 30, 2007 by Gottalovealab

[Red Mal]

Totally agree with Gottalovealab and Erny on this.

There is defeinitely a structure, whether we see it or not and even if we do see it, is it perceived correctly ? Sometimes it's only subtle and sometimes more evident.

[BJean]

I would be interested in peoples opinions on this topic especially some of the gurus.

First up in a pack there is the leader, then there are the others. I think we all agree on that.

Do you think the others are are in set rank position right down to the bottom dog or do you think the rank is something that changes regularly or do you think there is no rank at all??

Can you number exactly which dog is in which position?

I am interested in peoples opinions because i would not know who was what with my dogs. They seem to all be fairly equal. Sometimes one of them seems a little more dominant but then the next minute another may seem dominate. Never anything major, just little subtle things.

My boy is dominant with other dogs out of the house but in our little pack, they all seem to be the same.

Here is my non guru's opinion on dog pack behaviour

first my opinion is based on observing my dogs (quite primitive breeds)

interact with each other - over all ages, dog/bitch

and also their interaction with the occassional mixed breed rescue.

My dogs have a rank from number one to last.

Number one is the alpha female. The older male who she contested for this position still 'owns' the couch, but as she grew up as a pup with him she has accepted this "order" and he has precedence on that territory.

Also she is not allowed on the couch, and as inside the house is 'mine', the older male on the couch is allowed.

My alpha female has a very strong sense of order and house rules.

If a puppy goes through the open back door, (and she knows that is not allowed) she will block the puppy off and force it to the ground.

The older male used to be number one outside, but now the alpha female decides when any discarded bones are no longer hers. She will also push lower ranked dogs, or sometimes barge them right out of the way so she is in closest proximity to me - she will also discipline a young dog and run across the yard to do so, if she see an exhuberant young pup jump up on me in play. The lower ranked dogs give way to the higher ranked dogs to stand closest to myself, or the back porch etc.

The old male and alpha female allow no other dog into the kitchen if they are in there with me - the older male and alpha female are never allowed in this area at the same time as this territory is still in dispute between the two of them.

The 7 month male is very submissive towards the older male (he 'tippy toes' when going over an area where the old male has been) - I do not run them together as an altercation would ensue and the 7month old is too much for the aged male, but the old boy doesn't know this and will die before he relinquishes.

Oddly the 7 month old male on arrival thought that he could dispute the alpha female - she gave him few warnings and when he paid no heed severely reprimanded him.

Both the old male and the alpha female are very dominant individuals and enforce their rank with physical altercations if their snarls, growl, shouldering etc do not stop the lower ranked dogs.

The seven month male is more a big doofas than very dominant (even when mature he will not be as dominant minded as the old male). doofas is the boss of the young female only because he is bigger and she also is very submissive by nature.

The pack order in my dogs is not fluid over resources and does not change on a weekly basis - everything outside belongs to the alpha, if she is not outside, then it belongs to the old male. Only when they have discarded an item can another dog go near it.

While the dogs are young, or for a few weeks while a new dog is introduced, the midlle and lower pack order may change, and they will shufflle and tussle until they sort themselves out - but essentially the pack order is set unless offset by a new addition, or physical decline.

Edited July 30, 2007 by lilli

[Staranais]

If you look at a wolf family structure, they are in order, From the Alpha, Beta and all the way down to the Omega. In their society, pack hierarchy maintains stability and allows the pack to function well.

A couple of people have made similar statements, so I'm not picking on you, Gottalovealab.

But from what I have read, wolves aren't necessarily all that rigid in their social structure. From what I have read, wolves have a reasonably fluid pack structure (for example "lower" members will often defend food from "higher" members), it's not a rigid linear hierachial pecking order as in chickens.

And remember many wolf packs are formed from parents and their juvenile offspring, which means that any status is simply a result of a natural temporary power imbalance - juveniles often get kicked out of the pack when they reach full maturity. So some of the status differences you see in wolf packs are just the result of some wolves being younger, which is quite a different situation to the idea of unrelated adult animals living together in a permanent rigid dominance hierachy.

Plus, no matter what wolves do, dogs just aren't wolves. Dogs have been domesticated for at least the last 12,000 years - that's a long time for behavioural differences to accumulate, especially when they're being actively selected for.

Dogs have been selected for behavioural differences, both passively (only brave wolves came to scavenge at human camps) and actively (we culled any proto-dogs that were dangerous or not useful to us). In short, during the domestication process dogs have been selected to be neotenous, which among other things means they now tend to be naturally more submissive than wolves, less nervous and aggressive towards strangers, and less concerned about achieving pack status or dominating each other than wild wolves are. The fact we can take most of our dogs down to the dog park to meet strange dogs without expecting constant death and bloodshed points to the fact that dogs are now very different, behaviourally speaking, to wolves.

So although I think looking at what wolves do is interesting and useful when considering domestic dogs, we can't necessarily draw exact parallels between how wolves interact and how our dogs relate to us or to each other. IMO dogs do display some interest in hierachy and status (some dogs more than others) but aren't a carbon copy of wolves. If you look at feral dogs, their pack structure is much less orderly than that of wolves, they do not collectively care for offspring, don't often hunt together, etc.

So IMO dogs do have some interest in hierachy, do have a drive to seek companionship, and will recognise the authority of a strong leader, and sometimes will take advantage of weak humans in order to get their own way (which is what we call "dominance problems"). But they don't necessarily have a strong rigid social structure between them - from what I've seen, social structure in dogs often changes depending on circumstance. And from what I've seen, most well adjusted dogs aren't obsessive about status.

I'm not a guru either, of course, these are just my own thoughts.

[Red Mal]

Dogs are like wolves in a few simple ways ;

'Some' are more prone to be dominant

'Some' are more prone to be submissive

'Some' couldn't care less about being at the top, middle or bottom

'Some' carry through their instinctive traits (guarding, prey drive etc), some don't

'Some' recognise hierarchy, some don't

'Some' dogs have natural instincts, some dont.

Domesticity can only remove so much, and sometimes, inherent trait come out. In some dogs they do, some they dont.

This is why some people have hierarchial problems and some dont, It depends on the dogs. It's impossible to completely breed 'out' instincts, just as it's impossible to breed 'out' health problems. Even in the most selective breeding I've seen reccesive genes throw in a terrible flaw.

[Staranais]

Domesticity can only remove so much, and sometimes, inherent trait come out. In some dogs they do, some they dont.

Of course dogs are like wolves in some ways - I don't see anyone here claiming that they're not.

And of course dogs are all individuals and all have different temperaments, that's pretty obvious too, which is why I said so in my post.

So if kind of seems like you're arguing against things that noone said?

But I'm mostly posting since I don't understand why you think that domesticity is different to "inherent traits". Changes to physical and behavioural tendancies via domestication are changes to inherent traits since they are genetic changes (I mean, that's why domestication is different to taming, domestication by definition involves a genetic component and an entire population, whereas taming just involves the learned behaviour of an individual). So by domesticating dogs, we actually have changed many of their inherent traits. Some dogs do retain more of various wolf-like traits than others. But talk to anyone that works with or trains captive wolves, and they'll tell you that it's a very different experience to working with any normal domestic dog. It's the very rare dog that's as suspicious or as wary or as predatory as your average adult wolf, for example, and that's because we've selected for different inherent traits in dogs (and we've probably got other traits that were associated with the same genes and just came along for the ride - look at the Russian silver fox study where they got floppy ears and broken colouration as an unintended side effect of selecting for friendly behaviour! Pretty fascinating).

I personally believe that if we want to know about dog behaviour, we're better off looking at the studies of feral dog packs, not wild wolf packs. The former are very similar to our domesticated companions genetically, having been through the same domestication process, whereas the later aren't nearly as close genetically. I don't know why authors tend to concentrate on wolf packs, except that perhaps the wolf is seen as a more majestic and romantic creature than the feral dog?

[PAX]

In my three dogs one is the clear leader. Nobody will walk near her, get toys out of her bed, look at her while she is eating or when she has a toy. She doesn't have to do anything to get their respect, she just has it. I can see it in the way she walks near them, they will always give her space, it is as though she has a force field around her, it is very interesting to watch. She will play with them at times but it is always on her terms, she starts and ends the games.

The other two are quite equal although one is above the other with food.

[Gottalovealab]

But from what I have read, wolves aren't necessarily all that rigid in their social structure. From what I have read, wolves have a reasonably fluid pack structure (for example "lower" members will often defend food from "higher" members), it's not a rigid linear hierachial pecking order as in chickens.

Ok, this is different to what I have seen/read. From what i have heard (and seen in docos) The social structure, is much more rigid than what you explain here. Without a rigid social structure, the pack would not function as well as it could. This includes everything from when they go out hunting and who gets to eat first, Without this, tension arises.

And remember many wolf packs are formed from parents and their juvenile offspring, which means that any status is simply a result of a natural temporary power imbalance - juveniles often get kicked out of the pack when they reach full maturity. So some of the status differences you see in wolf packs are just the result of some wolves being younger, which is quite a different situation to the idea of unrelated adult animals living together in a permanent rigid dominance hierachy.

I agree with you here to a certain degree. Yes many of the pack are made up of juvenile offspring, but many are not. There are many long standing wolves within a wolf pack (other than the Alpha's). If each individual juvenile wolf was kicked out of the pack, then it would not grow and expand. At the same time, i would disagree with the power inbalance. From very early on, they find their own way into the pack and they own ranking within (those that don't get kicked out).

Plus, no matter what wolves do, dogs just aren't wolves. Dogs have been domesticated for at least the last 12,000 years - that's a long time for behavioural differences to accumulate, especially when they're being actively selected for

I totally agree with you on this statement here and this is what wer were discussing above. Through thousands of years of human impact, things have changed. Dogs have become more custom to living in a "perfect world" and so have relaxed many of their basic instincts

[Red Mal]

Amhailte - I wasn't arguing against any points, just trying to simplify things a little

I don't think Wolves are romantic, by any means, far too suspicious to sit down at a candle lit dinner with one

I think we look to Wolves more, because yes, in an ideal world, we would be able to study wild dog packs, but as there are very few and almost none in captivity, it's almost impossible to study them. Wolves are easier and more readily available to study, and as they are so closely related, we use that to our advantage.

I just wanted to express that although dogs aren't wolves, many dogs and many breeds seem to carry through more wolf behaviours than we actually realise.

I used to have an old male x breed many years ago, that pushed certin things with his nose, even people, but only certain people. We just thought it was funny. I now have a dog that has always done the same thing and never knew why until I started studying wolf behaviour and found that there is a very specific reason for doing it. Just one example.

Another example, I currently have a litter of 9 Mal puppies who are barely two weeks old, yet as of 3 days ago, 4 of them, at the same time every single morning at 5.am (ish) are found sat up (if a little wobbly) eyes closed, head pointing to the ceiling, trying to howl, and succeeding very nicely. I've set my camera up so I can hopefully catch them at it again tomorrow at some point. Now at 2 weeks old, this is not a learnt behaviour as none of my dogs do this (unless on command), so the natural instincts are there somewhere...................and it is cute

[Staranais]

Amhailte - I wasn't arguing against any points, just trying to simplify things a little

That makes more sense then!

I think we look to Wolves more, because yes, in an ideal world, we would be able to study wild dog packs, but as there are very few and almost none in captivity, it's almost impossible to study them. Wolves are easier and more readily available to study, and as they are so closely related, we use that to our advantage.

In some ways that's probably true - but the problem with studying captive populations is that they're often quite different to wild populations (a bunch of unrelated individual wolves places in an unnatural and often stressful surroundings aren't necessarily going to behave the same way as they would in a wild situation - I've read some recent criticism of the older wolf studies based on that very fact).

I've seen a few studies on feral dog populations that aren't in captivity, but they're hard to come by. Funding just isn't there, perhaps? The ones I've seen seem to indicate that dogs have a much looser pack structure than wolves, and are less scared of humans, which pretty much makes sense from what we know of the domestication process.

That's also what I observed while living in asia a few years back, the feral dogs would come scavenge round the villages, individually or in ones or twos, they often got chased off by the villagers who thought they were vermin. But I never saw any wolves! Guess if there were any in the area they were just too nervous to come near, plus they could probably hunt for themselves.

I just wanted to express that although dogs aren't wolves, many dogs and many breeds seem to carry through more wolf behaviours than we actually realise.

True. I think many dogs would be happier if more people realised that they aren't just little people in fur coats.

[Erny]

I used to have an old male x breed many years ago, that pushed certin things with his nose, even people, but only certain people. We just thought it was funny. I now have a dog that has always done the same thing and never knew why until I started studying wolf behaviour and found that there is a very specific reason for doing it. Just one example.

but if you could tell in brief I would be interested to know your findings, RM.

[Red Mal]

In some ways that's probably true - but the problem with studying captive populations is that they're often quite different to wild populations (a bunch of unrelated individual wolves places in an unnatural and often stressful surroundings aren't necessarily going to behave the same way as they would in a wild situation - I've read some recent criticism of the older wolf studies based on that very fact).

I agree, there are some very old studies that just wouldn't apply to the wolves we see in captivity today. Have we domesticised Wolves too, to a certain extent ? Are they too behaving differently because of us and the way we 'keep' them ? The Nanny wolves for instance werent seen often at all in the wild. Is that because they feel more threatened by us, that this is a role they have adapted being in captivity ? ....afterall a Wolves whole life revolves around survival. Do they now employ nanny wolves as a guard against us, their keepers ???

The ones I've seen seem to indicate that dogs have a much looser pack structure than wolves, and are less scared of humans,

That's also what I observed while living in asia a few years back, the feral dogs would come scavenge round the villages, individually or in ones or twos, they often got chased off by the villagers who thought they were vermin. But I never saw any wolves! Guess if there were any in the area they were just too nervous to come near, plus they could probably hunt for themselves.

Well, as wolves are driven by survival instincts, that's why they wouldn't come near humans, although it would make sense that dogs would, as many of them would no longer have those instincts, then again, if they're like one of mine, they're just more stupid

I think many dogs would be happier if more people realised that they aren't just little people in fur coats.

Definitely

[Red Mal]

I used to have an old male x breed many years ago, that pushed certin things with his nose, even people, but only certain people. We just thought it was funny. I now have a dog that has always done the same thing and never knew why until I started studying wolf behaviour and found that there is a very specific reason for doing it. Just one example.

but if you could tell in brief I would be interested to know your findings, RM.

I will be brief Erny Wolves push things to invoke a reaction. The Hunters would often do it to a kill to see if it was 'safe'. Mothers do it to their young to invoke a reaction or to make them do something. (I;m trying to be brief) and an Alpha would do it to a female to invoke a reaction from her to see if she was coming into season.

I was amazed the first time I studied this and realised that the dog I have now does the 'Kill'. He picks up his toy monkey shakes the living daylights out of it (killing it) then drops it on the floor. He then proceeds to push it hard with his nose (mouth closed) and looks quite strange. Of course it's a toy, but the actions are exactly the same and obviously something inherant in him.

Of course, I daren't tell my sister in law that when he does it to her, he's checking to see if she's in season :p