A CFBA/CIDBT written document which is current work on the Dogs Mind.
The ‘Top Dog', dominant or opportunistic or is it just words?
Dr David Sands FCFBA reviews canine research and those that argue against the use
of the term dominance in dog behaviour.
Introduction
Professionals who have enjoyed regular contact with dogs over the years develop
a common sense understanding how the combination of personalities and breed predisposition
influence domestic canine behaviour. The personality scale ranges from submissive
to the so called ‘dominant' dogs. Most companion dogs could be described as being
somewhere in the middle of this scale and, as companion pets, these dogs would want
nothing more than to be associated with an owner they know.
Dogs are fundamentally social animals and the replacement ‘pack' is the family they
share a ‘domestic home life' with. The replacement ‘kill' may originate from the
shelves of the local supermarket or pet shop and hunting and foraging is replaced
by daily walks but all a dog needs in addition to exercise is to be offered regular
nourishing meals and to have a place to rest.
Owners, dog trainers and professional behaviourists frequently come into contact
with re-homed dogs. They are more likely to have encountered the introvert and extrovert
extremes rather than those owners who raise a puppy purchased from an established
breeder.
All dogs can become vulnerable to fear-based and owner-attachment conditions but
it is common knowledge that rescue dogs, especially the extreme personality types,
are more likely to develop hyperactive behaviours or aggressive tendencies and distorted
owner-attachment relationships. The latter can become a condition known as canine
separation-related disorder (Appendix 1) where an over-dependency leads a dog to
perform various displays of stress-behaviour when home-alone.
To help understand why our views are changing in relation to our companion dogs
and how the scientific analysis of behaviour is questioning common usage terms it
is necessary to consider recent research developments.
A wolf subspecies in the home
The domesticated dog, now scientifically established to be Canis lupus familiaris
a sub-species to the Grey Wolf, Canis lupus lupus following extensive DNA research
. However, the dogs in our living rooms are not considered by canine ethologists
to share the same hierarchal rigidity and associated behaviours with their lupine
relative. A wide range of research also indicates that wild and feral packs of dogs
do not display a fixed pack structure which has been observed in wolves.
It is widely considered that only alpha male and female reproduce although there
are reports of two litters being raised in the same pack. This general rule excludes
the effects of a selfish gene strategy that results in ‘sneaky mating'. A perfect
example of this behaviour could be seen in a BBC series about Yellowstone National
Park. Viewers were offered a recorded example of a beta Grey wolf male utilised
this strategy in the wild. He waited for his moment to mate with a leading female
as the alpha male, distracted in leadership duties, trekked through the snow at
the head of the pack.
Evidence that our pets and wild cousins do not share an innate hierarchal structure
may however have much to do with the fact that absolute ancestor lineage between
the domesticated dog and the wolf is currently blurred. There is complex of recent
evolutionary influences that include continental origin (European, African, Arctic,
Asian and North American species) together with the potential for interbreeding
with other canines such as the Coyote, Dhole, Jackals and Foxes still to be fully
understood.
1 When the option is available to them most species breed amongst conspecifics.
However, when intercontinental geological barriers are artificially broken down
there may not be a mechanism to prevent fertile hybrid offspring resulting.
Domesticated dogs have an almost unique genetic ability for physical variation because
of a gene relating to dwarfism or giantism. This means that all domesticated dog
breeds have more or less the same brain size but their muscle and bone sizes vary
because they are open to manipulation as man continues to selectively breed.
2 In human recent history, in terms of thousands of years, one or more species of
canines have been adapted into domestication. A study linked to a population of
captive Russian foxes that had experienced 45 years of selective breeding revealed
important aspects of domestication.
This study may offer important behaviour clues about how the tame dog we know today
first came into being. Published in 2005, Brian Hare of Harvard University and Lyudmilla
Trut of the Russian Academy reported their findings in the journal Current Biology
. It is based on the descendants of Russian foxes first in kept in a Siberian research
centre in 1959.
Individual juveniles were quickly identified by Russian geneticist Dmitry Belyaev
for their willingness to show a lack of fear and aggression when first exposed to
humans feeding and interacting with them and only these animals were selected for
use in the breeding program. These particular foxes displayed an eagerness to accept
human contact and, instrumental in behavioural terms, an ability to be able to read
human facial gestures.
These young foxes also successfully passed significant intelligence tests based
on finding hidden food by obtaining guidance through the pointing gestures of handlers.
This important research information, gathered over a long period of time, indicates
it is more likely that the gene for a ‘lack of fear', together with innate (genetic)
social behaviour (common to pack animals), that has facilitated the domestication
of wild canines.
If it is accepted that the domestic dog does not behave exactly like a wolf - in
strict social structural terms - then there are other factors that contribute to
the development of the companion dog personality to be considered. These include
litter-mother personality, breed disposition, the early environment, nutritional
quality and social development linked to the age removed from the litter-mother
physical health, life experience and genetics.
The latter factor could prove to be more significant than ever as we learn more
about how behavioural traits can also be transferred down through generations. The
smaller the ‘gene pool' in some breeds also means there is a greater the chance
of genetic drift where physical and psychological defects become more common.
3 Early ancestors of the domesticated dog crossed land bridges that have now mostly
disappeared alongside explorers and invaders as they made the journey with their
hunting or companion dogs. The ancient breeds, such as the Alaskan Malamute dated
to 3000 BC, have been revealed through DNA sampling not to be distinguished from
European breeds including The Great Dane and European Mastiff.
These powerful hunting or guard dogs, can be dated from 2000 - 1000 BC as can the
Japanese Shiba Inu and the Ainu. The Canaan Dog from Israel has been dated to 2000
BC and the Cardigan Welsh Corgi can be dated back to 1200 BC and both are thought
to be amongst the oldest herding dogs. The Maltese is thought to be the oldest of
the toy breeds and can be dated to 500 BC. It is these ancient breeds, travelling
alongside armies or explorers, which have found their way into other continents
and countries.
4 The more recent origins of the domesticated dog has been the subject of research
from a number of scientific disciplines and attracted debate. Some basic facts can
be interpreted in a number of ways. It is known for example that dog bones unearthed
in central Europe can be dated to 14,000 years ago. Another indicator of potential
human-dog relationships has been revealed when a 12,000-year-old grave, discovered
by researchers in Israel, was found to contain the bones of a woman with a puppy
in her hands.
What archaeology has indicated is that at some stage in evolutionary natural history,
members of the known canine family shared a common ancient carnivore ancestor. This
Miocene canid lineage includes felines (cats), ursids (bears), phocids (seals) and
odobenids (walruses).
It has been hundreds years of selective-breeding for working traits and physical
attributes has produced the rich variety of breeds that are known today.
One of the earliest breed to be domesticated is thought to be the Dingo in Australia
which shares its DNA with the Indian Wolf. The Dingo, once endangered and protected
exists in increasing numbers today. An increasing number of Incidents relating to
attacks on humans has seen fresh debates about culling and controlling them.
5 Dog breeds can be placed into a number of behaviour groups following a review
of ancestral DNA. There are those that are referred to as Livestock-herding and
guardian dogs , Gun dogs , Scent hounds , Sight hounds, Mastiff and Great Dane protective
dogs, Bulldogs, Husky or pulling dogs and Terriers going-to-ground or vermin-control
dogs. These types have all have be line-bred to manipulate varying adult body size.
The smallest are known as Companion or Lap dog breeds . These have tended to provide
companionship or to be fashionable in society.
Dogs are probably the most intensively line-bred domesticated pet in the world.
Inbreeding or indiscriminate line breeding for certain characteristics, especially
those which are more fashionable than healthy, is having a lasting effect on some
dogs. There are a number of modern breeds, sharing ancient European or exotic breed
lines that are currently in genetic difficulties.
Interpretation of antisocial behaviours displayed by dogs
Owners in general review the behaviour of their dogs only when is becomes necessary.
This would be if antisocial episodes, including various expressions of aggression
(Appendix 2) or owner-separation problems (Appendix1), are occurring and professional
advice had been sought.
Dogs that shadow a family around the home in fear of losing sight of them or, in
the excitement of being reunited after being home alone, urinate during doorstep
greetings are displaying behaviours associated with over-dependency and appeasement.
Owner interpretations of these behaviours vary greatly but many would consider they
represent faithfulness.
A voice-tone that suggests owner ‘is frustrated' or angry would be met by a submissive
dog with a head down tail between the legs, posture. Perhaps this dog even beats
a hasty retreat behind the sofa or to the dog bed. The term subdominant is widely
used by veterinarians, dog trainers and behaviourists to describe this type of dog
personality.
The ‘dominant dog', known also as a ‘challenging dog', in dog training contrasts
in personality to the submissive type. Until some form of status reduction program
and obedience training is put into place this dog does not take ‘no' for an answer.
This dog personality forces owner attention through demanding behaviour. When instructed
to come off furniture, to give up a ball or be recalled, this dog feigns deafness.
Disrespect is shown by this dog towards any owner instructions that do not involve
a ‘reward' of some kind including but not exclusive getting to do what it wanted
in the first instance.
The response to instruction is one of either indifference or in the ‘aggressive
dog' it is the stare ‘fixed' into the canine equivalent of human adolescent insolence.
In the worst case scenarios, the ‘dominant dog' personality displays possessive-aggression
over food items and toys and territory area and frequently takes up positions of
elevation. Owners might interpret this dog personality as ‘bold' or ‘aloof'. Their
viewpoint is subjective and often anthropomorphic. Many owners humanise their companion
dogs and often project their ideas and mental abilities onto them.
This owner behaviour when reviewed objectively might be considered natural because
they are human and their dogs represent a relationship-range from companion to child-replacement.
In some relationships the companion dog might be the friend or even partner replacement.
Interspecies communication barriers can become the excuse for an owner allowing
antisocial behaviour from a dog. Many of these behaviours, including attention-and-event-demanding,
would not be accepted from young children in a socialised and structured family.
Children would be given verbal instruction and lead example by parents to enable
them to learn accepted behaviours, social structure and boundaries.
The term ‘dominant dog', when used by the majority of dog trainers and professional
practitioners, is clearly aimed at describing the dog that requires leadership from
its owner.
Some dog personalities are not unlike the wayward infant that is constantly challenging
its parents with a range of response that might include, running away in the supermarket
screaming, ‘You're not the boss of me' . The dog with ‘status-issues' is throwing
down similar challenges but it lacks the ability to articulate a challenge through
vocabulary. The worst antisocial status-related dog personalities could be described
as Attention-Deficit Hyperactive Dogs and the human parallels in problem behaviours
are generally considered obvious to most owners with such pets.
The ‘dominant dog', especially one that is developing behavioural issues, often
attempts to mount, mouth, control, challenge or protect family members. The potential
for any confusion from the dog's perspective caused by this development within a
family can mean that a dog might attempt to take on a role in leading and protecting
the ‘social-group'. Sometimes ‘challenging-behaviour' is associated with increasing
signs of ‘disobedience'.
These behaviours might include a refusal to respond on walks, or being hyperactive
or aggressive when travelling in vehicles and in ‘selective-hearing' where an owner-initiated
name-calling and recall instructions fail to obtain a response from the dog. There
are associated influences related to these behaviours including vehicle-association
and experience, breed type and limited or non existent training.
The ‘dominant dog' is not always the stereotype aggressive (Appendix 3b and 4b)
but may simply express a disdain for owner authority or obedience control in a stubborn
manner. They might react to house visitors or family members with hyperactive responses
such as jumping up, clawing, mouthing or repeatedly barking towards any person or
to compete against owner social activity. This refusal to conform to how the majority
of owners expect a companion dog to behave could be described as ‘status-questioning'.
In recent years, I and many of my colleagues have begun to use the term dominance
less frequently.
6 In these dogs there is very little, in terms of humane methods, that can change
problem behaviour and that would replace a basic system of offering them structure
and boundaries. These need to apply within the home and walk environment and can
be promoted with regular discipline training using ‘rewards' as positive reinforcement.
The ‘fearful dog' may also have issues of status and can behave in a challenging
way. However, this personality type is often constantly hyper-alert leading to a
situation where another animal, a noise or object forces an adrenaline reaction
that either triggers a flight or fight response.
Many dogs suffering from this condition can be observed to show a fear response
and then flight in reaction to unusual noises, fireworks, aircraft, hot air balloon
burners, industrial sounds and a wide range of stimuli. In these dogs, the canine
‘flight outcome' or response is to attempt escape and many dogs race to return home
or to get back to the vehicle or become disorientated. The ‘fight outcome' is fear-based
aggression (Appendix 3a and 4a).
Science and the term dominance
The term dominance is commonly used in animal behaviour science to describe a feature,
within a social organisation, of individual/s displaying aggression to acquire a
high status over others that retain low status. The principle of a status structure
within a group was first described 90 years ago as a result of observations involving
flocks of domestic fowl.
The term ‘pecking order' came from this study but hierarchal relationships in social
groups are known to be widespread across the animal kingdom. The usage of ‘dominance'
in reference to aggressive dogs is now being queried and differing scientific opinion
has been revealed in two recently published studies. A 2009 Spanish study, published
in the Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, Factors Linked to Dominance Aggression
in Dogs , based on the behavioural analysis of over 700 dogs, describes ‘dominance
aggression' and suggest the behaviour is expressed primarily as possessive-aggression.
Joaquin Perez-Guisado and Andres Munoz-Serrano located pedigree and cross breeds
significantly through an ‘opportunist method' of approaching owners whilst walking
with their dogs.
This selection by chance of the study group, rather than choosing dogs assessed
for aggression, might offer a more realistic overview of this form of dog behaviour.
The study group came from 5 cities in Spain and consisted of an almost equal number
of dogs and bitches. The main conclusion of this research suggests that the greatest
influence on dominance aggression in dogs is in owner-related factors such as whether
obedience training had been undertaken; if only vocal punishment was used (lack
of any physical method) and how much time walking and the total time owner and dog
spent together. Whilst there may be a variance caused by cultural differences, the
study conclusion suggests that older people are more responsible and spend more
time with their dogs to enforce control.
In the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, 2009, University Bristol researchers published
the suggestion that the idea of the dominant dog may be a misnomer. The authors,
Bradshaw, Blackwell and Casey, in Dominance in domestic dogs - useful construct
or bad habit, put forward an argument that the term or trait is misused when describing
aggressive dogs. 7 They believe the concept of dominance does not offer a useful
contribution to explain dog-dog aggression and, because of the added complication
of inter-species communication, less likely to explain dog-human aggression. In
place of dominance, it is suggested that dogs are interacting aggressively within
a system of competition known as Parker's Resource Holding Potential.
This is where an individual animal appears willing, or more daring, to risk injury
to gain a resource value or advantage. The competing animal enters into a fight
or escalates aggression in order to win a contest. The motivation is said to depend
on the value of the resource (RV) or what is eventually won in the outcome.
The authors, in a section, Social behaviour of neutered dogs, quote an unpublished
study of 19 neutered male dogs maintained within a rehoming charity (rescue centre).
They report that, even among 8 dogs which interacted the most, ‘no clear cut dominance
hierarchy could be distinguished'. Concerns about this research arise from the fact
that the observations relate to the psychological state of dogs which have been
confined within a rescue centre. These dogs are disenfranchised from their established
social group including former owners and family members. In a parallel to foster
children, but without suggesting any comparative cognition, these dogs must be both
socially and territorially disorientated.
Wells and Hepper in Applied Animal Behaviour Science (69) August 2000 (available
online June 2000) study of rescue dogs, Prevalence of behaviour, problems reported
by owners of dogs purchased from an animal rescue shelter , revealed that out of
556 responses to their survey, 68.3% reported that their dog exhibited a behavioural
problem and the most common being fearfulness. However, they reported that dogs
displaying aggressiveness were more likely, than those displaying coprophagy or
inappropriate elimination, to be returned to the shelter.
In a human parallel of social dysfunction and its lasting effect on antisocial behaviour
there is a body of research surrounding young human males and aggressive behaviour.
Studies have revealed that a high percentage of individuals displaying antisocial
behaviour had experienced a disrupted or dysfunctional family.
This research includes Dmitrieva, Oades, Hauffa and Eggers, in Psychology 2001 where
the authors looked at males displaying conduct disorder. Their findings revealed
the males possess higher than normal circulating levels of hormones from adrenal
cortex, gonadal and growth-hormone axes associated with stress, aggression and development.
In personal communication with a leading research professor in North America it
was agreed that there are some potential parallels in aggressive behaviour displayed
by disassociated juvenile males and dogs in rescue. One aspect of shared bio-psychological
chemistry may be linked to associated metabolisms that result from increased levels
of adrenaline and stress hormones in aggressive males.
The role of hormones, operating alongside and outside of the nervous system, and
the effect of any potential imbalance influencing aggressive canine behaviour is
not clearly understood. It has long been accepted by professional canine behaviourists
and now many veterinarians that castration and ovariohysterectomy, which reduces
hormonal levels of androgens and oestrogen, does not negate the effect of adrenaline
in dogs.
Research and my own clinical experience strongly indicate that neutering an aggressive
dog does not successfully treat or counter aggressive behaviour. Intrusive veterinary
surgery may even lead to an increase in fear-based behaviour including aggression.
A reduction in testosterone or eostrogen may have some effect on juvenile, entire
dogs and bitches that are displaying ‘status or ‘dominant' aggression' (personal
observations).
In the Bradshaw et al paper, a sentence in a section ‘Interactions between dogs
and owners' reads: ‘Hence, where a dog is anxious about the approach of an owner
in a particular context (perhaps because an owner has previously forced the dog
into an alpha roll) it may show appeasement'.
It is unlikely that any canine behaviourist or therapist in the UK advocates such
a method and therefore it is assumed that this reference alludes to North American
dog training tactics. It is common knowledge amongst professional animal behaviourists
that aggression creates aggression.
Clients who are not confident about their own abilities when attempting to physically
control an aggressive dog are generally advised to show caution. It is also advised
to them that an aggressive or nervous response directed towards their dogs would
serve to reinforce any association experienced and increase episodes of aggressive
behaviour.
Bradshaw et al (and other researchers) suggest that the application of Parker's
resource holding potential (RHP) and subjective resource value (RV) is an alternative
system to dominance and helps to explain un-established relationships between competitors
such as dogs.
RHP has been widely applied in ichthyology and aquatic crustacean-related ethology
and has been used in many species to explain, for example, fighting behaviour in
hermit crabs or sand gobies. Bradshaw et al allude to Barlow et al study on lake
cichlids.
It is widely known that African Rift Lake cichlid species have speciated over thousands
of years and the rapid natural selection process has been referred to as evolution
in action. Many Lake cichlid species are highly aggressive and have evolved complex
conspecific strategies during the relatively short period of geological time.
These freshwater fishes fiercely compete over extremely limited spaces and for mate-choice
in a shoreline boulder-strewn territory. They do not shoal passively unless juvenile
or conceal male coloration and pair or polygamy-spawn. They behave in the same way
as ancestral ocean reef fishes, such as gobies, damsels and clown fishes pair off.
Theses species compete over occupation of sand burrows, crevices or corals and occupancy
of anemones in symbiotic relationship. How the behaviour of these species fits into
canine strategies needs to be explored and begs new research that is likely to prove
both difficult and demanding.
Studies of free roaming (250 km ² ) feral dogs in central Italy from Boitani et
al in James Serpell's 1995 book ‘The Domestic Dog' gives evidence of packs operating
in a relatively large scale territory. It could be argued that a model for an aggressive
strategy may not apply when making a comparison between free roaming land mammals
and non pelagic aquatic animals.
The RHP model provides a strategy that explains animals competing in a reduced territory
or what I term the ‘arena scenario' for resources and it could be equally argued
that most homes represent a reduction in territory for the domestication dog. Most
episodes of interspecific aggression that occur between dogs previously socialised
together in the same home are triggered by a dispute over a resource (own unpublished
findings, appendix 2). This association would appear to be particularly applicable
when mature dogs, rehomed or together by house-sharing partners and not previously
socialised, are brought into one household. It could be argued that the RV or potential
gain, protect or possess in these novel situations is assessed as worth the risk
that comes with competitive aggression.
In the Serpell volume, John Bradshaw and Helen Nott, within a section, ‘Social and
communication behaviour of companion dogs' briefly discuss the role of anal sac
secretions in wolves and domesticated dogs and how they might be important in individual
and territorial recognition.
My ongoing research (unpublished) suggests an association between those dogs with
anal gland conditions and a tendency to display displaced sexual-mounting behaviour
together with status-related challenging directed at the owners. This behaviour
is mainly seen in dogs but can be observed in bitches. These dogs often require
veterinary interaction and treatment for anal gland impaction or infection. The
indication of anal gland activity could become a diagnostic sign for territorial
and status-related behaviour in dogs.
Bradshaw and Nott also discuss the development of dominance (in domestic dogs).
They make reference to ‘Behaviour that is recognisably competitive which might be
involved in the establishment of dominance, first appears in when the pups were
about three or four weeks old'. Experienced breeders acquire a knowledge and understanding
of developing puppy personality. They know the term ‘recognisably competitive' when
observing litter-siblings is relevant even if the term dominance is not.
The future
Any further study or review of our understanding of dog aggression (Appendix 3-6)
should attempt to establish how dog-human aggression might be influenced in relation
to how humans are perceived by companion dogs. These animals do not have the brain
capacity or complex processes to switch perceptions or, alternatively, dogs can
only ‘think like dogs' . It can be strongly argued that humans are most likely assessed
by a dog in simple social terms. The dog that is assessing a human, using olfactory
information and visual associations, must quickly establish if a family, friend
or stranger is an individual from within its social group (human-canine) or an outsider
and assess if they are a potential competitor or threat.
The dog must then further consider whether that person is a ‘threat' or a ‘non-threat'.
If it is established that the person is a threat then the adrenaline-driven ( fight
or flight) response will see the dog retreating to safety or displaying an aggressive
response (barking or growling) eventually attacking what then would be seen as a
competing predator or as prey.
This potential for how a dog might make a fundamental assessment of humans could
have a significant bearing on domestic dog ‘status' or dominance. Dogs, with superior
scent ability, would obtain instant knowledge of human gender from testosterone
and eostrogen levels of hormones. Any prior association, including the potential
for abuse or care, would be an influence for aggression.
The frequency of aggression in dogs may depend on how successful a competing or
status-seeking dog is and with whom and whether a fearful response is given to any
challenge by the human. Owner and family around an aggressive companion dog frequently
display apprehension or fear responses.
Instinctive human body language reactions that are associated with these emotions,
such as withdrawal or hesitation together with rapid pheromones signalling, are
likely to communicate to the dog when an aggressive approach has been successful.
It is common knowledge that dogs have a superior smelling ability to humans and
are capable of scenting interspecies information related to human emotional and
metabolic changes. There is widespread acceptance of a dog's abilities to scent
pre-seizure states, cancerous cells and abnormal heart rhythms.
Owners with aggressive companion dogs can unwittingly become part of any antisocial
behaviour. There is a canine point-scoring status-system of behaviour observed in
developing wild, feral and domesticated pups prior to sexual maturity. This system
is likely to provide essential information for the status dog in the period leading
up to a successful aggressive challenge. The RHP (RV) model when applied to juvenile
canines includes play-fighting, tests of holding on and pulling strength when disputing
ownership of food item (kill fur or bone in nature) and what I term ‘King of the
castle' positioning. I have observed this later behaviour of challenging over a
raised area or object in dogs and many domesticated mammals including bovines especially
kids, lambs and calves.
Eventually, the dog that has tested out his or her nearest rival will possess a
memory record of the physical strength of siblings. This system can serve against
owners of domesticated dogs who encourage tug of war games and consider possessive
behaviour over food and toys and elevation on furniture, stairs and beds as part
of dog ownership. It is in these aspects of variable resource values that dog-human
aggression is often triggered.
A ‘dominance reduction program' in these situations has to take precedence over
a scientific understanding of the term. Injuries to owners often occur if these
dogs have an innate predisposition, or have been breed-selected, to display aggressive
qualities. Cameron, in Canine dominance-associated aggression published in the Journal
of Applied Animal Behaviour Science (52) 1997 indicated that his research revealed
that what is referred to as dominance-associated aggression is ‘apparent in quite
young puppies but does not become a significant concern to most pet owners until
the dog is 6-24 months old'. In the 34 cases 88% of owners reported a fair to excellent
improvement in dominance-associated aggression after they had been given education
in order to gain psychological leadership over their dogs.
Wolves and wild and feral dogs, and, therefore by inheritance, domesticated dogs,
have evolved male posturing behaviours - including dominance and submissive poses
- that help to reduce physical aggression between individuals. Cooperation is essential
for pack activities such as hunting and foraging because injured animals would not
be able to successfully operate within a social group.
It is widely accepted amongst professional behaviourists that interbitch-aggression
in domesticated dogs is commonly ‘flash point' and more difficult to counter. This
is believed to be because female canines evolved to cooperate with each other for
offspring care and therefore have not developed the same injury-avoiding posturing
behaviours.
Conclusion
If there is a place in dog behaviour for the term dominance it should perhaps come
with a caveat that its usage is linked to ‘aggressive competitive behaviour'. 8
This label might describe aggression that displayed by domestic dogs towards other
dogs and owners that is acceptable to science and canine practitioners.
The CFBA Organisation team is now seeking funding to research aggression in dogs.
This would examine how, alongside associated behaviours, what success status-reducing
programs and advanced training has on aggressive dogs. I am certain this research
will be welcomed by professional canine behaviour practitioners everywhere.
Dr David Sands FCFBA July 2009
This article has been reproduced with the kind permission of David Sands.
|