Exploring Pack Rule Theory - Dogs

Up until more recent times, pack rule theory was widely recognised by dog trainers, behaviourists and veterinary surgeons, as an explanation of the hierarchical nature of the dog as a pack animal, and by applying the theory, the method by which owners were advised to train and modify dog behaviour. Indeed, this approach is still wide spread, compounded by popular TV shows and lack of, or outdated education by individuals working in the industry.

What are pack rules?

This theory states that dogs as pack animals have a strictly structured hierarchy. Alpha's dominate all, betas submit to alphas but dominate omegas, and omegas have to submit to all. Alphas are entitled to certain privileges:-

Alphas always eat first and get the best food.
Alphas get the best and most elevated resting places, and must not be disturbed when at rest.
Alphas instigate all play and social interactions.
Alphas always lead the pack.

Due to the fact that it is still so frequently cited, it is still widely accepted by many people, but does it make sense?

In the first instant we must establish whether dogs are actually pack animals. It is recognised that dogs and wolves share a common ancestry, but evolution and domestication over many thousands of years have removed dogs to such a large extent that it is not reasonable to compare dog behaviour to the behaviour of the modern day wolf.

Coppinger and Coppinger in the study of canine origin, behaviour and evolution state:-

"dogs have diverged, changed, transmutated from their wolflike ancestors. Dogs differ from the other canid species in measurable ways, just as coyotes differ from wolves in measurable ways. But dogs win the prize for being the most measurably different and diverse member of the genus."

"If indeed the science world does insist on renaming the dog Canis lupus familiaris, there is one thing we must all remember: Just because dogs are renamed as a subspecies of wolves does not make them wolves. To say that dogs are descended from wolves does not make the wolves."

Is it not more reasonable therefore to examine social behaviour of dogs by studying free ranging dogs, rather than wolves. In such a study of free ranging dogs in rural and urban sites Daniels and Bekoff reported that dogs tended to remain solitary, avoiding pack behaviour.

"dogs probably were not as social as expected because little advantage was conferred on group-living animals. Scarce resources beyond those provided by human residents at both the urban and rural sites would be exploited more efficiently by individuals than by larger groups."

It has been found that wild dogs were more likely to group. A pack may be defined as a social unit that hunts, rears young and protects a communal territory as a stable group. In a study observing feral dogs in Italy, Boitani et al describes these feral dogs only met this criteria in a very limited sense and the groups that do form seem to consist of members that are transient and of short duration when advantageous. This seems to indicate that dogs, unlike wolves are not strictly pack animals, but rather group by loose association according to environmental needs. There is no doubt that dogs are sociable animals, but these and other studies show that dogs in 'nature' are not pack animals living in organised hierarchical societies, but rather more solitary foragers, coming together to breed and occasionally for other purposes for brief periods when advantageous. This could then more accurately be described as a social group, rather than a pack.

As companion animals, dogs in multi-dog households do live together as a fixed social group, the members of which are determined by the owners. When dogs live together in these forced social groups, do they have a defined structured hierarchy? Do groups of dogs have defined alpha, beta and omega members? Do they live by the definition of pack rules? The answer is no. Like human beings, dogs have individual personalities, and individual dogs value different resources to varying degrees. For example in my own household consisting of 6 dogs: Storm will assert himself when it comes to toys - his favourite resource, Buddy will assert himself in competition for human touch, Suzie and Charlie are food orientated and will steal food off other members and Mings' favourite thing to do is rush out of the door first and jump on the next dog out the door for a game. They will take it in turns to instigated play and social interactions, and they will all at one time or another show either assertive or submissive behaviour to each other depending on which dog values the current specific resource. The notion that dogs have a linear hierarchical system i.e. alpha dominates all, beta dominates omega and omega gets no say in anything and must submit to everyone else is not apparent at all.

Despite the fact that several of the so called 'pack rules' are broken on a daily basis - they get fed before the family, are allowed on the sofa when invited, get a game or fuss sometimes when they ask for it, humans will engage in tug of war games (and sometimes the dog is allowed to win) they are all well behaved and generally obedient as they have been taught the rules of acceptable behaviour with positive reinforcement. So despite the fact that they are allowed theoretical privilages according to pack rules, we do not experience any so called dominant issues.

If an owner is experiencing a problematic behaviour, that individual behaviour must be looked at as an individual event and treated accordingly. There cannot be a 'cure all' treatment for all training and behaviour problems, especially when trying to apply rules that have no foundation in the reality of how dogs interact with each other socially.

Pack rule theory has been used to explain every problem; the dogs status is too high if:-

The dog ignores the owner's commands (more likely to be a lack of training)
Showing aggression (which could be for a number or reasons - including fear or resource guarding)
Jumping up, attention seeking, begging (far more likely because the dog has been rewarded for these actions in the past),the list goes on.

Unfortunately applying a rank reduction program does appear to work in many instances, but not because the owner is asserting their authority and reducing the dogs status, it is far more likely that by changing the behaviour of the owner, we are changing the response of the dog. By applying a rank reduction program the owner is actually using punishment, which can seriously damage the bond and relationship between the dog and the owner, and can also stop activities that both owner and dog enjoyed and consequently remove much of the pleasure from the relationship.

Perhaps an owner might consult a dog trainer because the dog pulls on the lead and when off lead will not come back when called. Pack rule theorists will say that the dog is ignoring the owner and pulling on the lead as the dogs' status is too high, and the dog is showing dominant behaviour. In conjuction with dealing with the specific problem, the trainer might also ask the owner to assert their authority by applying rank reduction based on pack rule theory, for example stopping the dog getting on the couch. The owner probably enjoyed having the dog on the couch and is now made to feel that this is not only unacceptable, but indeed that this may have been one of the contributing factors of the dogs' disobedient behaviour. By suddenly denying the dog access to the furniture, this could potentially cause confrontational resource guarding, which is a far more serious and upsetting problem. They may be asked also to change feeding regimes by making the dog wait hours later than their usual feed time to ensure that the humans eat first, thus denying the dog the expected reward which constitutes punishment. Ignoring the dog when it seeks attention - withdrawing expected reward = punishment and also possibly causing housetraining problems as the dog may be asking to go out.

In my opinion it is irresponsible for professionals to be using these rank reduction protocols based on a theory that can not possibly apply to domestic dogs. From the owners perspective, they are made to feel guilty for causing the problem in the first place through mismanagement according to pack rule theory, and are made to feel that activities that they really enjoyed engaging in with the dog are unacceptable, while the dog has undergone some major lifestyle changes, is being punished for no apparent reason, causing stress, anxiety or possibly aggression. This approach will damage the bond between the owner and the dog, when in actual fact all that needed to be done was to train the dog in the specific tasks ie to walk to heal on the lead, and to recall with positive reinforcement.

It is true to say that individual dogs may be more assertive or submissive in character (just as humans show these individual tendencies of character) but dogs are not pack animals and do not display structured hierarchical social behaviour.

If dogs do not display pack behaviour as proposed in pack rule theory, how then are we to expect that they will recognise the significance of those rules when applied by their owners?

In conclusion, in my opinion pack rule theory is most definitely not applicable to dogs and I would question the validity of applying it to wolves.

If you are interested in exploring this subject in more detail, you can find an in-depth article on Dominance Theory at:-
http://www.dogtrainingkerry.net/artic...