What Mech Actually Says About Dominance

WHAT MECH ACTUALLY SAYS ABOUT “DOMINANCE”

-- AND WHAT THAT MEANS

Note: This document is excerpted from my manual, “Raising the Perfect Canine Companion.”

By: Stephen C. Rafe

In the published paper, “Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs” (1999) author David Mech states:

“The prevailing view of a wolf (Canis Lupus) pack is that of a group of individuals every vying for dominance but held in check by the ‘alpha’ pair, the alpha male and the alpha female. Most research on the social dynamics of wolf packs, however, has been con-ducted on non-natural assortments of captive wolves.” He added: “Attempting to apply information about the behavior of assemblages of unrelated captive wolves to the familial structure of natural packs has resulted in considerable confusion. Such an approach is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying humans in refugee camps.”

While the strength of this analogy can be challenged on the basis of deprivation alone (food, exercise, etc.), the fundamental concept is acceptable. A pack of wolves in the wild differs from a pack of wolves that has been artificially assembled in a loosely confined situation.

Nonetheless, Scott and Fuller add in "Animal Behavior," Second Edition Revised, p. 120: "We found that we could identify more than sixty different behavior patterns in the dog and that almost all of these could be found in similar forms in wild wolves." (Those behaviors are categorized in Scott and Fuller’s book, "Dog Behavior" [p. 63-65].)

In that context, Mech presents the opportunity to observe, with considerable justification, that our domesticated dogs more closely approximate the unnatural pack situation in their familial situation with humans and other animals.

On that basis, leadership skills -- as domesticated dogs display and use them – may even-further remove us from the concepts of “dominance” and “subordinance” for describing dogs' hierarch-ical interactions. The concept of a "leader" and "follower" relationship is reflected in the work of wolf ethologists although not addressed specifically as such. In the context of relationships with domesticated dogs, this concept becomes increasingly attractive.

This will illustrate the point: Dominance behaviors are implicitly threatening and whether they succeed depends upon a submissive response from the other dog. Acquiescence in one instance does not mean the dominated dog will follow the other dog's leadership in future encounters. By contrast, leadership behaviors are generally non-threatening by nature and tend to enhance the likelihood of compliance in future encounters.

While both are established and maintained through body language, vocalizations, behavioral consistency, and other transactions, the outcomes are distinctly different. Dominance, expressed primarily through intimidation, has a short-term effect and is highly situational. Leadership may include dominance behaviors, but is established more through transactions that build trust, bond-ing, a willingness to follow, and more. It tends to have a long-term effect and is far more stable than dominance.

-- End of Excerpt --