behaviour (for example a sit) is repeated
a few times for a click and then a treat,
the owner then begins to train the animal
a cue (like the word “sit”). The trainer then
only marks and rewards the behaviour
if the animal does it after the cue has
been given. Once a behaviour is on cue
the trainer can stop using the clicker and
just reward the animal with a treat. The
method has been used to teach dogs
like Pugsley to dance, clams to clap
their shells and goldfish to swim through
hoops. The idea is that if it eats, it can be
clicker trained. The method was a more
positive way of thinking - helping dogs to
learn what we want rather than punishing
what we don’t want. It implied, much
to the upset of traditional ‘dominance’
trainers - that dogs wanted to partake in
desirable behaviours but just didn’t know
how. This seemed to also refute the idea
that dogs behaved because they wanted
to challenge their owners...and science
also backed this up...
wolves in the living room...
The mythology which had been used to
explain our domestic dogs’ behaviour
in the past, also changed around the
same time. In the late 60s, we believed
that because dogs and wolves were the
same species, they must behave the
same too. A guy called Dr Mech wrote
a book called The Wolf: Ecology and
Behaviour of an endangered species
and in it he noted his observations on
captive wolf packs. He had theorised that
dogs, like wolves, are pack animals and
have a natural linear hierarchy (i.e. an
“Alfa” at the top who leads the pack). He
suggested that dogs also dominant each
other - fighting for higher positions. In the
60s this opinion became very popular
amongst dog trainers and handlers. A
good dog owner would dominate their
dog and show that they were Alpha by
behaving the way Mech had witnessed
his “Alfa” wolves behave. Pinning dogs
down and trying to get them to ‘submit’
was the only way to establish a good
pecking order in the house. Challenging
dogs were thus referred to as ‘dominant
dogs’ and all behaviour from trying to go
through the door first; to wanting to sit on
the sofa - was explained in the context
of the dog attempting to dominate the
owner and establish a higher position in
the pack..
However, Mech himself points out, in his
2008 article Whatever Happened to the
Term Alfa Wolf? that, having then studied
wild wolves in natural pack formation behaviour was far more social than he
originally thought. Packs behaved more
like family units, based on cooperation
as opposed to conflict. He explained
that conflict would displace families and
leave the wolf packs in more vulnerable
positions and that guiding their young
lead to a more secure genetic future and so benefited all.
86
Biologist Dr Ray Coppinger also
challenged this household meme,
supposing that it was actually quite likely
that dogs domesticated themselves
and changed their behaviour patterns
to adapt to settlements. The early
view that humans kept wolves as pets
and bred the easiest ones to handle
seemed not only hard to imagine (when
catching and containing wild wolves it
so impossibly hard - let alone selectively
breeding them for domestication), but
also unlikely. He described ancient
wolves that learnt themselves that it was
easier to live off human waste than to
hunt - with the tamest dogs that could go
closest to the humans thriving and thus
producing more offspring. He explained
that it was then much more useful
to study free roaming village dogs in
developing countries, than wolves - if we
wanted to know how dogs behaved in a
natural state. These free roaming village
dogs didn’t form packs. They compete
against each other for resources and
because they rarely hunt have smaller
brains and less powerful jaws and teeth
(just like domestic dogs).
Dominance is dying...
These important changes in
understanding domestic dog origin
as well as how dogs learn has bred
a new type of dog training practice.
A practice which is built on theories
and experiments and not upon myth.
Actually much of the practice is based
on logic too. When we break down
a dog’s behaviour we see that they
are perfectly functional creatures.
Renowned behaviourist Dr Susan
Friedman explains: “There is an inherent
connection between an animal’s
behaviour and the environment in
which it behaves. Science confirms
that behaviour doesn’t spray out of
animals willy-nilly like water from a
leaky showerhead: Animals behave for
a reason, to affect the environment in
some way.”
Those ‘dominant dogs’ who want
to sleep on the sofa as a way of
symbolising a challenge to you - their
leader - are perhaps smarter than we
first thought? When we look at the