The Scientific Method and Canine Social Behavior Theory

The scientific method offers us a logical progression of steps to follow in the development of scientific knowledge. In science one proposes a hypothesis. The hypothesis is formulated and then tested. A good hypothesis is based on established or verifiable premises, is internally consistent, is used to explain current observations, is verifiable by a variety of observations, is able to predict future observations and is malleable. [Kamal] A good hypothesis must also be compatible with universally accepted theories and laws. [Kemerling] A hypothesis that can meet these criteria and can stand up to testing and scrutiny can be generally accepted as a model which is tested and scrutinized further. 'scientific models are mental pictures that account for observations in the outside world and predict new phenomena.' [Kamal] If it does not hold up to scrutiny it is rejected. If it can stand up to testing and scrutiny then it is usually universally accepted as a theory. If it can withstand a significant amount of time and scrutiny then it may become a law. Very few theories become laws. Theories cannot be proven but they can be disproven. [Kamal] 'A good hypothesis meets several standards. It should provide an adequate explanation of the observed facts. If two or more hypotheses meet this standard, the simpler one is preferred. It should be able to predict new facts.'
http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/BiologyPages/S/ScientificMethods
A critical review of pack theory shows that it is based on flawed and confounded premises and hence is incompatible with established knowledge. Simpler and therefore more desirable models exist with which to describe the social behavior of domestic dogs. What follows here is a critique of pack theory which necessitates discussion of both and wolf social behavior since wolf behavior has historically been used to purportedly validate pack theory in dogs.
Pack Theory
There are several pack theory models being reviewed presently. The original theory has been widely invalidated. I will briefly address the invalidating arguments and then assess three contemporary pack theory models.
Historical Model of Pack Theory
Pack theory has been the predominant hypothesis used to describe and predict dog behavior for the last everal years. Pack theory describes the social behavior of dogs based partially on researchers' observations of captive wolves through the 1940s. It sets a framework for understanding how wolves interact, by describing a hierarchically stratified social structure among wolves with the most dominant male at the top and each successive member in a linear relationship below him. The theory sets forth an understanding of wolf social behavior such that the members are ever vying for higher rank while the dominant alpha wolf continually asserts his status with aggressive displays. This theory must be addressed because it is fallaciously used to understand domestic dog social behavior.
These studies were the first of their kind and short term. [Alexander] This reduces the likelihood that proper sampling was done and that generalizable data were collected. As well, the researchers spent an inordinate amount of time observing hunting behavior. [Alexander] One problem with that is that this may tell us about the social behavior of wolves while hunting but may not tell us much about the social behavior of wolves when they are not hunting, which really is the majority of the time.
It is considered by many that the ritualistic behaviors were misinterpreted by these initial researchers who applied previous models designed based on the observations of chicken social behavior. [Alexander] This is not to say that dominance is not a valid theoretical construct, just that the researchers were influenced by the dominance paradigm and may have interpreted observations subjectively in order to suit the paradigm they had chosen to model wolf social behavior with. Wolf populations studied were primarily captive and hence did not behave 'normally' and those that were wild were aware of their observation. [Bach] These animals did not behave normally which affected the validity of the researchers' interpretations and hence the model derived from them. [Bach] 'Most research on the social dynamics of wolf packs, however, has been conducted on wolves in captivity. These captive packs were usually composed of an assortment or wolves from various sources placed together and allowed to breed at will... In nature, however, the wolf pack is not such an assemblage.' [Mech] Mech goes on to discuss the problem with such an arrangement. 'Attempting to apply information about the behavior of assemblages of the 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. The concept of the alpha wolf as a 'top-dog' ruling a group of similar aged compatriots is particularly misleading.' [Mech] This is the most serious flaw in this initial research as the system was so contrived that the interpretations cannot be assumed to be valid. In many cases contrivance is necessary in the study of a phenomenon in order to control for confounding factors or for ease of study but at some point it becomes the most serious confounding factor itself as is the cases here. Now, if we are prepared to invalidate the theory as it relates to wolves because of these flaws then it is self evident that we must also invalidate it for dogs who are a completely different species of animal. Weak scientific methodology was used in these initial studies and conclusions cannot be accepted as valid. But there are new data available from more recent and more controlled studies which offer data for models of wolf and dog social behavior.
Contemporary Models of Pack Theory
Since the original pack theory model was proposed it has been widely dismissed because it was based on faulty premises. More recently in the field of wolf behavior (which is where pack theory comes from originally and hich affects the validity of pack theory applied to domestic dogs and also in the field of domestic dog behavior) there have been models proposed which are essentially variations of pack theory. Some are functional, parsimonious and based on more solid research and some are even less plausible than the original hypothesis. What follows is a review of a few of these models and hypotheses.
Mech's Model of Pack Theory (Wolves)
David Mech is a wolf behavior researcher who conducted a 13-summer study of wolf social behavior on Ellesmere Island in Canada from 1986 to 1998. The wolves were not captive and he desensitized them to his presence. Mech sets the stage for his variant model of pack theory by explaining that 'Little is known about the interactions between breeding males and breeding females under natural conditions, and about the role of each in the pack and how dominance relates to these relationships.' [Mech] This alludes to the invalidation of the original theories. Also setting the stage Mech states 'Thus, no one has yet quantified the hierarchical relationships in a wild wolf pack.' [Mech] Mech argues that the term 'Alpha' is a common source of confusion and misrepresentation. He explains that much of the interpretation based on determination of the alpha were invalid and misleading. Mech explains that a wolf pack is a family in which there is a breeding pair who raise young that disperse usually at or before 2 to 3 years of age. During that time Mech explains that the breeding pair is dominant over the cubs and that the breeding pair are role oriented and only rank oriented within that context. When it comes to issues involving the cubs the female is dominant over the male and when it comes to issues outside of that context (e.g. food getting endeavors) the male is often dominant. Mech also points out for sake of perspective that dominance or submissive displays are rare. Mech argues that the breeding pair should more rightly be termed 'breeders' rather than alphas. 'Labeling a high ranking wolf alpha emphasizes it's rank in a dominance hierarchy. However, in natural wolf packs, the alpha male or female are merely the breeding animals, the parents of the pack, and dominance contests with other wolves are rare, if they exist at all. During my 13 summers observing the Ellesmere Island pack, I saw none. Thus, Calling a wolf an alpha is usually no more appropriate than referring to a human parent or a doe deer as an alpha. Any parent is dominant to it's offspring, so 'alpha' adds no information. Why not refer to an alpha female as the female parent, the breeding female, the matriarch, or simply the mother? Such a designation emphasizes not the animal's dominant status, which is trivial information, but it's role as pack progenitor which is critical information.... The point here is not so much the terminology but what the terminology falsely implies: a rigid force-based dominance hierarchy.' [Mech] Mech does offer a scenario in which alpha may potentially be functional. In large packs with multiple breeders the older breeders are likely dominant over other breeders and the term alpha may be used to describe this breeder pair. Mech's research demonstrates that the only consistent determinant of dominance or rank is the animal's postures during social interactions. The dominant wolf stands up and forward with tail up while the submissive individuals lower themselves and 'cringe'. The submissive animal 'licks up' to the dominant animal. Active submission is identified as deriving from food-begging behavior '...I find active submission and food-begging indistinguishable.' [Mech] Passive submission is characterized by the wolf rolling over to allow the more dominant wolf to smell the anogenital region if he chooses to. Originally it was Lockwood (1979) who suggested that postural responses were indicators of dominance. Van Hoof and Wensing (1987) have confirmed this and now Mech offers more data to suggest that postural interaction is the only consistent indicator of dominance yet identified.
In his concluding remarks Mech states 'The typical wolf pack, then, should be viewed as a family with the adult parents guiding the activities of the group and sharing group leadership in division of-labor system in which the female predominates primarily in such activities as pup care and defense and the male primarily during foraging and food-provisioning and the travels associated with them.' [Mech] Mech's research provides actual and valid quantifiable data from which to formulate a model of canine social behavior. Mech clarified some deep seated misconceptions about wolf pack behavior which may help shed light on misconceptions of certain popular theories of dog social behavior. The problem comes when dog owners requiring applied techniques to deal socially ith their pets start making unsubstantiated false inferences and assumptions based on this data. The theory's value omes in predicting wild wolf social behavior which helps us manage wild wolf populations. This theory does not, nor does it purport to, offer data that may be used to understand domestic dog behavior within a household. 'The degree to which these arguments apply to other species no doubt varies considerably and is beyond the scope of this article.' [Mech] What does this model tell us in short? It tells us that what little actual valid research data we have available indicates that wolf packs operate as a family with a hierarchy of dominance based primarily on breeding status, not on a 'pecking order' hierarchy. Breeders are role-oriented in their respective division of duties. This model also tells us that much of the historic pack theory hypothesis is invalid based on present knowledge and that inferences drawn from it are mostly incorrect and misleading. Some inferences may be correct but they cannot be validated by proper scientific study. When applied to wild wolf packs (not captive packs and not domestic dogs) this theory seems plausible, functional and versatile.
Lindsay's Review of Pack Theory (Domestic Dogs)
Steven Lindsay (2001) helps elucidate pack theory as it relates to the domestic dog by reviewing the research and theory on the topic. Lindsay assesses these models and leads us to a more enlightened stance on pack theory. Lindsay is cognizant of the problems of historic pack theory. '...what exactly is meant by such notions as social dominance and dominance aggression is far from clear and unambiguous.' [Lindsay,vol2,233] 'Besides the injection of misleading adversarial motivations into the dog's social behavior toward humans, such general explanatory constructions may conceal more by their sweeping generality than they reveal. Such interpretations may also serve to justify inappropriate and abusive training practices.' [Lindsay,vol2,234] 'Although the term dominance is used with great alacrity and confidence as an explanatory construct, at a most fundamental level there is considerable confusion about what is meant by the ideas.' [Lindsay,vol2,234]
'In other words, dominance is not a personal or biological trait per se but a predictive inference based on a pattern of win-lose contests between two or more animals. The term dominance denotes a predictive assumption regarding the most likely outcome of any future competitive event occurring between two contestants. In terms of extremes, the dominance relationship can be termed rigid (implying a high probability to any prediction) or fluid (implying a low probability to any prediction). Most complex social organizations are structured around a loose dominance hierarchy, suggesting that the outcomes of most agonistic encounters are predictable but are not certain. Since dominance is not a trait belonging to an individual, but rather an emergent social attribute arising out of competitive interaction, it is not reasonable to speak of dominance as an inherited trait (Barrette,1993). Although dominance per se may not be inherited, some characteristics (e.g., size and behavioral thresholds) conducive to competitive success may be heritable.' [Lindsay,vol2,235] Lindsay describes active and passive postural submission signals as Mech does referring to Schenkel (1967). Lindsay describes the structure of hierarchies among dogs as a very complicated system involving various alliances and contextual influences. One possible reason that these relationships are so complex is perhaps because they are unstable due to the unnatural quality of such arrangements. If the Coppinger's theory (2001) is correct then dogs have a different sociability than wolves and if one dismisses the Coppinger theory in favor of one that presumes dogs are much more like wolves then either way unfamiliar and unrelated dogs living in a household, playing in a dog park or even as stray or free roaming 'packs' are not natural associations. Therefore, understanding dog social behavior in terms of Mech's wolf pack model will not offer functional information on domestic dogs. The complexity of their relationships may be and adaptive behavior of domestic dogs to less than natural environments. This complexity may also reflect the significant differences between the present day domestic dog and the present day wolf. Artificial selection has altered many behavioral sequences in the dog and it is difficult to imagine that sociability has not been affected. Dogs must be considered in their own right if we want a model valid for them as a species. We cannot simply hijack a model designed for another species with a completely different living arrangement and perhaps completely different sociability. Rather than put pack theory in a family context Lindsay describes competitive events and personality type as determining factors in dominance hierarchies and social dynamics. Domestic dogs are rarely kept in family units and free from the disruptive influence of humans and so Lindsay describes the dominant dog as one who is 'aloof' and less social than others; is larger and more competitively successful and who consequently expresses more confident body language. This is a plausible interpretation as it is based primarily on generally accepted knowledge of dog behavior such as the observation that aloof dogs receive more submissive behaviors from others than do non aloof (actively or passively submissive) dogs and that dogs are variablly driven and sensitive when it comes to competitive events.
In the context of dominance aggression Lindsay explains: '...most dominance aggression appears to be the result of social confusion, frustration, irritability, contact aversion, and learning. Rather than being socially dominant, many dominance aggressors simply appear to be socially incompetent and unable adaptively to navigate the social and interactive demands placed upon them without biting.' [Lindsay,vol2,241]
This suggests that when aggression is used, confidence is unlikely. Lindsay describes dominance more in terms of 'control seeking' rather than 'status seeking' and much control seeking is not based in confidence and is often the result of learning that is held within the framework of species specific and inherited underpinning. Dogs are competitive and some are more competitively driven than others. So there is a clear distinction between the dominant confident dog and the dog often labeled dominantly aggressive suggesting that when aggression is used confidence is unlikely rather than highly likely.
'Many social animals appear to form dominance relations among themselves around situations tending to evoke competition, such as access to food, resting areas and sexual privileges.' [Lindsay,vol2,235] It is not controversial that dogs are competitive and act to maintain or gain valued stimuli. The contentious issue is whether we need to reference dominance relationships in order to elucidate these issues. Learning theory which is well established, and quantification of drives and sensitivities may provide a simpler and more versatile model for these events. This notion is plausible and functional to an extent. It explains how dominance is an emergent trait of social relationships based on competitive drives. Lindsay is prepared to speculate a bit more than Mech on the mechanisms underlying the behavior that is observed and interpreted and his speculations are generally safe; they are based on presently generally accepted premises. The theory offers a conceptual framework for understanding domestic dog social behavior dynamics as well as providing some predictability in the system. The problem with supporting any form of pack theory will be the misguided inferences drawn by the general public and professionals alike. It would seem more parsimonious as well as less harmful in final result to simply dispense with pack theory and view domestic dog social behavior from a learning theory perspective with phylogenetic considerations and a quantification of a particular dog's drives and sensitivities.
Misconception, Misinterpretation and Misapplication
Mech and Lindsay have proposed workable models of wolf and dog social behavior respectively. These models meet the standards of a functional theory but the common inferences and interpretations made by dog owners, most trainers and behaviorists are not consistent with these two viable models. One quality of a good theory is that it is the simplest explanation for the phenomenon and is consistent with present knowledge. Learning theory and drive theory are certainly on less shaky ground than the ethological theory of dominance hierarchy. By far the most commonly accepted variant model of pack theory involves significantly different assumptions. One of the first and most influential pack theory models applied to dogs is typical of today's common interpretation of pack theory and was delineated in Training Dogs by Most (1910/1955).
'In a pack of young dogs fierce fights take place to decide how they are to rank within the pack. And in a pack composed of men and dogs, canine competition for importance in the eyes of the trainer is keen. If this state of affairs is not countered by methods which the canine mind can comprehend, it frequently ends in such animals attacking and seriously injuring not only their trainers, but also other people. As in a pack of dogs, the order of hierarchy in a man and dog combination can only be established by physical force - that is, by an actual struggle in which the man is instantaneously victorious. Such a result can only be brought about by convincing the dog of the absolute physical superiority of man.' [Most]
The most recent, popular and widely known pack theory variant model is typified by Nancy Baer and Steve Duno in their 1996 book titled Leader of the Pack How to Take Control of Your Relationship With Your Dog. This is the version most dog owners and trainers accept as representing pack theory. This is not simply another variant of pack theory as described here; this is pack theory to most people. The only difference between Most's model and Baer and Duno's version is that most, but not all, trainers who support pack theory now suggest psychological domination rather than physical domination. They do not challenge the basic premises; they merely adjust it enough to prevent as many people getting their faces bitten off as they can. Of course when it comes to humans we know that psychological abuse is no better than physical abuse. The hypotheses implied by Baer and Duno would not be seriously considered by a true scientist as the flaws are obvious and ubiquitous. Baer and Duno portray dogs as status seeking animals with a rigid hierarchy. The book is highly anthropomorphic in its choice of language. The authors explain that the alpha dog is the most dominant, that he is ever vying to maintain his status as the alpha and that other dogs are ever vying for the position themselves. The authors explain that the alpha is 'altruistic' and that he consciously accepts the 'responsibility' of his 'rank' and that it is his 'right' to access the 'privileges' of that rank. The alpha is described as domineering and that he keeps the other dogs in check with symbolic reminders of his position, offered as 'proof' that he is alpha. The alpha is described as 'grateful' for the deferenceof the subordinates.The authors go on to explain that there are specific'responsibilities' and 'privileges' expected of and forthe alpha:
Leaders eat first
Leaders initiate and control interactions
Leaders maintain a dominant posture
Leaders go first
Leaders control their space and possessions
Leaders protect their packs
Leaders are calm, fair and confident
The authors explain that dogs will try to achieve these positions and if they are successful they will believe that they are the alpha and that they will continue to maintain their status by dominating the owners whenever and wherever they can. The authors explain that if an owner wants to have a good relationship with their dog they need to psychologically dominate the dog repeatedly and continually. The authors explain that the owners need to instate a militant atmosphere in which they the owners perform the leadership qualities described above. There is no evidence that dogs interpret this domineering treatment as anything but confusing. The idea is that the dog will infer from these acts that the owner is the dominant animal but this is unsubstantiated and probably untestable. One problematic feature of the popular concept of pack theory and status seeking involves cognitive ramifications. These concerns are dealt with by Bach. 'We are the only species that battle over status for the sake of status. This is because only man understands the FUTURE privileges to resources that status or rank evokes....
Animals do battle only over the acquisition of present resources not the acquisition of 'status' or 'rank' and its promises for the future. I do not believe that animals perceive how other animals can affect their future....
Because of this belief, any time animal behavior is interpreted using anything about them planning around other animals for their future, I think the interpretation has to be inaccurate. Therefore I don't accept the theory that wolves fight to gain status as alpha so that the other wolves will give them breeding, eating and sleeping privileges in the future.' [Bach,69]
Some notions Bach suggests are arguable but there is not yet convincing evidence that wolves or dogs perform the abstractions and generalization necessary for such symbolic conceptualizations as 'status'. Status seeking would suggest an incidence of 'reflective consciousness' as described by Griffin (2001), and in this context there is no convincing evidence yet described that this is taking place. This is not to say that it does not exist, just that science has not recorded convincing evidence of this application of reflective consciousness in wolves or dogs yet. I would insert the word "distant" prior to the word "future" in the quote above if I were the author. The scientific method must be used to help us understand these issues. Baer and Duno suggest that dogs are capable of understanding and applying concepts such as altruism, gratitude, rights, responsibilities, distant future privilege etc. These are highly conceptual abstractions and represent reflective consciousness. Again, there is presently no evidence to lead us to believe that dogs are capable of these symbolic representations let alone that they are demonstrating them in this application. This is not to say that dogs are not 'perceptually conscious' as described by Griffin (2001) or even that they do not occasionally possess some reflective consciousness sometimes but it is baseless and implausible to hypothesize that a dog consciously seeks status for the sake of achieving access to distant future privilege without verifiable evidence. It is easy to say they do or may but without evidence it becomes a problematic premise on which to build a hypothesis that one hopes will be generally accepted. I should say that I believe dogs think and possess internal mental states, but I would not feel confident enough in the evidence to accept as valid a theory of social behavior that implied such beliefs. Beliefs are not knowledge. There is no need to go through each characteristic attributed to the most dominant or the alpha dog as the fact remains that the burden of proof lays with the pack theorist to offer evidence for critical review. Present knowledge tells us that we do not know a lot about wolf social behavior dynamics but that what we do know tends to invalidate these pack theory attributes. Most if not all male wolves that live long enough do in fact breed; they disperse from their families and start one of their own. [Mech] The notion that there is this big community of dogs or wolves competing for alpha status simply is not the way it really works. [Mech] Dominant wolves do not lead hunts. Reid explains that in most cases they do not lead at all. Dominant wolves do not protect the pack. The evidence shows that they protect themselves. Dominant dogs or wolves do not and cannot simply approach other, perhaps subordinant dogs and take from them a bone they are chewing on. The research shows that the dog or wolf who has the object is almost always successful at defending it no matter what the respective ranks are. [Mech] The alpha male does not categorically dominate the alpha female. They each have family roles to play and the male is often and predictably subordinate to the alpha female. [Mech] With each new piece of more solidly collected data we learn that pack theory in its traditional sense and its commonly accepted contemporary sense is built on invalid premises.
Dogs are not wolves and it is scientifically unacceptable to transfer pack theory to domestic dogs. Since traditional pack theory is invalid with wolves it must be rejected as invalid for dogs. Even if it were not flawed for wolves it is unacceptable to offer scientific validity to the transference of this theory to dogs. Dogs were never the animal we observe as wolves today. Dogs and wolves may have evolved from a common ancestor but present-day wolves and present day dogs are not the same animal. If what the Coppingers theorize is even close to true dogs are vastly different in their sociability. Heritage is not the same as being the same animal. Social behavior models for domestic dogs must be developed based on observations of dog behavior not on observations of wolf behavior regardless of any similarity or heritage. At best wolf behavior hypotheses can offer a topic of inquiry into dog behavior but they must address actual dog behavior before it can be validated as a model valid for dogs. The most important problem with the commonly accepted variant of pack theory is not that it does not correlate well to reality but rather the consequences of the theory. Inferences derived from pack theory cause adversarial and hostile relationships between humans and their dogs. The fact is that while Mech's model and Lindsay's reviews rest on valid premises, are internally consistent and offer functionality -- in other words they raise to the criteria needed for a hypothesis to become a generally accepted model or theory -- they are not the models used by the vast majority of the people who come into contact with it. Almost all dog owners as well as most dog trainers and behaviorists hold beliefs more in line with Most, Baer and Duno. Unfortunately, inferences based on this flawed variant of pack theory have led historically to such applied practices as the 'alpha roll' or 'scruff shaking' and more contemporaneously psychological forms of dominance rather than physical. The theory implies the need for an adversarial relationship and for the owner to dominate the dog. In practice, pack theory is not conducive to a healthy relationship and bond between owners and their dogs as it stands in practice.
Alternatively
It is not necessary to model the social behavior of the domestic dog in terms of a ranking system of who is over or under who else. The system is too fluid and dynamic for such a simplistic notion as hierarchy. If we recognize that dogs are capable of adaptive learning as outlined by the learning theory of operant and classical conditioning and that adaptive learning is applied by dogs to avoiding danger (or unpleasant stimuli) in favor of safety (or pleasant stimuli) then we have a well tested and well established theory from which to achieve predictability in dog social behavior.
Of course learning alone does not account for all dog interactions. Phylogenetic considerations must be considered also. Dogs have evolved to have certain general tendencies and species specific behavioral responses to certain stimuli. Dogs are social, and affiliative and agonistic behaviors are common to all dogs.
One model for predicting dog behavior involves the opponent process theory of drives and sensitivities. Each dog possesses a compliment of drives (what they act to achieve) and sensitivities (what they act to avoid). If we appreciate that dogs will employ adaptive learning strategies toward those opposing influences within the confines of their phylogenetic, species specific makeup then we can predict their social behavior. If two dogs meet and their drives and sensitivities clash then conflict is more likely and affiliation is less likely. If two dogs meet and their drives and sensitivities do not clash conflict is less likely and affiliation is more likely. If two dogs possess the same drives in context and intensity a clash of personality is more likely and conflict is more likely than affiliation. If one dog's drives conflict with another dog's sensitivities then a clash of personality is more likely and conflict is more likely than affiliation.
Testing these hypotheses would involve identifying a dog's drives and sensitivities, making predictions on their combined interaction and then validating or invalidating the hypotheses. In a future essay I will outline a detailed model of canine social behavior.
Concluding Discussion
It is my contention that the time has come to do away with pack theory. When one has been seeped in pack theory for so long it is very difficult to motivate one's self to dispense with the terminology and conceptualization. There are simpler and more functional models available. Lindsay's review of pack theory would allow for a perfectly useful theory if it were not for the fact that pack theory is now so polluted with misconception that it does more harm than good. People want to think anthropomorphically about their dogs and so if we describe to the general public a theory of dog behavior that discusses status and hierarchy these owners are going to be thinking that their dog is 'thinking' about how to overthrow the household government, which leads to another very human tendency - to dominate. If on the other hand we talk about learning theory and behavior systems theory we are offered, inferentially, a remedy based on the solid theory and laws of learning theory.
I argue to abandon pack theory in any form or variant so that we can also leave the misconception behind. It is important to dispense with the terminology of pack theory as well. As long as we continue to use words such as hierarchy, alpha, rank, dominance etc. we cannot help but conceptualize in pack theory paradigms and perpetuate the damage. By dispensing with adversarial models of behavior we can start to affect positive change in the human-animal bond. The argument is often made to me that we need not throw out the baby with the bath water. I'll not answer in analogy but I will say that it is unlikely that the general public and profession of dog training will be able to sort the scientific from the unscientific in pack theory and as long as this goes on dogs will continue to be treated in an unethical and counterproductive manner. People do not tend to understand the subtle distinctions but the consequences speak loud and clear. Perhaps in the context of wild wolves, pack theory is useful and scientists will be able to sort through the facts and myths but in terms of a domestic dog in a household, learning theory and behavior systems theory offers sufficient functionality and lead to less problematic inferences and an enhanced human-animal bond. So yes, this may be a wide counter swing of the pendulum but it it my opinion that it is required and that there exist alternative models with which to fill the void.
References
Alexander, Melissa, Interview with Dr. Ian Dunbar,
www.clickersolutions.com/clickersolutions/articles/dominance
Kamal, Dr Syed Arif, What is a Scientific Method After All ',
http://drakamal.8m.com/drak_articles/dra3.htm
Kemerling, Garth, Scientific Explanation,
www.philosophypages.com/lg/e15.htm
Lindsay, Steven, Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training volume 2001.
Mech, L. David. 1999. Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1196-1203. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/alstat/alstat.htm
Most, K. Training Dogs. New York: Coward-McCann reprint. 1910/1955.
Rugaas, Turid. On Talking Terms with Dogs, Calming Signals.
http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/
James O'Heare, Dip.C.B., Dip.ACP., Dip.A.S., C.C.B.C. is the Executive Director of the Academy of Canine Behavioral Theory (www.ACBT.ca) and owner / operator of Gentle Solutions Applied Canine Behavioral Services
www.GentleSolutions.net