Dog Bite

Pixie Chief

I'm no behaviorist (dog or otherwise) but I think that the argument between Wibbs and DBB is down a lot to semantics. I think that the term 'dominant' somehow came to mean a bully of a dog that owners needed to be domineering with in order to control them and also along the way became an excuse for some pretty appalling treatment of dogs in general based on some suspect theories. I would use 'dominant' to describe my foxhound's personality (without reference to any theories - just as a word!). He is very sweet and affectionate but also willful, prone to counter surfing (although much rarer now) and often lacking in respect for his fellow house mates (dog and human). I don't use this word as a reason to abuse him, merely to describe the fact that he would run over the top of everyone in the house if he were let do so. Nothing to do with assertion or aggression, he's a very lovely and loving boy. DBB, I also get your side of the argument in the sense that it has become a dangerous definition to use given that many owners and trainers have used it as a reason to intimidate and sometimes physically mistreat a dog to get them out of bad or inconvenient behaviours without engaging some practical dog behaviour knowledge, thinking and effort. It's really an argument as to whether that word should now be used in relation to dogs at all. Part of the problem is that once a dog has been labelled 'dominant' everything that he does is now attributed to that label which is just as ridiculous as assuming something about the colour of someones skin. For example, my hound does not counter surf because he has a dominant personality. He counter surfs because he is incurably greedy. It's a hound trait to be fair. We dealt with it by leaving nothing on the counters for him to surf. If there is food, he can reach it and there is no one there to stop him, yeah, he's going to eat it. Knowing this, should I expect to punish, intimidate or otherwise bully him into not doing so? No. Would it be effective? No. Would I expect that attempt to make him aggressive because his strong personality won't accept that? Yes, because he won't understand what I'm trying to do. he will just see that he is being punished for eating food that was left there unattended and therefore must be for him! I would maybe make the point that it is the generalisations about what drives behaviours that are dangerous and not the definitions themselves?

DBB

I think a lot of what you say is quite right Pixie Chief, but one thing I will say is that whilst the argument may appear to be about semantics, it goes a little further than that.
As you probably know, every branch of science has words and terms that are used internationally to denote certain things, an international language of sorts. To a zoologist, or behavioural scientist, "dominant" is not the same thing as "domineering" at all, and to mix and match the two causes misapprehension.
You might call your hound dominant, but a behavioural scientist/zoologist would look at you with eyebrows raised to hear someone say this about a pet dog.
A dominant individual is one that's close to the top, at the top, or at least, higher than some others in his group, within a dominance hierarchy. It denotes a position within a power-driven, hierarchical social structure.
But it categorically does not describe a behaviour. Okay, there are certain behaviours one might expect from a dominant member of a hierarchy, but interestingly, these behaviours are not always as described by people who try to apply the dominance model to dogs (or any other animal that doesn't live within a dominance hierarchy), and they are not predictable across the board for every individual. If "dominance" were a behaviour, then it would be consistent and predictable.
Your hound would not be described as dominant by a scientist or behaviorist. He could be described as domineering alright, or stubborn, or pushy, but he is not seeking social status, he is not attempting to lead your pack. That is what dominance looks like, and dogs don't do it. It's all about resources with dogs, one way or the other. It's got nothing to do with social position.

Pixie Chief

DBB wrote: »

I think a lot of what you say is quite right Pixie Chief, but one thing I will say is that whilst the argument may appear to be about semantics, it goes a little further than that.
As you probably know, every branch of science has words and terms that are used internationally to denote certain things, an international language of sorts. To a zoologist, or behavioural scientist, "dominant" is not the same thing as "domineering" at all, and to mix and match the two causes misapprehension.
You might call your hound dominant, but a behavioural scientist/zoologist would look at you with eyebrows raised to hear someone say this about a pet dog.
A dominant individual is one that's close to the top, at the top, or at least, higher than some others in his group, within a dominance hierarchy. It denotes a position within a power-driven, hierarchical social structure.
But it categorically does not describe a behaviour. Okay, there are certain behaviours one might expect from a dominant member of a hierarchy, but interestingly, these behaviours are not always as described by people who try to apply the dominance model to dogs (or any other animal that doesn't live within a dominance hierarchy), and they are not predictable across the board for every individual. If "dominance" were a behaviour, then it would be consistent and predictable.
Your hound would not be described as dominant by a scientist or behaviorist. He could be described as domineering alright, or stubborn, or pushy, but he is not seeking social status, he is not attempting to lead your pack. That is what dominance looks like, and dogs don't do it. It's all about resources with dogs, one way or the other. It's got nothing to do with social position.

I absolutely agree with what you have said there and in a scientific world the use and definition of that word in that way absolutely applies. The problem being is that most people aren't behavioural scientists or zoologists and so there will be disagreements trying to get them to utilise or see the problem with terminology that has nothing to do with their professions or lives in general. The both of you are arguing over the use of a word as it each applies to you and so therefore are both right. You are defining the word in the scientific and theorist sense and are absolutely correct in saying that those theories as they were presented have been largely discredited. Wibbs is defining the word as most of the non-scientific/zoology/behaviourist world would understand it (or at least me) and in that sense, he is correct. It's not the terminology of the word, it's the interpretation of it that is causing the issue. Yes, he is using a word that in scientific circles would be frowned upon but he isn't doing it in scientific circles. You're both right in your own sense of the word, literally!

Tranceypoo

carly_86 wrote: »

She should of trained a dog when it was a pub on how to behave. A dog should growl at someone when his eating

Ummm no a dog should NOT growl at someone when it's eating, why on earth would you think that?

TooManyDogs

I'm always interested in this topic, not so much the dominant/domineering but the pack theory aspect. Living with a herd of 6 dogs (afraid to say 'pack' now :P ) I definitely see structure within my dogs, nothing like wolf packs obviously but still it fascinates me. I know there have been studies into wolf pack structure, dingo pack structure and feral pack structure but has anyone actually conducted any studies into numerous dogs living in a domestic household? I've read a couple of temple grandin's books and she touches on domestic dogs although she, to my knowledge, hasn't done studies into it her theory is wolf packs operate as family structure but unrelated domestic dogs have more of a corporate structure.

muddypaws

TooManyDogs wrote: »

I'm always interested in this topic, not so much the dominant/domineering but the pack theory aspect. Living with a herd of 6 dogs (afraid to say 'pack' now :P ) I definitely see structure within my dogs, nothing like wolf packs obviously but still it fascinates me. I know there have been studies into wolf pack structure, dingo pack structure and feral pack structure but has anyone actually conducted any studies into numerous dogs living in a domestic household? I've read a couple of temple grandin's books and she touches on domestic dogs although she, to my knowledge, hasn't done studies into it her theory is wolf packs operate as family structure but unrelated domestic dogs have more of a corporate structure.

There is a book by Sally Leich, who is one of the most experienced husky people in the UK called Managing a Pack of Siberian Huskies,its not widely available, you can get them directly from Sally. Email is info@forstalssiberians.co.uk

I haven't read it, keep meaning to buy it, in fact will go and email now, but a lot of people with sibes have found it really helpful. A lot of people with sibes in the UK tend to have a good few, as they work them in teams. Not sure if Sally's dogs live outside in kennels, I think they do, but that they do go into the house every day to spend time with the family.

A friend has suggested I write a book on it and my views on it have changed a lot in recent years, through research but also from just experiencing the realities of living with a group of dogs. As I look around me, 2 are asleep on the sofa, 5 on the living room floor and 2 are curled up in the living room crate, the others are probably in on my bed. There hasn't been a fight with blood drawn here now for a long time, we will have the occasional disagreement, but they don't tend to actually fight. Clancy has the situation well under control, if he wants to go somewhere and someone else is already there, he either just stands and looks at them until they move, or just goes and lies on top of them, until they move. Clever dog :rolleyes:

carly_86

Tranceypoo wrote: »

Ummm no a dog should NOT growl at someone when it's eating, why on earth would you think that?

I ment shouldnt

DBB

Pixie Chief wrote: »

The problem being is that most people aren't behavioural scientists or zoologists and so there will be disagreements trying to get them to utilise or see the problem with terminology that has nothing to do with their professions or lives in general.

Would you not think that it behoves the behavioural scientists or zoologists to explain the differences though, so that lay people aren't being misguided by misinterpretation and confusion? It's misuse of the terminology that's responsible for the problem we now have with the term "dominant". People use it to mean something it doesn't mean. The medical or veterinary world will always rectify such misunderstandings, so why shouldn't behaviorists?
And that's all I'm trying to do here! The best a behaviourist can do, as an applier of the science to the real world, is explain to people what it all means, and why there's a problem with using the wrong words to diagnose what's wrong with their dogs.

Bullseye1

DBB wrote: »

Yes. But I specialise more in behaviour than training.

If you don't mind me asking where does one get a qualification in dog behaviour?

DBB

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If you don't mind me asking where does one get a qualification in dog behaviour?

This is a hard one to answer bullseye, because a Google search will show you course after course you can do in behaviour, some online, some more hands-on, some much better than others. Many are run by individuals who gave no training in behaviour themselves, and no form of meaningful external accreditation.
You get your piece of paper at the end and call yourself a behaviourist who has a piece of paper. In fact, you don't even need a piece of paper to call yourself a behaviourist!
However, the "industry" is trying to bring about a standardisation. The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB), based in the UK and the umbrella group for behaviourist and research associations, provides recommendations for what a behaviourist should have, qualification-wise, in order to get certified with them as a Certified Clinical Animal Behaviourist (CCAB) or Certified Applied Animal Behaviourist (CAAB).
To be either, you must have the minimum of an honours degree in Animal Behaviour, and X amount of demonstrable, supervised hands-on experience. I can't remember what the time length is, I think it's a year.
Degree courses are offered in a few UK universities, as are higher levels of qualification, such as PG Diploma and M.Sc. No honours degree courses are available in Ireland right now, but it is possible to do foundation degree level via distance learning with residential blocks in the UK.
Whilst these certifications can't be forced upon anyone, because ASAB's is a pretty rigorous screening process, a quality control process if you like, the knock on effect is that insurance companies will only pay out for consults with such certified behaviourists, the long term aim being that the public will come to learn that there are good ones and bad ones, but at least they'll be able to tell the difference by looking at the certifications the behaviourist has.
Training does not require such a level of qualification at 3rd level, and again, no qualifications are necessary to call yourself a trainer.

inocybe

DBB wrote: »

I think a lot of what you say is quite right Pixie Chief, but one thing I will say is that whilst the argument may appear to be about semantics, it goes a little further than that.
As you probably know, every branch of science has words and terms that are used internationally to denote certain things, an international language of sorts. To a zoologist, or behavioural scientist, "dominant" is not the same thing as "domineering" at all, and to mix and match the two causes misapprehension.
You might call your hound dominant, but a behavioural scientist/zoologist would look at you with eyebrows raised to hear someone say this about a pet dog.
A dominant individual is one that's close to the top, at the top, or at least, higher than some others in his group, within a dominance hierarchy. It denotes a position within a power-driven, hierarchical social structure.
But it categorically does not describe a behaviour. Okay, there are certain behaviours one might expect from a dominant member of a hierarchy, but interestingly, these behaviours are not always as described by people who try to apply the dominance model to dogs (or any other animal that doesn't live within a dominance hierarchy), and they are not predictable across the board for every individual. If "dominance" were a behaviour, then it would be consistent and predictable.
Your hound would not be described as dominant by a scientist or behaviorist. He could be described as domineering alright, or stubborn, or pushy, but he is not seeking social status, he is not attempting to lead your pack. That is what dominance looks like, and dogs don't do it. It's all about resources with dogs, one way or the other. It's got nothing to do with social position.

My dog would fit the classic description of 'submissive', both to people and dogs. He's also a resource guarder though against other dogs, and I think anxiety has a big part to play in that.

DBB

inocybe wrote: »

My dog would fit the classic description of 'submissive', both to people and dogs. He's also a resource guarder though against other dogs, and I think anxiety has a big part to play in that.

Indeed, quite possibly: submissive-type behaviours, such as fearfulness, rolling over at the slightest threat, peeing at the slightest threat, excessive use of other calming signals, avoidance etc etc are often caused by the emotions of fear, or anxiety, which themselves occur for a whole raft of reasons. Similarly, resource guarding often has its roots in anxiety.
However, none of these reasons include that the dog sees himself as low down on the social ladder, or pecking order. No more than a shy or soft-natured human is the way they are due to any pecking order! However, Cesar Milan and his ilk would have you believe that your shy dog is trying to dominate you because he's guarding his possessions!

Pixie Chief

DBB wrote: »

Would you not think that it behoves the behavioural scientists or zoologists to explain the differences though, so that lay people aren't being misguided by misinterpretation and confusion? It's misuse of the terminology that's responsible for the problem we now have with the term "dominant". People use it to mean something it doesn't mean. The medical or veterinary world will always rectify such misunderstandings, so why shouldn't behaviorists?
And that's all I'm trying to do here! The best a behaviourist can do, as an applier of the science to the real world, is explain to people what it all means, and why there's a problem with using the wrong words to diagnose what's wrong with their dogs.

At the risk of being completely semantic myself, I would argue that in the normal usage of the word (and in the psychology world), 'dominant' does not necessarily mean attempting to take over the world. Dominant is referring to a fairly typical personality trait denoting a strong person amongst humans and is not a social construct particularly. Dominance refers to a particular set of behaviors that absolutely have social ramifications, be they in an everyday environment or 'private time'! The two words are not interchangeable in that way. I would have a 'dominant' personality and yet am a natural mediator because it is balanced by other things (like learning the hard way that you can't go at people and expect results!). However, I don't display dominance behaviors any more than my dog does.

I suppose what I am saying is that the word is already in very common usage. It will be much easier over time to change how people interpret that word and the conclusions they reach about how to address problems than it will be to try and prevent everybody from using that word and replace it with something else. The evolution of language suggests that usage of words continues long after their original meaning is long lost and has undergone several changes as to its meaning.

The other point that I would nitpick is 'using the wrong words to diagnose what wrong with their dog.' There is nothing wrong with my dog - mostly because he lives in a home with people who have been around animals all their lives, watching and learning as we go (and screwing up quite a bit along the way too!) and we accept that animals have personalities just like people. It's a real argument for adopting dogs as adults as you get to know their personality before they come home whereas with pups, they grow up to be who they are and sometimes they are in the wrong home. Barring an animal is a real killer which is incredibly rare in my experience in any species, then there is a relationship/personality conflict instead which the humans need to take responsibility for much like with children.

I have no problem with how someone describes their dog. I have a real issue with people expecting their dogs to be robots or 'our old dog never did that'. They don't try to build a relationship with them, merely expect them to fit in their lives with little or no training or interaction. Worse again, there is often an anthropomorphic issue where they ascribe reactions, thoughts, feelings and actions to a dog that are human in nature and can't possibly exist for the dog - 'he did that deliberately', 'he knew that was my favourite whatever and shredded it because I smacked him earlier' - that stuff makes me nuts!

DBB

Pixie Chief wrote: »

The other point that I would nitpick is 'using the wrong words to diagnose what wrong with their dog.' There is nothing wrong with my dog - mostly because he lives in a home with people who have been around animals all their lives, watching and learning as we go (and screwing up quite a bit along the way too!) and we accept that animals have personalities just like people.

Once again, I can't disagree with much of what you say, up to a point at least, but one thing I want to clarify.. I hope you didn't think I was suggesting there's something wrong with your dog?! That was not my intention at all, so please don't take it that way, if you did! When I referred to "people" diagnosing their dogs, I meant people generally, not you specifically

are you serious

I love my dogs as much as anyone, but to throw it out there here's my 2 cents..

If either of my dogs ever were to bite me or someone else for no reason at all, then that dog has bitten its first and last person. The dog is gone, no second chances.

Bullseye1

Dogs don't bite for no reason.

borderlinemeath

are you serious wrote: »

I love my dogs as much as anyone, but to throw it out there here's my 2 cents..

If either of my dogs ever were to bite me or someone else for no reason at all, then that dog has bitten its first and last person. The dog is gone, no second chances.

But dogs don't bite for no reason. There's always a reason. Be it illness, resource guarding, dementia, blindness/deafness or just fear. There's always something that makes them lash out.

are you serious

borderlinemeath wrote: »

But dogs don't bite for no reason. There's always a reason. Be it illness, resource guarding, dementia, blindness/deafness or just fear. There's always something that makes them lash out.

Yeah I fully agree, but I nor anyone else should be bitten because the dog is upset!!

It is not my fault if the dog is sick or any of the other above ilnesses so therefore I should not be bitten.

Bullseye1

are you serious wrote: »

Yeah I fully agree, but I nor anyone else should be bitten because the dog is upset!!

It is not my fault if the dog is sick or any of the other above ilnesses so therefore I should not be bitten.

What if its ill and sod gob****e human is harassing it? Does it have the right to defend itself.

borderlinemeath

are you serious wrote: »

Yeah I fully agree, but I nor anyone else should be bitten because the dog is upset!!

It is not my fault if the dog is sick or any of the other above ilnesses so therefore I should not be bitten.

But it's the dogs way of communicating that he's not well, or not comfortable with somebody close to his food. And the latter is a training issue that the human is ultimately responsible for, so if they choose to ignore the warning signs they only have themselves to blame if they're bitten.

In the OP the dog is an obvious resource guarder, maybe now that the OP has moved home and the family structure has changed somewhat, the dog is more nervous than usual. It would be madness to get rid of a dog in a situation like that, when the human has let the problem fester into something bigger and failed to read the signs.

are you serious

Bullseye1 wrote: »

What if its ill and sod gob****e human is harassing it? Does it have the right to decent itself?

Where have you got the harassing story out of?

My reply is a reply of how I am taking up the context of the OP's topic...
Nowhere does he say he was harassing his dog.
That is why I said for no reason...

If a dog is sick or even if it is fully healthy for that matter and someone is harassing it, I'd be sure a lot of dogs would bite that person...

are you serious

borderlinemeath wrote: »

But it's the dogs way of communicating that he's not well, or not comfortable with somebody close to his food. And the latter is a training issue that the human is ultimately responsible for, so if they choose to ignore the warning signs they only have themselves to blame if they're bitten.

In the OP the dog is an obvious resource guarder, maybe now that the OP has moved home and the family structure has changed somewhat, the dog is more nervous than usual. It would be madness to get rid of a dog in a situation like that, when the human has let the problem fester into something bigger and failed to read the signs.

Most dogs I have ever been around cry,whine and so on to communicate not bite.

No dog should bite a person as its way of communicating with them. Unless its an intruder or someone trying to hurt the owner

tk123

are you serious wrote: »

No dog should bite a person as its way of communicating with them. Unless its an intruder or someone trying to hurt the owner

When your dog is in agony and frightened out of it's mind of the vet coming towards them you might change your mind.

are you serious

Again this is changing the circumstances, and taking it away from the op's topic.

tk123

are you serious wrote: »

Again this is changing the circumstances, and taking it away from the op's topic.

The OP's dog bit after they went to pet it so is possibly in pain?

are you serious

That is why I have said, the dog shouldn't bite its owner, its not the owners fault it might be in pain...

And again I will say, a dog should not communicate by biting, especially not its owner!!

borderlinemeath

are you serious wrote: »

That is why I have said, the dog shouldn't bite its owner, its not the owners fault it might be in pain...

And again I will say, a dog should not communicate by biting, especially not its owner!!

But what if the owners have missed the signs?
What if the owners have corrected the dog in the past for growling and maybe snarling, thus inhibiting the dogs early warning system? The dog has little choice, it knows it will be chastised for growling so it has to resort to plan b.

I don't think dog behaviour is as black and white as you make out. You can't just say 'a dog shouldn't bite his owner' end of. Circumstances, environment, there's so many reasons why things happen the way they do.

are you serious

borderlinemeath wrote: »

But what if the owners have missed the signs?
What if the owners have corrected the dog in the past for growling and maybe snarling, thus inhibiting the dogs early warning system? The dog has little choice, it knows it will be chastised for growling so it has to resort to plan b.

I don't think dog behaviour is as black and white as you make out. You can't just say 'a dog shouldn't bite his owner' end of. Circumstances, environment, there's so many reasons why things happen the way they do.

Ok everyone else bar me is bringing up all these different circumstances which the OP has not mentioned.

I'm saying black and white a dog should not bite its owner or another person for nothing.

I will repeat this time and time again, if the dog is sick/ill/sore/hurt/injured or just not having a good day it still should not bite the owner even if it was chastised for growling or whatever else other story anyone can come up with.


Here's a scenario for all of you then... A story that could match what you have come up with..

You come in from work, when you left for work the dog was fine...
Your dog now has a sore leg/paw/neck/tail..not feeling well or whatever and you dont know about this issue..
You go to rub your dog and it goes and bites you...
You are all saying that this is ok and you do nothing because the dog is sore or is grumpy/not feeling well..

In my opinion that is just Madness!!!

boomerang

You make it sound as though the dog should know better than to bite their owner. It doesn't work like that. Dogs don't exercise judgement as we do, and especially not when they are aroused. It's an emotional response on the part of the dog to fear/stress/pain/threat etc. You might as well say a horse shouldn't kick or a cat shouldn't use its claws.

It saddens me when people hold their (and I use this word kindly) "dumb" dogs to higher account than they ever would a human.

are you serious

boomerang wrote: »

You make it sound as though the dog should know better than to bite their owner. It doesn't work like that. Dogs don't exercise judgement as we do, and especially not when they are aroused. It's an emotional response on the part of the dog to fear/stress/pain/threat etc. You might as well say a horse shouldn't kick or a cat shouldn't use its claws.

It saddens me when people hold their (and I use this word kindly) "dumb" dogs to higher account than they ever would a human.

Both of my dogs have been sore/sick/poorley and have never bitten or growled at me or my partner.
A dog definitely should know better than to bite its owner.

See now this is where a lot of people on this forum are now trying to contradict yourselves on the advice that has been given out on other threads.
For the most part people get dogs as puppies right? And people here say when the dog is a pup and play bites let out a yelp, say no, or other things along those lines so the dog realises that biting is wrong..... or so the dog will know better than to bite.. right???

But now you say when the dog bites its ok just because its sick or not well? Which is it.. It's either ok because the dog sick, or as the advice that is given out as, its not ok because its wrong for the dog to bite....