Do dogs without tails get in more fights?
Anywho, Coren mentioned that he has a hypothesis that dogs without tails have more social difficulty than dogs with tails. His theory is that the tail is the easiest and quickest way for dogs to communicate with each other in greeting: it signals their place in the social hierarchy, their mood, and their intentions for the interaction. He wonders if maybe dogs without tails have a more difficult time making "friends" because other dogs need to rely on figuring out other body lanugage clues since the tail clues are not available. He even noted some amount of dog interactions at a dog park, and noticed that dogs without tails got into more scraps, most or all of which were instigated by the other dog (supposedly because they mis-read the tail-less dog's social cues). What do you think? In my own experience, it does take Tucker longer to make "friends", although I think it may be changing now. I always chalked it up to the fact that we had to remove him from his litter mates at a young 6 1/2 weeks old, but now wonder if there is perhaps another factor. Thoughts  |
|
|
| I love Stanley Coren! I read his book, Why dogs bark, aprox 20 years ago and would refer to that book as my doggie bible. Since then I've read his other books and amazingly just ran across his newest book in the second hand shop today!
He's viewed as quite an expert in doggie behavior and teaches at UBC which is in my city, so I've had the chance to attend one of his lectures. Some folks may not know his name but may be familiar with his 10 smartest dogs list, which has been accepted as pretty factual for the last 30 years. He's usually bang on with many of his ideas but this is one I've often had to ponder about. I had it in my mind a few times when visiting the offleash park and sorta have to agree he may be right. Panda has a stump (bob) and so it's visible when he's wagging his backside. Merlin has nothing visible. Now while Panda is submissive to other dogs and Merlin is dominant this could explain the reason for the reactions of dogs towards them. Merlin always has problems but could be they sense the dominance in him as even as a small pup (which is considered a no no in doggie social rules) he was attacked. I agree the tails are the best indicators as I used to do "educational pet talks" for the Humane Education society a few years ago and when I was trained that was something we started telling our listeners about - the position of the tails as indicators of if doggie was being in playful mood, fear or aggressive state. It's come as second nature now as I always look at dogs tails when being approached by a dog or viewing all the dogs at the offleash to give me an indication of what his/her body language is telling me. There is other indicators too..fur..is it standing upright? A dog in an aggressive mode with make themselves appear as large as possible. Eyes - do they look away or face the other dog head on? (dogs will avoid a face to face look as this is viewed as challenging). It's the reason why in most cases little children get bitten as they may grab a dogs head and look at a dog right in the eyes. In kid terms this means "I love you!!!!" In dog terms this means "I'm challenging you!". Many members over the years have mentioned that the hair in the eyes is confusing to other dogs and as a result they've had problems with other dogs picking on their OES at offleash parks. So it could be a combination of both hair in the eyes and tailess. So I kinda have to agree with Dr. Coren as although there are many other indicators - the tail is viewed as the best indicator from a distance. While the other indicators are from a little bit closer. Interestingly enough I recently read this about Manx cats too in terms of how other cats view them even tho they have a whole other set of social signals. Marianne |
| That would be easy to establish scientifically.
We need a cohort study of tailess dogs, with a control group of tailed dogs of the same breed. Then we put them to play in multiple sessions over a period of time at a dog park, and see how many altercations the tailess dogs get into vs. the tailed control group. |
| First of all let me say I have not read this book but I have heard a lot about the author. My first three sheepies were real bobtails, the sheepies that I have at the moment are with tails. Where we stay we can take the dogs for a walk without a leash, our first sheepie was very submissive and we had no problem with him, the second was dominant and got into scruffs with other dogs regularly, with the third one it was different then he lived as second in the pecking order and over the years I have noticed that when you have more than one sheepie when it comes to a scruff the other dog will attack the under dog and not the leader, this has happened on many occasions and with all our dogs with or wothout tail. I agree this is possibly partly to do with the signals given from the tail but I also think it is also partly to do with dogs not being socialized properly, then I am convinced this is something passed on from mother/ father to the pups, futhermore if you have a dominant dog you have to be very consequent in the training of the dog and all during his future life. This thesis about tailless dogs has been discussed here in Germany for many years and involving many breeds although I do not know of anyone coming to a conclusion regarding this subject, but certainly I agree with this possability that the missing tail make it harder for another dog to determine the mood. Please remember that the Old English Sheepdog used to be a herding / guard dog and he still has this passion in him so he will retaliate should another dog challenge him, they are not just these big teddy bears which we think they are they will also protect you if the need arises although they will not show needless aggression.  |
I am not a fan of Stanley Coren....  ...He has some good ideas, but I find a lot of his theories old-fashioned. In many ways he has not come forward into teh new and improved recognized as scientifically proven ways of dog-training.
That being said, this is not his theory..the whole tailess dog thing, I mean.. The postion of the tail is simply one of the many ways that dogs communicate with each other...take it away and there is one less thing for them to use. Just like the hair in the eyes, etc. It has been suggested that black dogs have a harder time being read, as if they have dark eyes, too, it can be a problem.. But a puppy that is well socialized when it is young learns what works and what doesn't work. The reaon they the "teen" dogs tend to have more tussles is because their level of testosterone is the highest between 5 months and 11 months, so other dogs see them as a threat..Put that together with the puppy licence that they have been accustomed to, and you get a bouncy, annoying, rude teenager who is not well-liked by other males..
All very interesting stuff! BTW, my tailed Bosley is kind of confident and can be a bit bossy in large groups. My bob-tail Dixie is very submissive...She knows what works for her and never starts trouble with any other dogs., but is sometimes picked on...But when that happens Bosley flattens them, anyway... l |
| As Bosley's Mom wrote "The postion of the tail is simply one of the many ways that dogs communicate with each other...take it away and there is one less thing for them to use. Just like the hair in the eyes, etc. "
SOme dogs go on the instant offensive (defensive ?)with my OES. Trqainers have said : no tail, no eyes, no real ears" If the dog is in full coat it is even possible that the other dog can't make out a real dog outline. I know mine hav eless trouble meeting other dogs when they are shaved down. ANd Bosley's mom: can you explain what you mean by this? "I am not a fan of Stanley Coren.... ...He has some good ideas, but I find a lot of his theories old-fashioned. In many ways he has not come forward into teh new and improved recognized as scientifically proven ways of dog-training." |
| Chauncey is bobbed and is not dog ( or other wise aggressive ) except for being protective of Bob. We're working on that.
He was attacked at about 9 mos. old ( he's now 2 1/2 ) by the pitbull/ridgeback mix across from us. This dog has been declared as "dangerous " by the local authorities based on this and other prior attacks. The dogs owners are being very responsible and have complied by the many restrictions that the county has placed on the dog. Occasionally, the dog will be in the window or behind secured door and Chaunce will get this low gutteral growl if we are out in the yard, he has not got over that attack. He otherwise loves to greet & play with other dogs. He was dominated by Eli, our cat that passed away last year. I feel that animals as humans base life on prior experiences and they simply do not depend on one trigger when dealing with the unknown. |
kerry wrote: ANd Bosley's mom: can you explain what you mean by this? "I am not a fan of Stanley Coren.... ...He has some good ideas, but I find a lot of his theories old-fashioned. In many ways he has not come forward into teh new and improved recognized as scientifically proven ways of dog-training." Stanley Coren has a nice, calm composure, and can show how we do not need to be loud and frantic and mean to our dogs. He shows how to reward dogs for behaviors we want. If people can understand and use this it is a good thing for dogs. However, he still uses force and intimidation that is totally unnecessary. Stanley Coren, Jan Fennell, Cesar Millan.....they all have come partway out of the dark ages...then stopped.....Their ways are a confusing mixture of the old and the new. Nothing earth-shattering, or original...but not the most current. None of them have done any scientific studies of their own, or are even up-to-date on the latest, newest, more recent scientific research. Heavens, Coren's book in Dog Intelligence was a result of a bunch of questionaires sent out to obedience judges. And he is a Psychologist....formally studied people...not dogs.... They all still go by the now defunked alpha and dominance theories....But it sells...and people like to stick by them because it works....It works for them, not the dogs....But they all are better than nothing at all, and at least come partway to teaching people that dogs derserve respect and to explain, somewhat, about body language...All these are good for dogs. Karen Pryer, Ian Dunbar, Paul Owen (the original Dog Whisperer..  ), Jean Donaldson, Pam Reid, Pat Miller, Patricia McConnell and the like have moved on, gotten past the much spouted "we must be in control" attitude. They understand that dogs are not trying to take over the world and work at educating a peaceful, non-violent co-existence.. And they have degrees in animal behavior sciences, along with years and years of research and working with dogs.
Everyone has thier own beliefs but I put my dog's future and my relationship with them in the hands of the people who have the most knowledge and are familiar and understand the most modern studies.....Just because someone says so, doesnt' mean it is right..... It might have been right at one time, because that is the information was available at the time....But if we learn that things have been proven otherwise, as far as I'm concerned I adjust my ways and beliefs accordingly. |
| Nicole - I love that you mentioned what you DO like about Coren. Personally, I have yet to read a book where I agree with 100% of what was written or would try 100% of the recommended techniques. I think the most effective thing is to do as much reading and research as possible, and then combine what you believe in, what you think is right, and what works for you and your dog and keeps you both happy and healthy. I pick and choose attitudes, beliefs, and bits and pieces of information from everywhere and smush them all together.
Like you, Nicole, I want to use as much positive training as possible. I am an avid user of clicker training, which is fun, rewarding, and successful for Tucker and I. From the reading I have done, there are two major schools of thought. There is the "dogs have wolf ancestry so we should interact with them in a way that is instinctual and familiar to them" philosophy, and then there's the "love your dog and make him part of your family as you would a child: with rules, respect, and love". I haven't found too many dog experts who seem to have effectively put the two together. Do you think the dog pack/wolf mentality is outdated?? Here is my main question: what does it matter? I dont mean that flippantly, only to mean that if something makes sense to you and your dog, it works, and you build a strong and healthy relationship with him, then does it really matter whose philosophy you follow? |
| Excellent post! Nicole and Mel and Tucker's Mom.
I think the best thing for any member is to read, read, read all the available books out there and there are many. You both are correct, read a variety of material, take snippets from many dog behaviorist, and find what works best for you and your dog. There are some that need a firmer hand (this doesn't mean physical but more fiqure of speech)while others need a gentler approach. The prime example in my household is Merlin and Panda. Each came from different temperments and what worked for one wasn't necessarily the best for the other. Marianne |
| OOps "Why dogs bark" was written by Desmond Morris. Forgive me as that was 20 odd years ago when I read that book.
Marianne The Stanley Coren book I picked up at the second hand shop is called "Why We Love The Dogs We Do", how to find the dog that matches your personality.  I already know the answer to that..ha ha..but should be fun to read. |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|