Kevin Behan....Quantum Canine Episode ‘No Such Thing as Dominance’

I found these videos by Kevin very interesting and well worth having a look to see what you think......

Just to add a human into the mix of things, here is a video of a Border Collie we met for the first time, I have my dog on a lead as we are near a busy main road, but as much as I can I am letting the dogs interact with each other, to start with you will see my dog is sniffing the ground, this is where the Border Collie was laying before I started the video...

My objective was to show as much as I could neutral 'energy' with the view to use a short sharp noise or physical touch if I felt things would escalate into something else.....

To me they are getting to know each other by scent first, then I can see the predator / prey thing Kevin talks about, then a play session starts, you will notice the Border Collie puts both front paws forward, to me thats always an invitation to play, which may develop into other areas.....

Kevin Behan is an interesting guy, but I just don't buy "the hunt begat the pack" theory. I just don't buy this. The wolf is a successful species and has survived, despite the enormous persecution by man, BECAUSE he works as a pack, not a lone individual. The wolf is not a pack species because he was created as such by the need to hunt ... just the opposite. The wolf is a pack species simply because, unlike the cat, he IS just that ... a pack species, a social species, just like homo sapiens. So ipso facto ... the pack begat the hunt, not the other way around.

Every day, I observe my dog dominating and being dominated. He is not an alpha male, unlike my previous dog Hal. He is probably a fairly high ranking beta, a nanny. He is not a beta enforcer, he is not a sentinel, but he has an amazing level of tolerance towards any dog smaller than himself, a bitch or a puppy. These can do not harm as far as Tai is concerned. However, if you are an entire male and you challenge him, he will attack you with no teeth or force whatsoever, but with an amazing level of sound. His snarls would knock you off your feet, and your head will disappear inside his mouth .. but you will emerge with no injury other than a lot of saliva on your hair ! I don't know what level this places Tai at, but I would say a mid-ranking beta nanny. Gucci, daughter's Chihuahua, takes huge delight in sinking his sharp little teeth into the tip of Tai's tail, which has a hook-like genetic fault at it's tip and is very sensitive. Never once has Tai even growled at him for doing this. But twice now Gucci's head has disappeared inside Tai's mouth because Gucci had the audacity to steal Tai's bone.

This is dominance ... respect, if you like, for a rank higher ... or indeed lower ... than yourself. It is nothing about size. Gucci could actually be dominant of Tai, were he a higher rank. He isn't, he is actual a Sentinel. Gucci is a sentinel, a look-out. He is a barker, and reminds me of a little meerkat. He is constantly on alert for danger, sitting up on his back legs like a meerkat sniffing out danger. He is a fairly low rank. This is what pack life is all about, dominance. It is not about hunting, although that is extremely important of course. It is about hierarchy and hierarchy means that you are going to have a King, a Queen, children of King and Queen, and subjects. This is dominance. To say that dominance does not exist in the wolf pack is the same as saying that the pack does not exist, which is of course ridiculous.

I admit my theory seems counter logical, but I feel it is the most conservative interpretation of the evidence. My premise is that the prey controls the predator, (probably because the predator evolved from the prey and so architecture of prey's mind being more fundamental still organizes predator's mind on its more basic level) and so the nature of the prey any given predator hunts determines the nature of that predator. In severe winters the Western Coyote when its regular source of food isn't available, forms packs and marks territory ala the wolf and then as a group hunt Elk, trying to separate calf from its mother, which they normally don't deal with as solitary breeding pairs. Then when the small prey which is their regular sustenance becomes abundant again, they return to their fox-like type of existence. Also, the African Wild Hunting dog is far more submissive than wolves and they are characterized by biologists as the most egalitarian of the canine species. But the nature of the prey they hunt is different, as is their manner of hunting, and so they weren't able to render a domesticated prototype. So these are two examples from the natural world that suggest the manner of prey being hunted dictates the manner of hunting, and that the manner of hunting dictates the manner of sociability.
Great video and hope you don't mind if I take license to make the following commentary. I feel it graphically demonstrates how everything is a function of attraction, the indirect approach of the Westy, and even the initial avoidance of the BC because it eventually is revealed to be a latent form of attraction given the intense urge to play that came out as if a valve had been opened. In the beginning the Westy is indirectly trying to access the collie by not going straight at it but mostly focusing on its preyful essences where it had been lying. When it tries the direct approach the BC puts out the vibe which deters it. But because the Westy's nature is strong, and we can see that he feels connected to BC with a little wag of tail and supple body flex, and so he is nonetheless sure of making contact. Thus he doesn't shut down or overload but rather keeps busy with an indirect way of making contact over the dog's previous bed and meanwhile internalizes the energy so that it can then elaborate into a higher level of attraction as sexual/sensual energy which then induces him to lift his leg. Once the Westy's focus has been deflected (deflection being inherent in sexual/sensual energy) onto the post, the BC is switching from trying to push off dog with vibe, to feeling a pull to dog and so he comes up from behind and by deeply smelling his tail area, now feels connected which opens the emotional valve that had been closed until then. And then we see a surge of "fear" coming out and which was inhibiting him in the beginning to maintaining an avoidance posture, and he begins to do a zoom-zoom about the field. With the compression of fear released he's now able to approach directly (complementing the indirect approach of the Westy) and further differentiate himself from Westy. He lowers his head (minimizing his predatory aspect, and raises his rump, maximizing his preyful aspect) which indicates his valve is almost wide open. He gets as physical as he dares given his sensitivity. So now BC has become Active and Indirect (as it is going from side to side), while Westy is reactive (BC is leading the dance) but direct, (going in and out on a straight line towards BC.) In their aggregate, they are describing a circle, they are manifesting body language and temperament traits that perfectly complement each other and so as opposites they can connect. Note that the weaker, more sensitive dog with the most pronounced preyful body language is the one in control of the interaction. Only when the BC felt safe could they engaged. Until then the BC reflected energy back onto Westy (by being motionless and vibing when necessary) until they could emotionally synchronize over the expression and ingestion of each other's urine (preyful essence). Hope this isn't too disjointed.

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for your interpretation of the video I did with my westie and the border collie, not that it makes much difference but the BC is a female by the way.....

I find it very interesting what you say even if I have a different view of what is going on, however we both agree that this is a good meeting between the two dogs even with me holding my dog on a lead and adding 'energy' to the mix albeit with a mindset of staying as neutral as possible.....this might help convince some people who believe its dogs on leads that cause fights between dogs and this is not the case in my view....it may restrict some of the dogs natural movement but with the right handling can actually stop 2 dogs having a fight by re-directing the 'energy'......or as you may put it change the predator / preyful aspect or ground a charge of one dog, or change attention into attractiveness......

I suppose that with knowledge can come fear, for example I agree that 80% of the time dogs will sort things out amongst each other, but I have also seen dogs tear lumps out of each other with the same method of letting them sort things out being used.....

So I find it better if possible, go on a walk with the dogs first on a lead side by side, your synchronising theory seems to fit with that and then let them sniff each other after an hour or so, it doesnt mean they will be best of 'friends' but I do find it helps with the bonding process......even with dogs that showed lots of aggression to each other when they first met will happily walk side by side I find, as long as you don't stop or go to slow.....if a walk is not possible then use subtle things to block or change the electrical charge between the two dogs to calm things down which I find is much easier when the intensity is lower than a full scale fight or perhaps you would say when the electrical charge reached overload or to a point where one or both dogs charge can't go to ground or handle it any more....

Another point you mentioned in your videos above about in the 1960's of breeders choosing to breed 'friendly' to 'friendly' golden retrievers....I assume you would include golden Labradors in that as well?

In your view they actually bred fear to fear and thats why we see some strange behaviours from them today.....

In the past we have bred dogs for a particular 'job' or purpose not for looks or temperament.....

The Siberian fox farm to me seems a good model to work from on how selectively breeding the first wolves into domestic dogs could have happened much quicker than some people think in terms of appearance....ie a lot of people say domestic dogs are so far removed from the wolf if you look at a wolf compared to say a Jack Russell......

Just wondered what your thought here are....

Yes, when the breeders selected for "friendliness" as a substitute for Temperament, (which is the channeling of emotion to path of highest resistance) they were intensifying the fear/anxiety factor since the real function of friendliness is to dissipate nervousness. It's not the basis of true social, whereas working together as a group revolving around a common purpose, i.e. hunting, is where social energy came from.
Coppinger convincingly argues that domestication could have been faster than we thought, but I believe the Silver fox breeding experiment proves the exact opposite of his conclusion that selecting for approachability is the key component. Because if this is true, why then aren't there fox-protodogs coming from dump sites (not to mention all manner of dump scavengers such as bears, racoons, weasels, coyotes, African Wild Dogs, dingo and so on) as there apparently were to emerge wolf or wolf-like protodogs. So I'm not arguing that dumps didn't play a role, but the core dynamic can't be approachability, but rather the capacity to channel emotion to the path of highest resistance, i.e. hunting together around a common purpose, which I summarize as the moose, and which in many cases it actually is. I believe these fox-dogs are tamed enough so that some canine instincts can come to the surface around humans, but they're not truly domesticated in the fullest sense of the word, which is the capacity to sublimate every impulse to the demands of human society and maintain an attraction to the path of highest resistance when under stress. The tame fox dogs in video aren't displaying Drive, merely canine instincts and "friendliness" and I don't believe that selecting for this trait will ever enable them to do work. I am struck by the degree of feral stereotypical behavior when they are confronted with resistance.
Also, in my model black = predator energy and white = preyful, and the two primal Temperament traits are predator (project energy) and preyful (absorb energy). If an animal can break a complex thing down to these primal values, then it has a coherent means of responding to it, and so it is very compelling that the systems are linked. When I worked with the German trainers they always emphasized the strength of pigment in dogs' eyes and coat and as it turned out nervous system and coat emerge from the same layer of ectoderm (?) in the fetus.
What's interesting about Belyaev is his thesis that behavioral changes are what wrought physical changes in the evolution of organisms and I believe this fits my model better than the current paradigm. When animals have a bigger appetite than their physical means to satisfy it, they develop a sexual energy and this allows them to align and then work together to jointly satisfy their mutual appetites. In other words and at the risk of being a broken record, hunting leads to sociability.

So taking into account of what you say, if a person had multiple dogs who were similar in character / temperament and they were all trained the same way the likelihood is that they won't get on so well as there is no mix of social 'energy' and therefore no common goal and lack of hunting skills to be social with one another......

Using your black and white model, is this a possible reason why Dalmatians to me at least of the ones I have seen appear skittish or nervous?.....in effect they are showing mixed signals.....other black and white dogs that come to mind have more black than white on them and do not as a rule appear skittish or nervous types.....ie border collies......

I have had a number of people tell me that while their dog is in general 'friendly' with most dogs they meet, the same people tell me their dog absolutely hates black Labrador's.....but has no problem with other all black dogs.......do you think this is a combination of being black and the fear to fear breeding of the 1960's?....thats assuming black labs were part of or a result of these breeding practices......

Some people are convinced a Labrador is a soft breed, yet statistics in the UK say more people are bitten by Labs than any other breed.......stats often lie as we know as many other factors can contribute.....ie how many Labs there are compared to other breeds etc.....but this could fit with your theory of them breeding fear to fear......

In my view Labs in general either golden, black or chocolate either seem very 'defensive' or very slave like with not a lot in the middle.......

I haven't looked but I would also guess they look very different in appearance to the rough and ready Labs that were bred before the breeding practices changed in the 1960's...........

Hi Kevin,

I just wondered how this video fits in with your theories....

The dog towards the end of the video seems far from happy to me at being 'cuddled' by the polar bear and one polar bear seems to use his mouth on the high neck area of a dog similar to what another dog may do to another dog...