Female Geese Trying to Mate with Each Other

[AquaEyes]

The concept of "dominance" is such that in a relationship between individuals, one concedes to the other based upon a hierarchy. Animals living in social groups do not necessarily have a dominance hierarchy, but in those species that do, the dominance of an individual does not change throughout the day without challenge-conflicts. Dominance acts to reduce aggression -- when one individual recognizes another as being of "higher rank" then it surrenders to it without fighting. If it was about dominance, then the dominant individual would always be in the superior position. If the position of the individuals change throughout the day, it is not about dominance, because changes in a dominance hierarchy occur after challenges won by previously subordinate individuals. In other words, if they "take turns" about who is in what position without fighting, it is not about dominance.

i'm not sure about geese, but my ducks do that all the time in their pool. i have all females, and they take turns being on top. The one on the bottom submits by flattening out like a pontoon boat with her tail up, so it doesn't appear to be a dominance thing.

I think the reason people jump to the "dominance theory" to explain this behavior is that they have blinders on -- if it can't possibly lead to reproduction, then it must be something unrelated to sex. The animals, however, don't have enough "cognitive abilities" to make this distinction. Mating behavior results from an initial stimulus which triggers motivational behavior that will lead to incentive/reward. In other words, something triggers the animal to engage in the behavior in anticipation of the "feel-good" finish. Anything else that comes of it is purely outside their abilities to reason.

 

[RHRanch]

The concept of "dominance" is such that in a relationship between individuals, one concedes to the other based upon a hierarchy. Animals living in social groups do not necessarily have a dominance hierarchy, but in those species that do, the dominance of an individual does not change throughout the day without challenge-conflicts. Dominance acts to reduce aggression -- when one individual recognizes another as being of "higher rank" then it surrenders to it without fighting. If it was about dominance, then the dominant individual would always be in the superior position. If the position of the individuals change throughout the day, it is not about dominance, because changes in a dominance hierarchy occur after challenges won by previously subordinate individuals. In other words, if they "take turns" about who is in what position without fighting, it is not about dominance.








I think the reason people jump to the "dominance theory" to explain this behavior is that they have blinders on -- if it can't possibly lead to reproduction, then it must be something unrelated to sex. The animals, however, don't have enough "cognitive abilities" to make this distinction. Mating behavior results from an initial stimulus which triggers motivational behavior that will lead to incentive/reward. In other words, something triggers the animal to engage in the behavior in anticipation of the "feel-good" finish. Anything else that comes of it is purely outside their abilities to reason.

I have a dog, and she is always mounting things... blankets, toys, women's legs,etc. Many people have insisted that she has "dominance" issues, but that's not it at all... she is enjoying the activity, and will do so compulsively when in the mood. Its actually pretty obvious what her objective is if you observe her without jumping to a conclusion.

 

[AquaEyes]

Exactly. Same behavior, but when there are two members of the same sex involved, people automatically jump to the "it's a dominance thing" explanation, perhaps to avoid an "uncomfortable" explanation. But when an animal does the same thing to inanimate objects...well...I guess your dog is showing her dominance over the objects in her environment.

I have a dog, and she is always mounting things... blankets, toys, women's legs,etc. Many people have insisted that she has "dominance" issues, but that's not it at all... she is enjoying the activity, and will do so compulsively when in the mood. Its actually pretty obvious what her objective is if you observe her without jumping to a conclusion.

 

[Country Parson]

This has nothing to do with avoiding "same-sex" issues, since in different-sex animal sexuality the dominace instinct is also operational. That's why its called an instinct...it is always at play.

You want to reduce this to merely physical pleasure. Sure, that's part of it, but its hardly the entire story. Listen, I am not interested in defending or attacking the "gay goose" theory that appears to be the sub-text of the conversation, and perhaps the reason for not wanting to see that other instincts other than sexual attraction are ALSO at play. If that is the ultimate point of the conversation than I will bow out and say no more, as I find the discussion too politically charged and unfruitful. Suffice to say, there are several instinctual responses at play among these two geese in confinement....including dominance, but also automated sexual response to eternal stimuli. Not sure why this is even debated. To remove dominance (or any other instinctual response) from the equation is to turn 200 years of scientific research on its head. This is the basis of all naturalistic and behavioral studies.

As to the dog, YES. The dog is showing dominance over its environment (as well as acting on a clear sexual instinct). There have been many studies on the interplay between dominance and sexuality for canines (especially among wolves). Its not an either/or. Its a both/and. Sexuality among animals is a dominant act. I'm not sure why this is such a controversy. The presence of the dominance instinct does not reduce or negate the reality of the sex instinct.

To the OP, good luck with your geese. Their behavior is very normal and should cause no concern. It does make it difficult to correctly differentiate the goose from the gander at times, which is part of the reason I went with Pilgrims (they are auto-sexing: white = gander, grey = goose).

 

[Miss Lydia]

This has nothing to do with avoiding "same-sex" issues, since in different-sex animal sexuality the dominace instinct is also operational. That's why its called an instinct...it is always at play.
You want to reduce this to merely physical pleasure. Sure, that's part of it, but its hardly the entire story. Listen, I am not interested in defending or attacking the "gay goose" theory that appears to be the sub-text of the conversation, and perhaps the reason for not wanting to see that other instincts other than sexual attraction are ALSO at play. If that is the ultimate point of the conversation than I will bow out and say no more, as I find the discussion too politically charged and unfruitful. Suffice to say, there are several instinctual responses at play among these two geese in confinement....including dominance, but also automated sexual response to eternal stimuli. Not sure why this is even debated. To remove dominance (or any other instinctual response) from the equation is to turn 200 years of scientific research on its head. This is the basis of all naturalistic and behavioral studies.
As to the dog, YES. The dog is showing dominance over its environment (as well as acting on a clear sexual instinct). There have been many studies on the interplay between dominance and sexuality for canines (especially among wolves). Its not an either/or. Its a both/and. Sexuality among animals is a dominant act. I'm not sure why this is such a controversy. The presence of the dominance instinct does not reduce or negate the reality of the sex instinct.
To the OP, good luck with your geese. Their behavior is very normal and should cause no concern. It does make it difficult to correctly differentiate the goose from the gander at times, which is part of the reason I went with Pilgrims (they are auto-sexing: white = gander, grey = goose).

I always thought that with animals is was all about keeping the species going and not about pleasure. We are talking animals here not humans. I have to agree with Country Parson.

 

[AquaEyes]

This has nothing to do with avoiding "same-sex" issues, since in different-sex animal sexuality the dominace instinct is also operational. That's why its called an instinct...it is always at play.
You want to reduce this to merely physical pleasure. Sure, that's part of it, but its hardly the entire story. Listen, I am not interested in defending or attacking the "gay goose" theory that appears to be the sub-text of the conversation, and perhaps the reason for not wanting to see that other instincts other than sexual attraction are ALSO at play. If that is the ultimate point of the conversation than I will bow out and say no more, as I find the discussion too politically charged and unfruitful. Suffice to say, there are several instinctual responses at play among these two geese in confinement....including dominance, but also automated sexual response to eternal stimuli. Not sure why this is even debated. To remove dominance (or any other instinctual response) from the equation is to turn 200 years of scientific research on its head. This is the basis of all naturalistic and behavioral studies.
As to the dog, YES. The dog is showing dominance over its environment (as well as acting on a clear sexual instinct). There have been many studies on the interplay between dominance and sexuality for canines (especially among wolves). Its not an either/or. Its a both/and. Sexuality among animals is a dominant act. I'm not sure why this is such a controversy. The presence of the dominance instinct does not reduce or negate the reality of the sex instinct.
To the OP, good luck with your geese. Their behavior is very normal and should cause no concern. It does make it difficult to correctly differentiate the goose from the gander at times, which is part of the reason I went with Pilgrims (they are auto-sexing: white = gander, grey = goose).

First off, there is no "dominance instinct." Dominance is a relationship that develops as a result of interaction. If there is no other individual with which to interact, there is no "instinct" to dominate inanimate objects because those inanimate objects do not engage in a relationship with the individual that results in conflicts. I think you need to become more familiar with terms as they apply in ethology before you use them in an argument.

What is involved in dominance is that a relationship is established between individuals based on the outcomes of an aggressive interaction, whereby the "victor" maintains his/her status over the "loser" in future encounters without resorting to repeated physical aggression. It's based on the premise that individuals benefit from avoiding possible harm resulting from repeated bouts of physical aggression by learning a hierarchy -- individual A is dominant over me, so I will submit when there is a conflict, because he will win if we resort to fighting (this is the anthropomorphic explanation of the relationship -- the animals themselves simply require the ability to pair the association of an individual's presence with either assertive behaviors or submissive behaviors, based on rewards/punishments from previous encounters).

If a relationship is based upon dominance, the hierarchy is maintained until challenged, and the previously "submissive" individual usurps the previously "dominant" individual. Such a change requires an aggressive encounter for the roles to shift. If a behavior is thought to be based on dominance but the roles shift without aggressive "challenge" encounters, then it can't be based upon dominance.

If you want to say it's about dominance, then you'd have to demonstrate that a dominance relationship was made, and that the positions taken in the behavior remain fixed based upon the relationship. In other words, goose A is the dominant individual and is always doing X, and goose B is the submissive individual and is always doing Y. The relationship would require an aggressive encounter for the roles of the individuals to change. If these parts are missing, then dominance cannot be used to explain the behavior. This is how things work in science -- if a proposed explanation is missing vital components in an observed case, then the proposed explanation must be discarded for another.

This is not about "gay geese." That would require the presence of opposite-sex alternative partners, and individuals who demonstrate an aversion to the opposite sex and an exclusive attraction to the same sex. When the opposite sex is not available, any sexual behavior between same-sex individuals cannot be confidently claimed as evidence of the individuals being "gay,"

This is about explaining why an animal does something, and I simply say that the physical stimulation of the behavior acts as a reward to reinforce the behavior. The geese go through reproductive cycles influenced by hormones, and will experience times when they seek the physiological reward provided by the stimulation of mating. Lacking an opposite-sex individual of their species, they will simply seek the next-best alternative. In the case of the OP, that means another member of their species that happens to be of the same sex. They are not seeking to "dominate" another individual, nor do they have an instinct or drive to be "dominant" over something else, simply because their behaviors do not satisfy the concept of dominance.

 

[AquaEyes]

I always thought that with animals is was all about keeping the species going and not about pleasure. We are talking animals here not humans. I have to agree with Country Parson.

Pleasure is reward-sensation which increases the frequency of a behavior. "Keeping the species going" is a concept that requires the individual to have the cognitive ability to understand that mating leads to reproduction, which would imply that the geese are much smarter than they are. Animals don't "know" that mating leads to reproduction. They experience the effects of hormones which initiate behaviors that lead to pleasurable reward stimuli. The effect of these behaviors (reproduction) are not able to be connected cognitively to the act (mating) that led to it. The hormones which initiate breeding behaviors and physiological changes do not always require the presence of an individual of the opposite sex -- hens will lay eggs without a rooster. Thus the female geese will experience the homone-induced motivation to engage in mating behavior, but lacking a male, will "improvise" to obtain the desired incentive of a pleasurable stimulus which is the end-result of mating. Once the "choreography" of the mating behavior is accomplished, and the pleasurable stimulus is experienced as a reward, the behavior will be reinforced through learning. The results of mating behavior may lead to reproduction, but the animals don't "need to know this" in order to engage in the behavior.

 

[AquaEyes]

Here is a short test to determine if the behavior is based upon dominance.

Is Goose A always in the superior position, with Goose B always in the inferior position? If not, does the change in position follow an aggressive encounter, in which the new victor becomes the one taking the superior position during the behavior? If still not, then dominance is discounted.

If Goose A is always in the superior position (suggesting the behavior is based upon dominance), what about encounters and interactions that don't involve this behavior? For example, if a single treat is presented, is it always the case that Goose B concedes to Goose A if they both arrive at the treat at the same time? If not, then there is no dominance-based relationship between A and B.

Does the behavior occur throughout the year with no pattern (suggestive of dominance), or is it mostly (or exclusively) during the short interval prior to laying (suggestive of mating behaviors)?



The idea of attaching dominance to mating behaviors -- typically implying that the male is asserting dominance over the female -- is a result of interpretation clouded through the Victorian ideas about human relationships and man's superiority over women, and the belief that the female's role in "reproductive behavior" was to merely accept/tolerate the advances of the male. The idea of females exhibiting their own mating drives was considered ghastly.

Unsettling observations of contradictory patterns in nature led to the demise of this concept. For example, in spotted hyena society, the females are the dominant gender. They are larger, more aggressive, and males concede to females. Yet during mating, the male assumes the classically-interpreted "dominant" position. Does this mean that this is his "one shining moment" in which he is dominant to the female? No. It's simply the position adopted during the behavior.

Back to the geese and why they do it. The simplest explanation, and the one that withstands testing and "if...then" statements, is that the geese are performing mating behaviors with each other because the motivation to do so is hormonally induced and incentive-driven and independent of the presence of a gander.

 

[littledear]

Okay people after reading I just want to say that I will take a goose or gander's behavior over a human's behavior any day. Animals only behave the way nature intended them to behave; Humans add in all kinds of egotistical reasons for behavior. Geese can't be BAD and humans can. Good humans are wonderful and that said any behavior by animals other than man is acceptable even the instinct of continuing the species by sexual instinctive behaviors even between two animals of the same sex as it is not equivalent to a human's behavior no matter what direction you are looking at it from. I also agree with AquaEyes.

 

[Miss Lydia]

I am with you littledear on the part about taking a goose or ganders behavior over a humans behavior, and apologise for not knowing why my ducks do this kind of behavior nor do i care. They seem to enjoy riding along on each others back and they cause no harm to each other so Thats it. I just assumed [which i shouldn't have ] because right now I am seeing my Muscovies ducks not the draskes chasing each other and grabbing each others tail feather and mounting each other on the ground. And I just thought it was one trying to dominate the other, I don't know what the heck this is? My gander has made it very clear to my 2 drakes that he is King over everyone else and after a few years of him having to remind them they finally admit it too. I don't understand the behavior but it's okay.

Okay people after reading I just want to say that I will take a goose or gander's behavior over a human's behavior any day. Animals only behave the way nature intended them to behave; Humans add in all kinds of egotistical reasons for behavior. Geese can't be BAD and humans can. Good humans are wonderful and that said any behavior by animals other than man is acceptable even the instinct of continuing the species by sexual instinctive behaviors even between two animals of the same sex as it is not equivalent to a human's behavior no matter what direction you are looking at it from. I also agree with AquaEyes.