Pack Heirarchy In Dogs

[jesomil]

Well thank goodness. I was beginning to feel unloved.

;) I think it is just a given that your posts are always awesome, and well written. Sorry i forgot you earlier ;) .

Hi Lilli. From what you are saying, there are some breeds who have more of the wolf style pack structure. Very interesting.

Thanks for the link Sardog, i am off to go and check it out!!

Edited July 31, 2007 by jesomil

[Cosmolo]

I'm with Erny- starting to feel so unloved!! Interesting thread jesomil!

[Pippi]

We, SARDA - Search & Rescue Dogs Australia, are bringing Tom Middlemas out from Scotland, arriving on Sept. 14th for a sar training workshop, assessment and re-testing the operational sardogs for their bi-annual upgrade.

I have forwarded this thread (thus far) for his input.

He lived with and studied a wolf pack in Canada for 9 months and produced amazing information back regarding the pack structure etc. He has extensive writings regarding same and has been approached to write "another" book on this topic but to date he has not made much progress.

I hope he can send dol his input (probably via me) on this subject, if not, I will ask him personally as he will be with us for 3 weeks.

He recently lost his wolf "Kai" at the age of 19yo (was domesticated to a certain degree). He went to live with Tom as a 5yo I think. His webpage refers to Kai.

www.tommiddlemas.com

I was interested to read on that website mention of his "Natural Method of Dog Training" but disappointed that there was no explanation of what that actually meant (according to his version).

I am familiar with "Natural Dog Training" as practiced by Kevin Behan and others, and as discussed in his book of the same name. Do you happen to know whether this is the same method that Tom Middlemas is talking about and practices.

[Staranais]

Wolves and dogs, whilst closely related by DNA (BTW, did you know that the Greyhound carries 99% wolf DNA?), are two different animals these days.

Not arguing with you Kelpie-i, but my inner geneticist just wants to point out that we share approximately 96% of our DNA with the chimp, and our behaviour is really rather different. You can't really equate a % DNA difference to a % behavioural difference, these things just don't correspond in a linear fashion. One gene can have many effects on the behaviour or physical strucure of an animals, or very few.

Also, to a rough approximation, we share half our genes with the banana. Kind of puts things in perspective.

Going back to you're earlier post, Erny on releasing a domesticated "pack" of dogs into the wild, i agree with what you say. I feel many of the instincts would re-surface, despite the thousands of years of domestication.

I do think it would be fascinating to release a group of domestic dogs into the "wild" and see how they establish pack structure and how well they survive. But I doubt a study like that would be funded, and doubt even more that it would pass an ethics committee. Observational studies done on feral dog populations are probably the best we're going to get, since these animals are dogs which have already reverted to the "wild" state.

I've got an hour off from study, and I'm a geek, so I've gone and grabbed those studies on wild dog populations (I really should be learning the extrinsic muscles of the canine forelimb, but this topic is much more fun!)

OITANI L, CIUCCI P

COMPARATIVE SOCIAL ECOLOGY OF FERAL DOGS AND WOLVES

ETHOLOGY ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION 7 (1): 49-72 APR 1995

Pal SK

Parental care in free-ranging dogs, Canis familiaris

APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE 90 (1): 31-47 JAN 2005

DANIELS T J [Reprint author]; BEKOFF M [Author]. POPULATION AND SOCIAL BIOLOGY OF FREE-RANGING DOGS CANIS-FAMILIARIS [Article] Journal of Mammalogy. 70(4). 1989. 754-762.

Behavior and ecology of a small group of urban dogs (Canis familiaris)

Fox, M.W. / Beck, A.M. / Blackman, E. , Applied Animal Ethology, 1 (2), p.119-137, Apr 1975

I can't copy and paste those here, they're copyrighted, but if you live near a uni you can look them up. There are probably a few more out there, these were all I could find today.

But basically, these say that, although many of the instincts have "resurfaced", the feral dogs that people have studied have looked at still don't live just like wolves. They don't form a stable pack with communal offspring care for the alpha pair's pups, like wolves do - they tend to hang out in unstable groups and most of the females breed. They don't hunt in a pack - feral dogs tend to cling round human settlements scavenging for our garbage. But sometimes (although not commonly) they do form a pack that defends territory from other dogs though, just as wolves do. And they do appear to have a loose social structure, they seek out others of their own kind, and prefer to live in pairs or groups, possibly with some hierachy structure involved.

If we prevented them from having any human contact and left them alone for a few thousand years, perhaps they'd turn more "wolfy" again as only the strongest survived? Or perhaps we've changed them so much that they simply can't survive without people, kind of turned them into a "parasite species"?

I love topics like this, they're so interesting. ;) Thanks for starting it, Jesomil!

[Erny]

They don't hunt in a pack - feral dogs tend to cling round human settlements scavenging for our garbage.

My point being though that in this instance/reference there remains a human impact on their behaviour. What you've written is talked about in one or the other (or both) of the books I've mentioned in an earlier post (Lorenz and/or Coppinger) - the difference in pack structure where hunting (as opposed to scavenging) is a primary necessity for survival. If the human settlements were not available to them, what then would instincts demand of them in the sense of pack structure ..........................

Thanks for the info regarding us being half banana. Puts a different slant on the image of one 'peeling' one's clothes off. Wonder if that's an instinct that remains, albeit weakly and semi-forgotten.

PS ;) Now get back to muscles in dogs ...... but don't forget to pop in here later. ;)

Edited August 1, 2007 by Erny

[Staranais]

My point being though that in this instance/reference there remains a human impact on their behaviour. What you've written is talked about in one or the other (or both) of the books I've mentioned in an earlier post (Lorenz and/or Coppinger) - the difference in pack structure where hunting (as opposed to scavenging) is a primary necessity for survival. If the human settlements were not available to them, what then would instincts demand of them in the sense of pack structure.

That's a good point, but that also assumes that dogs can survive without access to humans? In all the studies I've seen (and from what I've seen in real life!) feral dogs seem to instinctively prefer to hang out near human settlements and scavenge our waste, even when they have the opportunity to form a real pack and hunt, even if the humans in the village actively drive the dogs away when they see them.

Would dogs even survive if we forced them away and ensure that they had absolutely no access to any human settlement? I'm not sure if they would. I sometimes wonder if being around human settlements is now the "natural" habitat for the dog, and forcing them to exist on their own in the "wild" might be "unnatural" to them and go against many of their instincts that we have selected for over the last ten thousand years?

Interesting idea that strong stable pack structure is a result of wolves hunting not scavenging. But doesn't this depend on exactly what they are hunting? e.g hunting big game successfully needs more than one wolf so that promotes pack structure, whereas in areas where canines have to survive on small game such as rabbits that one wolf can easily catch, that probably doesn't encourage the formation of pack structure, right?

[BJean]

Hi Lilli. From what you are saying, there are some breeds who have more of the wolf style pack structure. Very interesting.

Hi jesomil ;)

I don't know enough about wolves to be able to make that comparison to their pack structure

but what I do know, is that some breeds of dogs do have a set pack structure - yes -

and this was necessary to allow them to live and 'work' together, moreover it made them safe around humans.

Also Anatolians for instance, although they existed alongside their herdsmen

they were pretty much left to fend for themselves.

They also, apart from receiving a very minimal diet from the herdsmen, hunted for themselves.

This is why I believe that the previously mentioned 'nose punch' is so normal for the breed, and not other behaviour being misread.

Another ancient flock guardian breed - the Caucasian Ovcharka (which many believe shares the same ancestoral history as the Anatolian) is another breed of dog that is so pack / defence / territory orientated, that it is quite unique in its defensive abilities - however it is considered a dog for rural / isolated areas only - and is another breed that would challenge and take on a human as if it was another member of its pack.

These dogs are quite unique in their pyschological make up - I find them fascinating - but they definitley see the world with a strong sense of order, where everything has its place.

Ancient flock guardians - being landrace breeds - come from a place and a way of life before our time - it is why I am so passionate about preserving the pockets of these dogs that still exist (okay its offical I'm a LGD geek ).

Edited August 1, 2007 by lilli

[Erny]

That's a good point, but that also assumes that dogs can survive without access to humans? In all the studies I've seen (and from what I've seen in real life!) feral dogs seem to instinctively prefer to hang out near human settlements and scavenge our waste, even when they have the opportunity to form a real pack and hunt, even if the humans in the village actively drive the dogs away when they see them.

I can only suspect that many of the pack structure instincts would return to a closer assembly as that of the wolves, on the assumption of course that the dogs released to the wild survived long enough for this to occur. But these are only my thoughts. Nothing scientifically founded or read up on.

Would dogs even survive if we forced them away and ensure that they had absolutely no access to any human settlement? I'm not sure if they would. I sometimes wonder if being around human settlements is now the "natural" habitat for the dog, and forcing them to exist on their own in the "wild" might be "unnatural" to them and go against many of their instincts that we have selected for over the last ten thousand years?

Sorry Am - I am being simplistic in my pondering. All is reliant on the assumption that the dogs would survive long enough for deeply ingrained (but perhaps forgotten) pack instinct to emerge. Obviously, it would be an impractical and inhumane experiment to take dogs who do not possess the skills necessary for survival without humans and send them out to fend for themselves completely.

Interesting idea that strong stable pack structure is a result of wolves hunting not scavenging. But doesn't this depend on exactly what they are hunting? e.g hunting big game successfully needs more than one wolf so that promotes pack structure, whereas in areas where canines have to survive on small game such as rabbits that one wolf can easily catch, that probably doesn't encourage the formation of pack structure, right?

The necessity to hunt as a group was one factor suggested that influenced the advantage towards having a strict 'pack' code. It wasn't merely exclusive to this though - there is also the pressure of the pack remaining from harm. There are also other factors - all having a bearing on being best for survival of the pack. I remember one example being when a member (eg) dies/is injured, having a "vertical" pack structure makes it more efficient for the 'next' dog in line to fulfill the void. When you're in potentially life threatening elements and environments, it wouldn't go towards survival of the pack to frequently need to re-shuffle and sort pack order. You'd want that to occur as swiftly and as smoothly and with the least amount of friction/tension possible. I will need to re-source the information and refresh my memory for more detail.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Erny

[Kelpie-i]

Not arguing with you Kelpie-i, but my inner geneticist just wants to point out that we share approximately 96% of our DNA with the chimp, and our behaviour is really rather different. You can't really equate a % DNA difference to a % behavioural difference, these things just don't correspond in a linear fashion. One gene can have many effects on the behaviour or physical strucure of an animals, or very few.

Am, I was not saying that DNA similarities carry the behavioural similarities - quite the contrary. I was merely trying to say what you stated in your first sentence above, however you put it a little more eloquently.

There was documentary on Foxtel a little while ago about feral dogs who roam the streets of Italy (cannot remember where exactly). There was about 9 or so of them who had formed a pack and had been living as such for years. They would scavenge around the various eateries and cafes, some had even learned to perform tricks ie. shake hands or rollover etc for food. A family decided to take one of the dogs (it looked like an Aussie Shepx or B/collie x) into their home as they had grown fond ot if. They bathed it, fed it, bought it a new collar etc. The film crew filmed this dog with his "adopted" family for a few weeks and the dog seemed to sulk and was very uninterested. Not sure how long after, but the dog managed to escape and reunited itself with the pack.

The most interesting part of this was the pack, upon seeing him wearing a collar, proceeded to chew the collar off him. The end of the documentary sees the dogs hanging around a church where a town celebration was taking place with hundreds of people in attendance - once again the dogs were scavenging for food and pats but looked extremely happy.

My observation was that whilst they ran in a pack, each dog scavenged for food individually and funnily enough, there was no mention of a hierarchy during the entire documentary.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Kelpie-i

[DeadWombat]

Would dogs even survive if we forced them away and ensure that they had absolutely no access to any human settlement? I'm not sure if they would. I sometimes wonder if being around human settlements is now the "natural" habitat for the dog, and forcing them to exist on their own in the "wild" might be "unnatural" to them and go against many of their instincts that we have selected for over the last ten thousand years?

There's plenty of wild dogs running around the Victorian high country and while they aren't completely isolated, they are certainly a long way from anything that would allow them to live a scavengers existence. Interestingly enough, I've seen lots of wild dogs up there over the years and the only time I've ever seen multiple dogs together (pack) was a bitch with 3 pups in tow. (and they were hanging around a ski resort scavenging)

There seems to be ample evidence that these dogs hunt in packs (lots of dead sheep on the lower plains) but I've never seen or heard of them running together at any other time. It would be interesting to get electronic trackers on some and see how much they really do interact.

[Staranais]

All is reliant on the assumption that the dogs would survive long enough for deeply ingrained (but perhaps forgotten) pack instinct to emerge. Obviously, it would be an impractical and inhumane experiment to take dogs who do not possess the skills necessary for survival without humans and send them out to fend for themselves completely.

That presumes that the pack instincts are still there and haven't been lost? I'm not sure if they all are still there, in some cases, they have genetic components & we've actively selected against them (e.g culling dangerously dominant dogs), so the desire and ability to form true wolf-like pack structure may no longer be in most dog's genes. It would be interesting to find out how much of the wolf-like pack structure would come back after several generations in an environment with no human contact at all, but like you say, there's probably no way to do it humanely.

The necessity to hunt as a group was one factor suggested that influenced the advantage towards having a strict 'pack' code. It wasn't merely exclusive to this though - there is also the pressure of the pack remaining from harm. There are also other factors - all having a bearing on being best for survival of the pack. I remember one example being when a member (eg) dies/is injured, having a "vertical" pack structure makes it more efficient for the 'next' dog in line to fulfill the void.

If dogs (or wolves) strongly need a pack structure for some reason, that makes sense. And I can see why wolves need a pack structure (and communication skills) if they hunt big game, since an individual wolf can't do that, so it's advantageous to each individual to be part of a group. Also I can see why they form a strong pack structure if they have more success rearing young communally than by doing so individually.

But it still doesn't address why feral dogs would need a pack structure at all if they are quite capable of feeding themselves and breeding individually (which they seem to be)?

Thanks for arguing with me, it's interesting, I always learn a lot. Even though this discussion is probably never going to be proven one way or another, since we can't see inside our dog's heads (or totally isolate them from humans to see what they do).

Kelpei-i, I must have misunderstood you. Happens sometimes! Thought you were saying that dogs and wolves must behave very similarly since there is "only" 1% difference in genome. Sorry!

[Red Mal]

This thread has been extremely gripping and it has given me a lot to ponder.

It makes me wonder if there are only certain dogs or certain breeds that do in fact have more wolf instincts that regularly surface etc

Has anyone seen the film "Eight Below" ???

It's about a sled dog team who had to be left at the Arctic to fend for themselves and all but one survived. Well, apart from being a big box office hit, it was actually based on true events (if somewhat glamourised).

These dogs were left and in fact only a few truly survived, but that was due to the fact that it was much later when the musher returned for them, meaning many of the dogs would have died through age anyway. These dogs who were bred to be sled dogs, being fed, cared for and nurtured by humans, were left with nothing but their instinct to survive, and they did for a long time. They hunted, lived in temperatures of -40, formed a pack structure and this structure remained for the surviving dogs even when returned to civilisation.

The dog packs that have been released that still hang around humans to scavenge makes me wonder. Are they doing this because they feel they have no choice, or are they doing this simply because it's easier to scavenge and therefore guarantee survival, than go and hunt for themselves ?

[Gottalovealab]

If dogs (or wolves) strongly need a pack structure for some reason, that makes sense. And I can see why wolves need a pack structure (and communication skills) if they hunt big game, since an individual wolf can't do that, so it's advantageous to each individual to be part of a group. Also I can see why they form a strong pack structure if they have more success rearing young communally than by doing so individually.

But it still doesn't address why feral dogs would need a pack structure at all if they are quite capable of feeding themselves and breeding individually (which they seem to be)?

Im sure that these feral dogs are going back to their primative instincts, which is to band together? Whether they breed or hunt together, or neither, i don't think it would matter. Wolves and dogs don't like to be alone and certainly as has been pointed out, a wild wolf has a hard time living on its own (its basically impossible).

I feel these feral dogs are still to close to their human companions, to form a well thought out hunting strategy. If you we're to give it time ( a few spare centuries ) and take out the human influence, what would you observe then?

This thread has been extremely gripping and it has given me a lot to ponder.

It makes me wonder if there are only certain dogs or certain breeds that do in fact have more wolf instincts that regularly surface etc

Has anyone seen the film "Eight Below" ???

It's about a sled dog team who had to be left at the Arctic to fend for themselves and all but one survived. Well, apart from being a big box office hit, it was actually based on true events (if somewhat glamourised).

These dogs were left and in fact only a few truly survived, but that was due to the fact that it was much later when the musher returned for them, meaning many of the dogs would have died through age anyway. These dogs who were bred to be sled dogs, being fed, cared for and nurtured by humans, were left with nothing but their instinct to survive, and they did for a long time. They hunted, lived in temperatures of -40, formed a pack structure and this structure remained for the surviving dogs even when returned to civilisation.

The dog packs that have been released that still hang around humans to scavenge makes me wonder. Are they doing this because they feel they have no choice, or are they doing this simply because it's easier to scavenge and therefore guarantee survival, than go and hunt for themselves ?

8 below, great movie

No doubt its easier to scavenge ones food if its avaliable. Imagine what the wolves thought when white man came over to mainland USA and brought their cattle. They must have thought they hit the jackpot Wolves can be scavengers as much as they are hunters, its only natural to get the "quick fix" if it means survival.

edited cause the emoticon thingy didn't work

Edited August 1, 2007 by Gottalovealab

[Staranais]

It makes me wonder if there are only certain dogs or certain breeds that do in fact have more wolf instincts that regularly surface etc

I think that's probably true. Although all breeds of dog have been domesticated (gone through the initial selection process from wolf to dog), as soon as we started using them to do different jobs then some have been bred to be more or less aloof to humans, be more or less dominant, more or less predatory, etc. So some dogs and some breeds may have more wolfish characteristics than others, although I doubt you'll find any normal domestic dog breed that is as wary of humans when adult, & as hard to socialise, as a true wolf is.

There's a trend in America to keep "wolf dog" hybrids (although apparently many of these "wolf dogs" are just nice huskies sold for an inflated price to stupid people who want to be able to brag about their "wolf"). Most "wolf dog" organisations stress that true high content wolf hybrids are much more work than a normal dog - they recommend keeping these animals under much higher containment than you do a regular dog, socialising them much more intensively, not expecting the wolf dog to ever be fully obedient or fully housetrained, and never trusting the animal around any prey species including human children. So I don't think most homes could cope with a dog that had too many "wolf" characteristics.

[Erny]

... I can see why wolves need a pack structure (and communication skills) if they hunt big game, since an individual wolf can't do that, so it's advantageous to each individual to be part of a group. Also I can see why they form a strong pack structure if they have more success rearing young communally than by doing so individually.

Ok - I need to hit the books on this one as it is not an area I've studied intently. But don't dog packs still work as a team when hunting/flushing small prey such as rabbits etc.?

I agree Am ... there are lots of holes in my suspicion about strong pack order instincts resurfacing if survival decreed it and I suspect that there would be numbers of dogs lost from the pack in the process of them finding that very ancient instinct. I'd love to see a real study on it too ............... although I don't think I would be able to stand it and it would be me rushing out throwing food to the starving.

Thanks for arguing with me, it's interesting ...

It is that.

... since we can't see inside our dog's heads ...

Being able to do so is on my 'wish list'. *sigh* If only.

[Erny]

The dog packs that have been released that still hang around humans to scavenge makes me wonder. Are they doing this because they feel they have no choice, or are they doing this simply because it's easier to scavenge and therefore guarantee survival, than go and hunt for themselves ?

If they have learnt this method of survival and know no other, why would they chose otherwise unless their survival insisted on it?

Like you, RM, I enjoy the banter of ideas and thoughts on this type of subject. Would be great to do it round a table and over a wine or two.

[Gottalovealab]

If they have learnt this method of survival and know no other, why would they chose otherwise unless their survival insisted on it?

Exactly, Erny, good post. Why would they even bother, when there is a readily avaliable food source. It requires little or no effort to scavenge from humans.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Gottalovealab

[BJean]

I think that's probably true. Although all breeds of dog have been domesticated (gone through the initial selection process from wolf to dog), as soon as we started using them to do different jobs then some have been bred to be more or less aloof to humans, be more or less dominant, more or less predatory, etc. So some dogs and some breeds may have more wolfish characteristics than others, although I doubt you'll find any normal domestic dog breed that is as wary of humans when adult, & as hard to socialise, as a true wolf is.

I don't know how wary of humans when mature or the difficulty of socialising a true wolf is

but the Caucasian is a domestic dog (normal but definitely not the usual ?) that is very dominant, territorial, independent and aloof - and was selected for these traits - definitley a breed that needs very careful, knowledgeable owners who understand exactly what the dog's capabilities are.

Very sharp and dominant, their aggression towards people and other dogs into their territory (or sense of territorial personal space) makes them a difficult dog to socialise and unsuitable for most homes

Edited August 1, 2007 by lilli

[Staranais]

I don't know how wary of humans when mature or the difficulty of socialising a true wolf is

but the Caucasian is a domestic dog (normal but definitely not the usual ?) that is very dominant, territorial, independent and aloof

Most things I've read about raising wolves as "pets" suggest that it's very different to raising a dog - e.g most sources suggest that the pup should be taken away from the dam at about 2 to 3 weeks old and allowed very little contact with other canines for several weeks afterwards, that this is necessary for the pup to bond with people. And most also suggest that the wolf is never let anywhere near small children since you're unlikely to be able to train the wolf not to see a small child as a snack. Most also say that wolves and even wolf-dogs are too shy to guard anything from strangers.

I don't know much at all about LGD, so don't really know if these traits and requirements are similar to those of LGD. I have heard that LGD definately unusual and not suited for most homes, as you say. I don't think I could properly handle one (or a wolf either for that matter!)

[KitKat]

I know when my two GSD's take out possums they work as a team/pack - and do so silently - considering the possum doesn't get a chance to make a noise i'm assuming it's done quickly and is a suprise to them as well. They also eat the entire carcass - sharing kinda...Bronx gets the best bits and Sabe gets the rest. I know it's not a good thing they are getting wildlife we did everything to stop them (took out mango tree, blocked holes in roof etc) and now we lock the boys up at night so they stop taking the silly things out! They've not been trained to do so...and even tho i have tried lure coursing they ran after it for a smidge then came back to me after deciding the 'prey' wasn't worth it.

It would also be interesting to compare the behavour of domestic dogs to the African Wild Dogs...saw a doco on them the other day on Foxtel...seemed much more 'dog-like' behaviour then 'wolf-like' if that makes sense.

As to being able to chat behaviours over dinner one night...geez that would be great!