Dogs And "pack" Theory

[Kelpie-i]

Warning....very long post...best you grab a cuppa and pull up a comfy chair before reading

Okay, for those of you who were curious in my new beliefs into “pack” existence of the dog, here is a very brief account of how it goes. This information is based on the 3 day seminar I recently attended at Wolf Park (US) with Biologist and Ethologist, Prof. Ray Coppinger.

In order for the information to flow and so that you guys get the full picture of where it all heads, I will need to start from the start….I mean the very start….the domestication of the dog!

I’ll start during the Neolithic period around 4000 to 2200BC (late stone age): wolves with genetic high avoidance thresholds (ie genetically less fearful) scavenged around the rubbish dumps of the newly settled and developed villages. I start with this period purely because this was when the changes to the wolf started to occur, however wolves would scavenge from the nomadic Mesolithic era people (middle stone age) before that.

Ok back to Neolithic times…..over the next number of generations, these wolves began to morph in size i.e. becoming smaller animals with leaner body masses in order to accommodate/adapt to their new niche environments. This was probably due to the fact that their original large body mass size was not conducive to survival in this new environment, therefore only those animals with the ability to adapt survived. Please do not mistake this for “survival of the fittest” as this is not what this is about. It was more a case of “survival of the most adaptive”....fitness had nothing to do with it. There were many “fit” wolves, but with genetically low avoidance thresholds, who survived quite well doing what they did but they never evolved into a different animal. This is explained in Ray's "benefit/cost" ratio element and he proves Darwin’s theory of wolf/dog domestication as being incorrect. Even Konrad Lorenz himself when visited by Ray Coppinger years ago stated...”everything I ever wrote about dog domestication is wrong”.

These morphing wolves no longer needed to hunt for food since it was available in abundance from the dumps, although that is not to say that they lost all ability to hunt. From the village rubbish dumps, they ate left over animal carcasses, human feces as well as their own (which is where our dogs get copraphagia tendencies from). The “wolves” were now becoming scavengers and searched for food around the dumps to feed themselves, not hunting in a pack formation as the rest of the other wolves continued to do.

Finally over a few more generations (?number unknown), the village dog was formed (ie very early Proto-dog, and very likely, the ancestor of our domestic dogs today) I will refer to these as P-dogs for carpotunnel’s sake.

These village p-dogs dogs were now true scavengers and continued to hang around the village rubbish dumps to feed. There they also mated, had their litters etc etc. But they did not “pack”, rather a loose community if you like who hung around together and survived thanks to the villagers.

To understand that this is NOT a pack is to understand that to Pack is to get together for the hunt. Any animal that hunts for food for survival “packs” together to chase and bring down the prey and consume it. Our modern day dogs do not hunt for their food, therefore they do not scientifically “pack”. They do, however, still retain hunting motor patterns (prey drives), although drastically altered from breed to breed due to artificial selection from humans. The original P-dog retained all of its hunting motor patterns, but after settling into their new environments, no longer had any use for them.

Anyway, back to the Neolithic times….so over time the P-dogs were very slowly being accepted by the villagers, although it was most likely the children who initiated this “acceptance” by playing and feeding their "favoured" dog.

By now the dog was no longer living a commensal (beneficial to just one party) existence amongst the villagers. The relationship between human and dog had begun to form in a symbiotic sense e.g. the humans provided food (rubbish) for the dogs and the dogs cleaned the rubbish areas as well as keeping predators at bay. This was the very start of the domestication of the dog.

Okay so now....Ray's beliefs are that our domestic dogs of today are direct descendent of the early P-dog and as such is more a scavenger than a pack animal. In fact he lovingly refers to dogs as “parasites”. As mentioned to “pack” or show pack behaviour is only scientifically correct when we refer to the hunt for food, which both the proto-dog ancestor AND our modern dog of today did not and do not do.

If you left a dog to fend for himself, he would most likely go back to his ancestor’s scavenging ways….searching the streets for food, perhaps chasing a bird or 2…he may even meet some other “stray” dogs along the way and join forces, but by and large, he would be searching/scavenging….not hunting…for food, for the Hunt is to chase down prey, kill and consume as a group and for the benefit of the group.

Okay...I hear you say..."but what about those rogue dogs who roam in “packs” and chase down sheep and other livestock and kill it". This is most certainly a form of Pack behaviour but for these dogs it’s more the thrill of the kill, rather than to hunt and catch prey to survive. This, again, is the altered hunting motor pattern. Further, most of these rogue dogs are “owned” by people therefore they don’t live in a situation where Pack hunting behaviour is beneficial to their existence, but rather the innate motor pattern that is played out for the sake of a bit of fun…..boredom busting! Most of our dog’s will show some form of this motor pattern at some stage, ie. stalking birds, chasing Frisbee, tug of war.

Hunting (prey drive) motor pattern sequences vary from breed to breed. These motor pattern sequences were selected for by very early "breeders" for the purpose of either stock guarding or chasing (yes the very first “breed” of dogs were the LGDs and the herders!).

Phew…..did I say I would keep it brief???!!!

Therefore, what you see in your multi-dog households is NOT pack behaviour as this would infer that they hunt together for the survival of group, but rather symbiotic “community” and scavenger based existence just like their P-dog ancestors....each dog is there for their own existence and survival.....not for the survival of the other dogs in the household. Therefore, dogs do not have an innate “pack” existence.

Some of you may already know this information, some of you may agree and some of you won’t....whatever your belief, it sure makes for good discussion!

[Cosmolo]

Thanks for taking the time to write that kelpie i.

I have thought some of those things before but never had such a direct and concise way to explain it as i believe what you've written does. Personally i think its very accurate- particularly when we think about what our dogs would do if we 'threw them out' onto the streets. Did Ray talk about whether over generations, street dogs would then become packs? I would imagine this would depend entirely on the environment and the need for the individuals to hunt- if they could survive scavenging there would be no need to explore other options.

I recently saw dogs living on the streets in Fiji- and although they are wild and unowned- they are certainly scavengers and don't appear to hunt as packs.

What would then motivate these dogs to form a pack and hunt as one again? The individual dogs who run out of food to scavenge die- so would they ever form packs again? Those that would have needed to would be deceased and the surviving dogs would continue doing what has worked for them- scavenging as individuals. Raises so many questions.

Sorry- i am just randomly spitting out thoughts here..

[Kelpie-i]

Some great questions Cosmolo and I am not too sure I really know the answers.

Did Ray talk about whether over generations, street dogs would then become packs? I would imagine this would depend entirely on the environment and the need for the individuals to hunt- if they could survive scavenging there would be no need to explore other options.

To "pack" in the true sense of the word is not genetically hard-wired in dogs, although to survive is. In order for a group of dogs to form hunting packs as the wolf to survive, would probably mean that they have exhausted all scavenging efforts.l Although because of the scavenging, "parasitic" nature of the dog, it would not be the same as a pack of wolves, who pack and hunt for the survial of their group as a whole.

Not sure if this has answered this....or even if this is correct??

What would then motivate these dogs to form a pack and hunt as one again?

I'm not sure they actually would....they are so far removed from their original ancestor the wolf that they are a completely different animal... Pretty much like we are completely different to the monkey, we no longer hang off trees and pick fleas off each other!

[Just Midol]

Is it possible for dogs to have lost the desire to hunt in a pack, but when forced into a group situation still has a social hierarchy?

My personal belief is that if dogs were let out they wouldn't necessarily live as a pack, but when forced to live together then organise a social hierarchy simply because they have to in order to function.

[Dogs rock]

Ooooohhhh... Interesting topic.

Long time reader, first time poster on DOL so please excuse me if I make any hideous mistakes.

In regards to the street dogs becoming packs point, I would presume that it would be evolutionarily possible for dogs to re-adapt to true pack behaviour if it was necessary. That is, as kelpie-i said, they have truly exhausted all scavenging options, and have once again started to hunt. Although initially this is more a community-based behaviour rather than a true 'packing', if there were no opportunities to scavenge over a period of time (generations of dogs), then hunting for the survival for the pack (and therefore the species) would probably re-emerge. So I think that re-adapting to true pack behaviour is possible in theory, however I can't think of any situations where the opportunity to scavenge was eliminated for any great length of time (it would make a great research project wouldn't it?!?!)

[jesomil]

Wow Kelpie-i, that is great. Thankyou so much for writing all that out. It makes complete sense.

I have spent way too much time in recent months mulling over the different pack theories and trying to get thoughts and ideas clear in my head.

What you have written is brilliant. It is basically what I have been trying to think about but put in a clear, logical, understandable way, especially how it describes how dogs have changed over the years for survival. Our current day dogs are certainly scavengers.

Thanks for sharing .

Edited December 18, 2008 by jesomil

[Just Midol]

Wow Kelpie-i, that is great. Thankyou so much for writing all that out. It makes complete sense.

I have spent way too much time in recent months mulling over the different pack theories and trying to get thoughts and ideas clear in my head.

What you have written is brilliant. It is basically what I have been trying to think about but put in a clear, logical, understandable way, especially how it describes how dogs have changed over the years for survival. Our current day dogs are certainly scavengers.

Thanks for sharing .

I dunno, if my huskies found a dead possum and a live one ran past they'd go and eat the live one before they hit the dead one up for a meal.

[Kelpie-i]

Is it possible for dogs to have lost the desire to hunt in a pack, but when forced into a group situation still has a social hierarchy?

I'm not sure LM.....this would then lead back to "survival of the pack" which is not what our dogs are about. They dont need a social hierarchy since they do not pack to survive. What they need is the will to survive individually and to do whatever they can to get food or whatever else they require to survive for themselves. There is no need for a social hierarchy when you are looking out for number 1.

As Ray puts it...(not verbatim)...If all the dogs in the world died, we humans would not be affected and would survive nonetheless. However if all the humans in the world died, then eventually so would all the dogs.

I dunno, if my huskies found a dead possum and a live one ran past they'd go and eat the live one before they hit the dead one up for a meal.

LM, yes they are doing this in order to feed themselves (as individuals)...not for the survival of the group. The hunting motor patterns remain in all dogs, although altered, so yes..your dogs would chase a running rabbit and may even eat it, but they would not do so in order for their group's sole purpose of survival. It would be more for the thrill of the chase and kill....and perhaps something tasty at the end of it. Your dogs would still choose to scavenge over chasing to survive as this is a better benefit/cost ratio of surviving.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Kelpie-i

[Just Midol]

Hmm, not entirely sure I agree with no social hierarchy. In my house, it's pretty clear there is a social hierarchy.

I wasn't saying them chasing a rabbit or animal is related to pack, simply that not all dogs are scavengers, some still hunt.

[Cosmolo]

Hunt as a pack Midol? Or just go into prey drive? Two different things IMO. And is it social hierarchy- or just dogs working to get what they want? How do you define hierarchy?

[Kelpie-i]

Hmm, not entirely sure I agree with no social hierarchy. In my house, it's pretty clear there is a social hierarchy.

I wasn't saying them chasing a rabbit or animal is related to pack, simply that not all dogs are scavengers, some still hunt.

LM..describe the social hierarchy in your household and how you feel it benefits the survival of the group as a whole....just curious!

Yes they do hunt....but not for survival purposes....more for the thrill (or work) only. As previously mentioned the benefit/cost ratio to hunt to survive is not in the dog's best interest.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Kelpie-i

[Dogs rock]

Do you really think that all of the dogs would die if all the humans did? For the sake of argument (as who really knows unless it actually happened, and then we wouldn't be around for it anyway), I have no doubt that lots (maybe most - particularly the indulged ones!) of the dogs would die, however I think that there would still remain some savvy canines out there that could get by. Yes, they would be scavenging initially, but if they can scavenge from other sources (dead animals for example), and catch a few animals (rabbits, birds etc) then I think there is a chance that some would survive. If there were no humans then the dogs would be roaming free, and so the non-desexed (for the first generation) dogs could mate with whomever they came across, which would allow the species to continue. Granted, we would then lose a lot of dogs in the reproduction process due to the structure of a number of breeds, but the more stream-lined, street like dogs would be likely to continue. I guess then it would be a matter of statistics as to whether the species thrived or disappeared altogether. The dog as it is today would be gone, yes, but there would be an evolved form still around. I think. Maybe?

[Just Midol]

Hunt as a pack Midol? Or just go into prey drive? Two different things IMO. And is it social hierarchy- or just dogs working to get what they want? How do you define hierarchy?

The same way every dictionary out there defines Hierarchy? An order of rank? In this case social rank. Whether or not dogs are working to get what they want is irrelevant, the fact that there is an apparent ranking of dogs means there is a Hierarchy.

I specifically said I wasn't talking about hunting as a pack. Prey drive is directly related to hunting. The fact that my dogs would rather kill prey and eat it than scavenge shows that not all dogs are simply scavengers. Some are hunters. Hunting is simply pursuing/chasing an animal for food, which is what my dogs do, therefore they are hunting. This behavior is pretty normal in Huskies but up till recently Huskies weren't kept domestically all year round. They were let go to fend for themselves out of season and very rarely did they split up so they could still have the instinctual side of hunting which many other breeds have had removed. It might even still occur.

Kelpie, I don't necessarily think it benefits the group. Not all actions have to benefit the group. It does however, allow my dogs to function as a group.

Also as above, my dogs are hunting. Turn it any way you want, dress it up anyway you like, they chase animals, catch animals, eat animals. They are hunting. They chose hunting over scavenging.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Lord Midol

[Rusky]

my dog killed a kangaroo recently she ripped off the head and brought it to me, she didn't eat first. I thought that was very very sad but also very interesting.

Domesticated dog remains have now been found much earlier than the neolithic period but the theory behind domestication would still stand I guess.

I wonder though about packs of dogs who run down and eat sheep, they call them wild dogs, usually shot if seen but they run down and kill and eat.

We can theorise that man became the pack by providing food to those wolves unable or unwilling to hunt.

Woves and dogs can interbreed, therefore they are the same species.

Dogs also still help man to hunt were nurtured and bred for that specific task, so did man see a pack of wolves hunting and with his tiny brain think that would be useful if I could get one of those wolves to help me. Did he think I will take a puppy and see how we get on ? who knows ...but it is an interesting topic.

[Kelpie-i]

Do you really think that all of the dogs would die if all the humans did? For the sake of argument (as who really knows unless it actually happened, and then we wouldn't be around for it anyway), I have no doubt that lots (maybe most - particularly the indulged ones!) of the dogs would die, however I think that there would still remain some savvy canines out there that could get by. Yes, they would be scavenging initially, but if they can scavenge from other sources (dead animals for example), and catch a few animals (rabbits, birds etc) then I think there is a chance that some would survive. If there were no humans then the dogs would be roaming free, and so the non-desexed (for the first generation) dogs could mate with whomever they came across, which would allow the species to continue. Granted, we would then lose a lot of dogs in the reproduction process due to the structure of a number of breeds, but the more stream-lined, street like dogs would be likely to continue. I guess then it would be a matter of statistics as to whether the species thrived or disappeared altogether. The dog as it is today would be gone, yes, but there would be an evolved form still around. I think. Maybe?

Really valid point Dogs rock and I would agree that the more savvy dogs would survive a little longer than those "pampered" ones but eventually diseases and natural death (perhaps even becoming the hunted) would wipe out all dogs.

[arawnhaus]

I've just finished reading your Interesting Article.Thank you, Excellent food for thought.

Hmm.... off to have a ponder now....

Amy

Edited December 18, 2008 by Delkerabo

[Kelpie-i]

Dogs also still help man to hunt were nurtured and bred for that specific task, so did man see a pack of wolves hunting and with his tiny brain think that would be useful if I could get one of those wolves to help me. Did he think I will take a puppy and see how we get on ? who knows .

Rusky, this is where Coppinger's theory on domestication is very different to that of Darwin's and then later Lorenz's (who admitted he was incorrect). He does not believe that humans turned wolves into hunting dogs by merely stealing wolf pups from the den and "training" them as this is virtually impossible. I have the answer to this but it would take me another whole day to write it out. It makes a whole heap of sense.

You can read most of Ray's theories in his book "Dogs" but if you ever get the chance to go and participate in one of his lectures, then I would highly recommend it. Pssst....just a secret....he is coming to Australia in November 09.

[Just Midol]

Really valid point Dogs rock and I would agree that the more savvy dogs would survive a little longer than those "pampered" ones but eventually diseases and natural death (perhaps even becoming the hunted) would wipe out all dogs.

Why? Wild dogs survive quite readily in many of the 3rd world countries, so do cats.

[Kelpie-i]

Also as above, my dogs are hunting. Turn it any way you want, dress it up anyway you like, they chase animals, catch animals, eat animals. They are hunting. They chose hunting over scavenging.

LM, you may be missing the point YES your dogs are "hunting"....chasing, catching and eating. But they are doing so purely for the thrill and reward value, not for survival purposes. If your dog's were left on their own, they would not choose to hunt over scavenging to survive as this is too costly energy wise. It is not in their genes to hunt to survive....it is in their genes to display hunting motor patterns.

[Dogs rock]

I think it is hard to speculate as to whether disease would wipe out the entire population of dogs - surely that would depend on how many 'savvy' ones survive in the first place. Taking into consideration that most dogs can reproduce twice a year, if a reasonable number survive initially then it is entirely possible that there would be enough genetic diversity for the species to survive. Yes, there are diseases out there, but remember that we are talking about a species that will now be allowed to evolve without human interaction. Your point on becoming the hunted is entirely valid, however there are some parts of the world that I feel that the dogs would be fairly safe, at least in the short term (Australia, for example, as we don't have anything really nasty out there). Without humans, of course other species would potentially evolve too, however history shows us that evolution is a fluid process with cause and effect. For example, giraffe ancestors with longer necks survive as they can reach the food on the taller trees, the (even) taller trees survive as they haven't been eaten, then the tallest of the tall survive because they can reach..... etc etc.