Dogs And "pack" Theory

[Nekhbet]

c/o Kelpie-i

[Kelpie-i]

Body shape, size, head size, teeth size, brain size etc. Exactly what you see in a dog today...various breed specific looks etc.

BTW, thanks for putting those images up for me!!

Edited December 20, 2008 by Kelpie-i

[Nekhbet]

thats OK ... as I said, after a few generations - no. That would be impossible since the dogs would randomly interbreed and only through extreme human intervention do we have the breeds we do today. It would also be survival of those with the right shape, drive and survival instinct.

[Kelpie-i]

Yes I agree Nekhbet, it would probably be a case of re-evolution and accommodative change all over again.

[Tonymc]

I do not see alot new in the article. I do not see the pack structure going out the window at all as to me it is very relevant.

We all know Dogs are opportunists.Yes some dogs became scavengers,simply due to food sources being availible around Villages and so forth.For the Dogs it was an opportunity.In scavenging situations, dogs do not need to function as a well oiled pack to actually get the food source.So yes in scavenging, dogs may not exibit much pack behaviour at all.

I do not believe conserving energy has much to do with it at all.Yes Hunting do's require effort and useage of energy.Dog's being opportunists though of course will see them eat an easy kill, if they come across it at dumps tips so on.Its the opportunity.

Take the above situation where Dogs are scavenging and change their enviroment and what happens?By change I mean this.We could take an area that has established scavenging points for Wild Dogs.Now if we completely clean up any food sources in the area,what will these dogs do?They will simply go back to hunting live kills.We have removed the free ride and they will go back to hunting.Dogs as a whole have not lost the ability to hunt.Once these dogs switched back to Hunting mode,then we would of course see the emergence again of strong pack behaviour.

Some dogs of course due to modern day breeding would be very ineffective hunters and in any pack would be lower ranked for sure.

Sadly some modern day breeding practises have toyed with and messed with prey drive in certain breeds.Start messing with drive and one of the end results is unstable dogs.

The Article said, our dogs still exibit motor skills associated with Hunting and yes thats simply Prey Drive.I have seen many times Dogs say in a country Town, form packs and go hunting local Sheep Calves and so on.These were local domestic dogs that had been allowed to roam and mismanaged.Many times the number of Sheep killed was quite high and a much higher number than needed to feed the pack.The Dogs in this situation were not killing to survive but were satisfying age old instinct's and or drive.This is an example of what the article says.Why did these dogs not eat all they killed?They had no need to as they were being fed at Home and this situation was not about survival, but expressing instinct or drive.The situation would be vastly different if these dogs were not being fed at home at all.Then the number of animals killed would be far less and kill would be eaten.

Tony

[OSoSwift]

Interesting, I have seen the carnage left behind by dogs working together as a pack to maul sheep calves and horses/ponies and they seem pretty organised in what they do. Is it hunting as a pack or just prey drive? I thing if they are working as an organised pack of up to four (quite often only two or three) then I would think they are hunting as a pack as Tony said to satisfy 'age old instincts' as they did not need to hunt for food. Very interesting reading though.

[Quickasyoucan]

Kelpie-i,

I was very interested to hear you post as I am almost all the way through Dogs.

A lot of the early stuff was very interesting to me, the evolution theory, the chapters on behavioural conformation etc.

Just wondering, though, and I know this is off topic whether Ray touched on some of his more controversial theories in your seminar, by that I mean his negative view relationship between man and assistance animals, his views that purebred breeders are breeding certain species to a genetic dead end??

From what I understand from what I was reading particularly about the first point Ray believes that using dogs as assistance dogs amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment" and anyway can serve only to prolong the life of handicapped people who are anyway a drain on society!! I am paraphrasing here, but for me, whilst the first half of the book was extremely interesting, he seemed to go off the rails into quite extreme and depressing views in the second on the relationship between man and domestic dog.

I also found it interesting that whilst, with his sledding background, he seems to put this sport on a pedestal, when it comes to other sorts of relationships with animals and humans his views are very gloomy?

Perhaps I should have started another thread, but I am just interested in your views as you have heard the man in person.

[Kelpie-i]

Quickasyoucan he did state his views on pure breeds and the problems with limiting gene pools. From what I gathered during his seminar, he encourges cross-breeding mainly because he believes it strengthens genes and removes much of the health problems associated with pure breeds these days. Ray believes we are breeding our dogs to "death". By this I believe he means that most breeders limit gene pools and do not allow cross breeding. Cross breeding introduces stronger genes and produces dogs who are almost rid of many of their genetic health and breed problems.

He most certainly has very strong feelings about dog breeds today and the mess we humans are creating. He believes that AKC breed standards are so far removed from the original purpose of the dog and I really don't think he is alone in his thinking here. I found his insight into kennel clubs very interesting as well as humorous!

He did also mention about the service dogs, but not in the way he did in his book. Rather about the training that is involved and how it can be improved. He consults for many of the service dog agencies in America so it surprises me that he would make such a statement. :rolleyes:

It is interesting to read all the other comments and views from the others on his thread on Ray's theories of evolution and pack existence. Whilst many are dissecting the theory, I believe it is these theories....the ones that are so far fetched from what is, and has always been the "norm" in our minds and lives for many years, that create some thought processes in people.

When it was hypothesised that the world might just be round instead of flat, everyone was incredulous and called the theory absurd. This to me is exactly what is happening here with everybody clinging on to pack theories and hierarchy's and not entirely comfortable with exploring a different view.

Edited December 21, 2008 by Kelpie-i

[Tonymc]

Quickasyoucan he did state his views on pure breeds and the problems with limiting gene pools. From what I gathered during his seminar, he encourges cross-breeding mainly because he believes it strengthens genes and removes much of the health problems associated with pure breeds these days. Ray believes we are breeding our dogs to "death". By this I believe he means that most breeders limit gene pools and do not allow cross breeding. Cross breeding introduces stronger genes and produces dogs who are almost rid of many of their genetic health and breed problems.

He most certainly has very strong feelings about dog breeds today and the mess we humans are creating. He believes that AKC breed standards are so far removed from the original purpose of the dog and I really don't think he is alone in his thinking here. I found his insight into kennel clubs very interesting as well as humorous!

I agree 1000% with the above!!!He is spot on!!!!!I can recall the Grandfather, years ago saying the exact same thing!!!

Some breeders certainly do need a good hard kick up the rear end to turn the ego off and hopefully kick start some reality and commonsense. Tony

[WoofnHoof]

hunting behaviour can be quite complex (such as herding behaviours) and I don't think can be classified as a hard-wired behaviour,

tkay, motor patterns (drive sequences and/or hunting behaviour) are intrinsic behaviours in a dog. The predatory (motor pattern) sequence is only seen in its complete state by wild hunting canids. What we humans have done is selected dogs that display either some of most of these sequence patterns to create various breeds, dependant on the type of work we wanted accomplished. The motor pattern sequence is a behaviour RULE and is hard wired, although which aspects of the sequence a particular breed will display is dependant on what I just explained.

Oh yes I see what you mean there in terms of the hard wired sequences being broken up in various breeds, that makes sense. I think I am thinking more about the feedback between the situation and the animal in determining which behaviours are expressed, but now that I see the slide about the broken up behaviours I can see where there is room for feedback to influence the dog's thinking and the way it approaches the 'hunt'. I'd like to know more about the relationship and interaction between hard-wired behaviours and learned behaviours I think that would be interesting.

As far as the cross-breeding theory goes the theory is fine but extreme cross-breeding should obviously be avoided as you can have opposing genes creating conflict within the animal both behaviourally and physically. Did he say much about out-crossing within breeds? It would depend on the gene pool and how many healthy animal fit into it though.

[BJean]

how are animals that descended from 'herds' going wrt their instinct?

Bison, zebra are wild and will do as our 'wolf' counterparts -

but our village dumpster pdog equivalent - sheep and dairy cattle -

have been coddled, bred, fed and protected by humans -

yet their herd instinct remains.

or maybe I just dont get it and am handicapped by my neolithic capacity -

living on a flat earth and all.

When it was hypothesised that the world might just be round instead of flat, everyone was incredulous and called the theory absurd. This to me is exactly what is happening here with everybody clinging on to pack theories and hierarchy's and not entirely comfortable with exploring a different view.

Edited December 21, 2008 by lilli

[BJean]

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.

motor patterns (drive sequences and/or hunting behaviour) are intrinsic behaviours in a dog. The predatory (motor pattern) sequence is only seen in its complete state by wild hunting canids. What we humans have done is selected dogs that display either some of most of these sequence patterns to create various breeds, dependant on the type of work we wanted accomplished. The motor pattern sequence is a behaviour RULE and is hard wired, although which aspects of the sequence a particular breed will display is dependant on what I just explained.

The same would then be applied to 'herd' animals bred and manipulated by humans for farming.

I'm asuming if 'pack' is not relevant wrt dogs

then 'herd' is not relevant to sheep, cattle, horse . . .

maybe it's not, and on this new round world there is another word / defintion / explanation for what is instincitve in them?

if dogs do not have an innate sense of pack - because of their human influenced dumpster pdog ancestory -

then do sheep, cattle etc have an innate sense of herd?

if so, why?

Edited December 21, 2008 by lilli

[Kelpie-i]

if dogs do not have an innate sense of pack - because of their human influenced dumpster pdog ancestory -

then do sheep, cattle etc have an innate sense of herd?

if so, why?

Good question...why don't you ask Ray himself when he comes to Australia next year...

I would highly recommend reading his book as it makes much mention about LGDs and how they came about. I think you might just find it very interesting reading.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Kelpie-i

[Just Midol]

I want to, when is he coming?

It's hard to ask my questions over the internet, for some reason I think it'd be easier in person. Plus, some of the questions I want to ask I probably can't.

[Kelpie-i]

He's coming in November 09 as the AVA are bringing out for a seminar. I asked him if he was willing to conduct a seminar for dog enthusiasts whilst in Oz and he said yes. Since I organise these sorts of seminars for Kepala, I will be making contact with Ray to organise something.

Fingers crossed!

[Just Midol]

Yay

But another question.

Under his theories, if we went and grabbed a few dingos (or any wild dog which does not work as a "pack" but more as a loose community) and placed them in a confined area (such as a backyard and/or a house) that they would not work out any hierarchy of most important -> least important dog?

If not, how would the dogs function? Every dog is always doing to be attempting to "go" first. Under his ideas (of no pack structure or social hierarchy existing in dogs) logically the only conclusion is either death, or constant fights.

Even if the dogs work out that "we have to let x dog go first or we get the snot beaten out of us" then that's a social hierarchy.

I understand, and even accept that in the wild such dogs have no social structure, but I am finding it hard to accept within a confined area. Lily has learnt that she does not mess with Gizmos food, and if food is somehow dropped that she does not intefere with it unless I say so or Gizmo will tell her off. She has learnt that if she goes first, Gizmo will give her a talking to. That's social structure, he is more important/powerful than she is so she must listen to him.

Pack used in this post is simply social structure, not to do with the concept of hunting.

Basically, I am having trouble grasping that dogs have no social hierarchy and structure within a confined area From what you've posted, it seems his theories focus on the wild where we are more interested in the domestic setting. Not sure if this post has made sense, but if not, say so and I'll put it a different way.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Lord Midol

[Nekhbet]

Midol is right - anyone with more then one dog cannot ignore the fact that their dogs are unequal between themselves. One considers itself more then the other. Look at also the concept of territotiality - a dog will change the way it views other dogs/people when its property is at stake. It will protect but on its own turf it will try and dominate if it is a dog that is that way inclined.

I do not see what he is trying to prove and how it is useful to us.

This to me is exactly what is happening here with everybody clinging on to pack theories and hierarchy's and not entirely comfortable with exploring a different view.

I think its becoming a debate on what we consider the interpretation of terms. What we consider to mean 'pack' and 'hierachy'. Well yes if 'pack' is to mean a group of carnivores banding together ONLY to hunt down an animal together then no, dogs are not pack animals. But - how does a wild pack hunt. WIthout structure? Randomness? Do they just throw themselves at a herd of animals until they badger a few to death or do they hunt in an organised manner, pick off the easiest target then eat in the order of importance?

I'm all for expanding my mind. I just want logical proof that doesnt have living examples that disprove it in my face daily. I dont see what the point of the mtDNA chart was, as I told you in the email, he simply proved that the domestic dog and russian wolf divereged from a common ancestor fairly recently. Yup we knew that already.

Cross breeding introduces stronger genes and produces dogs who are almost rid of many of their genetic health and breed problems.

not necessarily. Dogs are all the same species and share the same genes. You may introduce a new allele into that 'line' (ie a new version of a gene) but that is no guarantee that is an improvement. We are still infants in the world of genetics and him telling people crossbreeding will keep the domestic dog alive (wait for the DD people to latch onto this one) is a furfy. First generational crosses can have recessive genes MASKED. Thats it. You cannot make genetic diseases go away the only way is to NOT breed carriers or affected individuals. Then again diseases are the result of new alleles created through random genetic mutation of the gene so you will never stop diseases cropping up in any creature with DNA. Crossbreeding creates more carriers or recessive alleles then anything else.

What about polygenic conditions? Things like HD are not a single gene obviously it is a conformation fault. mix together a few random shapes and what do you think you will get - no faults? please. We have seen ourselves time and time again how crossbreeding can backfire big time. Also we have bred specific breeds with specific drive patterns and requirements, cross them and see one very confused dog or one with little purpose.

[Erny]

Even if the dogs work out that "we have to let x dog go first or we get the snot beaten out of us" then that's a social hierarchy.

(My emphasis) ..... that part of your sentence made me

Basically, I am having trouble grasping that dogs have no social hierarchy and structure within a confined area

I have trouble completely believing Ray Coppinger's concept as well, whether dogs be in a confined area or not, as well, even though I do respect his thoughts and ideas and find them very thought provoking. I don't believe that only the "hunt & kill" process is the only denominator upon which to determine whether social hierarchy/structure exists. Look at dogs in the dog park ..... why the displays of 'dominance' which often occurs between dogs who are developing relationships?

I don't think I'm holding on to "the world is flat" ideals ..... but too much of what I see indicates to me that there is structure and order amongst dogs, and the way I understand it, "structure and order" IS what "pack" means.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Erny

[WoofnHoof]

It does look to me as though it's purely a difference in defintions, this Ray fellow appears to be referring to 'pack' in terms of behaviours expressed as part of the behavioural sequence of hunting, however this I would think would be different to other behavioural sequences such as that observed in more mundane social situations, grooming behaviours, submission etc. Our defintion of a 'pack' includes the entire social structure, loosely modelled on behaviours of wolf packs in the wild.

Social behaviours exist in every species (otherwise mating wouldn't occur lol!), however the degree of 'structure' in the social group varies greatly. I read somewhere that in horse herds (and I think it mentioned wolves and dogs as well), the social hierarchy in domestic animals is much more stable and structured than comparable ones in the wild, which are much more fluid and dynamic. Possibly the subtle signals given off by people can influence the pack/herd behaviour towards each other?

All very interesting

[Kelpie-i]

I dont see what the point of the mtDNA chart was, as I told you in the email, he simply proved that the domestic dog and russian wolf divereged from a common ancestor fairly recently. Yup we knew that already.

Nekhbet, the purpose of the chart, as I mentioned to you in my email, was merely for information purposes due to someone questioning whether dogs derived other forms of canids ie. coyotes rather than wolves. It had nothing to do with the actual subject of the thread. Sorry if that was not clarified properly.

Okay so most of you are very doubtful of Ray's theories, and that is absolutely fine, it's extremely healthy questioning and interesting debate (well some of you are debating, others are getting "narky")...anyway. I think Cosmolo posed a good question earlier in the thread..."is it social hierarchy- or just dogs working to get what they want? "

How do you define hierarchy? " Isn't "dominance" situational specific? Ie, that toy is valuable to me therefore I want it...it is mine (until I grow sick of it). What is valuable for one dog is not for the other. Perhaps your "alpha" dogs are actually control freaks by nature. They wish to control everyone's moves and who gets what. But if/when that dog no longer wants the resource don't the other dogs come up for the taking....and then proceeds to possess/protect it? So who's in charge now?

I live with 4 dogs and I see this "controlling" of resources swtiching and changing with each and every different item or situation that is presented. There is absolutely no clear, definitive structure as to who gets what, EVERY TIME!. If anything, I am the one who controls them and their resources. However when I am not involved, I see situations switching each day, each minute. They simply co-exist in a group with a set of rules regarding the resources. Example: If dog A wants the toy/food, then dog B will not and shall not attempt to take it. However whenever dog A finishes with the toy/food, then dog B may take it. If dog B has the toy/food, then dogs A and C will not and shall not attempt to take it......etc. (You can replace toy/food with pats, play and any other resource...including YOU).

This is not social hierarchy, this is possessive control of resources....situational specific dominating of resources and situations, getting what they want. If only one dog gets to come out with me, the others don't fret because a member of the "pack" is missing, rather they fret because they weren't invited along for the ride.

Do we allow dogs to form ranks because is it something we believe in? Do we accept that just because one dog gave the other dog a good snogging then that dog MUST be top dog so we will just continue to allow him/her to do that...to control the other dogs? Just thinking out loud here.....

Look at dogs in the dog park ..... why the displays of 'dominance' which often occurs between dogs who are developing relationships?

This could be the same control freak who has learned that intimidation goes a long way. If you submit then we can be friends, if not then I will make sure you do.

Do we look into our dog's behaviour too deeply? Analysing each move and adding some mystical and magical motive for every action and behaviour. Dogs are very simple animals, not as complicated as we like to think they are. They do things because they can, simply because they learn from their experiences and consequences. Simple.

But - how does a wild pack hunt.

What sort of wild packs are you referring to here? Rogue dogs who go on a livestock killing spree just for the fun and thrill? I am unaware of any domestic dog "packs" that hunt for the purpose of food and survival. I'd be interested to know if there were any.

I cannot expand on the cross breeding thing since these are not my theories and I don't know enough about breeding to provide any valid points or arguments.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Kelpie-i