Dogs And "pack" Theory

[Dogs rock]

I think it is naive of us to assume that just because the true form of packing (to hunt to survive) is not essential to a dog's life anymore (because they scavenge) means that there is no longer any need for the behaviours related to this, including the necessity to form a social hierarchy. Prey drive originated from hunting behaviour, however we still clearly see it today. Yes, the goal of the behaviour may be slightly different (expressing an instinct now as opposed to needing to eat to survive before), but the behaviour still exists. So isn't it possible that although the survival aspect of hierarchy is no longer necessary, the instictive behaviours of forming such a hierarchy still exist in the dog? There seems to be a big assumption that the two MUST be linked - that you can't have one without another. Granted, they may have been co-dependent initially, but couldn't they have become mutually exclusive at some point along the way? Surely if they had to still be linked, then prey drive and packing would also have to be linked (for consistency of theory), and we therefore wouldn't see prey drive today.

Theories are great, but it is important to remember that they can be correct, incorrect OR partially correct (thus making them theories and not proven fact). I think there is a big difference between the 'world is flat' people and the 'dogs have a hierarchy' people - the 'world is flat' people had only ever seen a flat world (they were the non-explorers who never saw any evidence to prove otherwise), whereas the 'dogs have a hierarchy' people see evidence to support their belief every single day.

I agree that some multi-dog households are fluid in regards to who controls which resource when, but I have also seen a number of households where one dog controls ALL resources ALL of the the time. Control freak or dominant dog, it doesn't matter what you label them as it is the same thing. However, if there is a dominating or controlling dog, then there must be a non-dominating (or submissive) dog also. And with these two 'types' living together, this is a form of heirarchy. Is it essential for the survival of the dog? Not necessarily. But does it exist? Yes, in my opinion, it does.

[Kelpie-i]

However, if there is a dominating or controlling dog, then there must be a non-dominating (or submissive) dog also. And with these two 'types' living together, this is a form of heirarchy. Is it essential for the survival of the dog? Not necessarily. But does it exist? Yes, in my opinion, it does.

Great point...you could see this is as a mutual understanding and agreement between two distinct personalities for the purpose of calm co-existence or you could see this as hierarchy. Depending on your belief and depending on the relative purpose of the existence.

[BJean]

However, if there is a dominating or controlling dog, then there must be a non-dominating (or submissive) dog also. And with these two 'types' living together, this is a form of heirarchy. Is it essential for the survival of the dog? Not necessarily. But does it exist? Yes, in my opinion, it does.

Great point...you could see this is as a mutual understanding and agreement between two distinct personalities for the purpose of calm co-existence or you could see this as hierarchy.

isn't that hierachy?

[Erny]

...you could see this is as a mutual understanding and agreement between two distinct personalities for the purpose of calm co-existence or you could see this as hierarchy. Depending on your belief and depending on the relative purpose of the existence.

And depending on your own personal interpretation of wording?

John Paul Scott wrote : "The behaviour of one individual effects that of others and these interactions lead to social organisation, a special part of which is the process of communication." Whether this was about the 'hunt'; about procreation; about survival; about harmonious living; ........ it really is all about "pack" as we understand it, don't you think?

Edited December 23, 2008 by Erny

[Just Midol]

However, if there is a dominating or controlling dog, then there must be a non-dominating (or submissive) dog also. And with these two 'types' living together, this is a form of hierarchy. Is it essential for the survival of the dog? Not necessarily. But does it exist? Yes, in my opinion, it does.

Great point...you could see this is as a mutual understanding and agreement between two distinct personalities for the purpose of calm co-existence or you could see this as hierarchy.

isn't that hierarchy?

I think it is.

Dog A: If I eat that piece of poo Dog B will kick the crap out of me.

Dob B: If he eats that piece of poo I'll kick the crap out of him.

Mutual understanding, social hierarchy.

[Nekhbet]

a mutual understanding and agreement between two distinct personalities for the purpose of calm co-existence

If a dog is thought to think of no one but themselves and what is in it for them then why would they come to such a human plane of thought and understanding. An agreement of this level and a 'mutual' understanding is a human concept, not a canine concept. I think there has been a bit of anthropomorphisation in this whole 'theory'. Do we see a dog sharing and offering food to the other dog that has less in its bowl? Hell no! Christ if it finishes its own it would be happy to go over and eat the others food too if there is any. A dog is a dog. We delve too deep in dog thoughts and we end up projecting our own onto them and that starts down a road that should not be followed.

the 'world is flat' people had only ever seen a flat world (they were the non-explorers who never saw any evidence to prove otherwise), whereas the 'dogs have a hierarchy' people see evidence to support their belief every single day.

I agree. Just because someone raises a new flag why are we suddenly 'closed minded' when we dont salute it? Theories come left right and centre, many end before they snowball on and many go on to become proven fact. But a theory is just that, a thought by someone/people that explore a new angle. Doesnt mean it is correct in all facets or that it automatically IS the new rule.

[Kelpie-i]

If a dog is thought to think of no one but themselves and what is in it for them then why would they come to such a human plane of thought and understanding. An agreement of this level and a 'mutual' understanding is a human concept, not a canine concept. I think there has been a bit of anthropomorphisation in this whole 'theory'. Do we see a dog sharing and offering food to the other dog that has less in its bowl? Hell no! Christ if it finishes its own it would be happy to go over and eat the others food too if there is any. A dog is a dog. We delve too deep in dog thoughts and we end up projecting our own onto them and that starts down a road that should not be followed.

My point exactly Nekhbet. Dogs are there for themselves and themselves only. They don't do things for the good of the "pack", they only do things for the good of themselves. Do they need a hierarchy to achieve this or do they only need to know their boundaries based on who is controlling what for that particular moment and wait their opportunistic turn?

But again we try to complicate the dog by saying that what we (humans) see, and the way we interpret the things dogs do, is anthropomophism. Surely it can't be that simple can it because they are dogs and therefore it must be more complicated than that? Isn't saying "dog A is higher in rank than dog B because dog A controls the food bowl", anthropomophism..??

Perhaps we do see a form of hierarchy, but I am really questioning the "alpha pack leader" theory and if true hierarchy and pack organisation actually exists within our dogs innate existence. Please someone, turn my thoughts pure again

[Just Midol]

A leader is someone who sets the rules and regulates.

I set the rules for my dogs, and I regulate the resources. How is that not leading my pack (in terms of a social pack, not a hunting pack)?

ETA: Wait, is your point that whilst WE are performing what a leader would... the dog isn't recognising us as the leader?

Edited December 23, 2008 by Lord Midol

[Tonymc]

Midol,wild dogs do function as a pack.Have a look at the question Nekhbet ask's.Nekhbet asks about the Hunting patterns of Wild dogs and whether they throw themselves randomly at prey or go about it in a calculated and organised way?They go about it as a pack in an organised and skillful manner as sucess on the hunt means survival for the pack.

Quote from Dogs rock.

Theories are great, but it is important to remember that they can be correct, incorrect OR partially correct (thus making them theories and not proven fact). I think there is a big difference between the 'world is flat' people and the 'dogs have a hierarchy' people - the 'world is flat' people had only ever seen a flat world (they were the non-explorers who never saw any evidence to prove otherwise), whereas the 'dogs have a hierarchy' people see evidence to support their belief every single day.

Exactly,I could not agree more!!!!! Tony

[Nekhbet]

Perhaps we do see a form of hierarchy, but I am really questioning the "alpha pack leader" theory and if true hierarchy and pack organisation actually exists within our dogs innate existence. Please someone, turn my thoughts pure again

It probably does more then we see but we are great at stuffing up dogs and confusing them. Remember dogs are trying to cope in a human dominated world. Even the ground they walk on is artificial. So no, you probably will not SEE 100% clear cut behavior (and then the poor buggers have to learn tricks to get the message through to us too) as you would out in the wild with dogs that are relying on themselves and their pack. There has to be SOME sort of structure otherwise there would be chaos, fighting and ultimately starvation.

But again we try to complicate the dog by saying that what we (humans) see, and the way we interpret the things dogs do, is anthropomophism. Surely it can't be that simple can it because they are dogs and therefore it must be more complicated than that? Isn't saying "dog A is higher in rank than dog B because dog A controls the food bowl", anthropomophism..??

anthropomorphism is attributing human morals, thoughts and motivations onto animals, objects etc. Not saying an animal has NO thoughts or motivations of its own BUT they are not human ones. As I said before this :

a mutual understanding and agreement between two distinct personalities for the purpose of calm co-existence

is an anthropomorphic concept. It is a human concept of morality, supporting the lesser able of the two to exist. That does not exist in a dog. We have given a dog situation a human spin. Dogs do not feed each other, in fact a dog that is weak usually gets turned on in a large group - because although they may work together dogs will turn on each other as well.

Just like when a human owner provides everything for the dog, food, toys, attention etc and suddenly the dog lashes out and bites. You would have heard it ...

"oh but he LOVES me and I give him everything and he APPRECIATES everything I do, how much MONEY I SPEND ON HIM" etc

Nope. Dog sees a meal ticket, milks it and when it doesnt provide *bang* Oi slave come on NOW.

I have upset a couple of people. Out of control dog, after a session with me it sometimes prefers to stick with me because I have provided clear leadership and consistancy (and a bit of a treat/cuddle) "Oh I thought he/she LOVED me"

once again we think dogs do things for US because they love us. We think dogs get along with each other because they play happy families like we do. I think us humans need to stand back and take a good look at what dogs really are. Maybe we dont want to believe it. We have bred them so far removed we dont want to think they still have primitive urges and not be our pets that 'love us and would do anything for us'. A few generations of phenotypic breeding cannot remove thousands of years of hard wiring. Yes we have modified it but we have no extinguished it or suddenly added a whole new level of the dogs psyche - the ability to morally chose, the ability to love, to completely disregard the natural order of things and support the weak etc. They cannot and will not.

Perhaps we do see a form of hierarchy, but I am really questioning the "alpha pack leader" theory and if true hierarchy and pack organisation actually exists within our dogs innate existence. Please someone, turn my thoughts pure again

Probably because it has become highly simplified and over used. Suddenly everyone uses 'oh dog X is alpha, it displays dominance etc" and I dont like it. Its not hard cut because, as I said, we all live in an artificial environment and keep packs which are also artificial. There are no desexed dogs in the wild. You would not have multiple bitches having puppies together in the same pack in the wild, as would you not have dogs roaming far and wide having 'puppy partys' and random meet ups (unless said random meet up included trying to scare away or shred new intruder) There is an element of hierachy but I dont think its black and white anymore. I dont see anything wrong with saying 'I am boss of my dogs and what I say goes, period." Its a smart concept especially for someone like me who owns combined 135kg of dog weight. But these days we want to be 'friends' more then leaders, it seems to be a dirty word - as is 'dominant' or 'alpha' or the concept of a consequence for an action.

We SHOULD be understanding the hierachy a dog thinks is necessary and then understanding why our dog does what it does when put in our artificial environment. Why an entire dog may not see a desexed dog as a higher member but the desexed dog's attitude may mean it still wants to be boss ... oh then they blue! Why entire bitches, especially breeding ones, will fight to the death - they are fighting for breeding rights and the right to be top bitch in the environment. If they had human concepts we could have them get along merrily but they sometimes DONT. Because its not in their nature.

[Kelpie-i]

Midol,wild dogs do function as a pack.Have a look at the question Nekhbet ask's.Nekhbet asks about the Hunting patterns of Wild dogs and whether they throw themselves randomly at prey or go about it in a calculated and organised way?They go about it as a pack in an organised and skillful manner as sucess on the hunt means survival for the pack.

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again....what "wild dogs" do you keep referring to? Other naturally wild canids, which are not domestic dogs and have not evolved like the domestic dog has, or domestic dogs turned "wild" who are more likely to revert back to their scavenging ways rather than hunt to survive ie, stalk, chase, kill, consume, in packs?? If the latter, please provide proof that such "wild domestic" dogs exist and where...I will not accept feral dogs out for a good time with the neighbours sheep as an answer to this.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Kelpie-i

[Nekhbet]

dingos scavenge ... its the opportunistic nature of the dog NOT human breeding that has brought that on. Places in USA have problems with Coyotes, racoons etc because of garbage dumps and human waste. It is in all wild animals nature to take the easy route thats how they survive.

There are true 'feral' dogs out in AUstralia. 2nd, 3rd, 4th gen wild bred animals which cause millions of dollars damage to stock and native fauna yearly. THere are not dogs out for a good time these are wild, dangerous dogs which have no qualms attacking humans either.

[Kelpie-i]

its the opportunistic nature of the dog NOT human breeding that has brought that on

Again my point. When I said"evolving" I did not mean by the human hand, rather by the genetic nature of the animal. The original scavenging dogs did not scavenge because humans were there to offer food, rather they saw the opportunity to eat "for free" and they did. They took the easy way out.

There are true 'feral' dogs out in AUstralia. 2nd, 3rd, 4th gen wild bred animals which cause millions of dollars damage to stock and native fauna yearly. THere are not dogs out for a good time these are wild, dangerous dogs which have no qualms attacking humans either.

Very true...but do they hunt in packs as naturally wild (non evolved) canids do in order for the survival of their pack and species, or are they feeding themselves for the sake of self preservation? The coyotes have never evolved, therefore we cannot compare them to the domestic dog.

[Tonymc]

To answer the question are the wild dogs thinking only of their own Preservation?The answer is two fold.The wild dogs need the pack because of the size of prey they hunt{Not all the time but generally} such as Kangaroo's,Emu's,larger animals and unfortunately domestic stock.The Wild dog has a far greater chance of survival by being a member of the pack.Inorder though for the pack to be sucessful,all member's must co-operate with one another according to their pack rank or position.

So the Wild Dog firstly has to basically function as a team player inorder to ensure his survival.The Pack comes first and then the individual dog.If the pack is not functioning effectively, then chances of a sucessful kill, drop dramatically which affects every individual dog in the pack of course.

So the Dog has to firstly function as pack member to ensure his survival.

The above of course applies to Wolves and so on. Tony

[Kelpie-i]

Tony, we don't have wolves in Australia and we don't have wild dogs (other canids) either, albeit the Dingo which is a scavenger and does not hunt in packs, rather they live in a loose community. Therefore I am really hard pressed to recognise the "wild dog" you speak of.

Feral dogs are a niusance but they do not form tight packs and hunt for food in packs in the sense you speak ie. like the wolf. Wolves are not dogs and vice versa. The dog is a very different animal which has evolved over thousands of years and to compare it to the wolf would be unfair to both species.

I have never seen footage, nor heard of any domestic (feral) dog "packs" hunting and bringing down a kangaroo as a team for the purpose of survival.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Kelpie-i

[Erny]

I have never seen footage, nor heard of any domestic (feral) dog "packs" hunting and bringing down a kangaroo as a team for the purpose of survival.

Hi Kelpie-i

I know it was mentioned in your earlier (probably your opening) post, but I'm finding it difficult to comprehend that it 'matters' whether the dogs are hunting for actual survival (which, amongst our domestic dogs they generally don't need to do) or hunting as a 'pack' because of some ancient instinct.

For example, many years ago when I lived with my folks on a 'hobby farm' sized property, which was boardered by numerous other larger rural allotments, we were informed by a 'neighbour' who bred and trained race horses that there had been sighted a 'pack' of dogs (comprising from memory a group of about 3 or 4) that had been 'worrying' the horses on his property. He'd seen them once or twice, but never close enough or at an opportune time for him to do anything much about containing them. This 'pack' of dogs re-visited his property one more time but this time, together they took down a fairly new spring foal and killed it.

Now I'm not sure these dogs actually ate any of the foal they killed (it wasn't a question I asked at the time) so for the purpose of this thread I will assume not. But I do know from the neighbour's description that it was apparent this 'pack' of dogs were domesticated pets and I believe the neighbour tracked one of the dog's owners down (not sure of the outcome of that) and that dog did not 'belong' with the other dogs as a 'family'. Which meant that these same dogs 'grouped' and 're-grouped' when they had the opportunity to do so.

So to me it seemed that their 'pack' behaviour amplified when they grouped themselves together. That they didn't have to kill and eat their kill for survival ..... well, isn't that simply a matter of circumstance? Just because they weren't reliant on doing so for their immediate survival doesn't mean the instinct to do so isn't there, don't you think?

Edited December 23, 2008 by Erny

[lucylotto]

I was going to write something about looking at the oldest known pure dog breed in the world, the Australasian Dingo, as an example or comparison to neolithic cavemen camp-dogs 100,000 years ago. But after a quick bit of research on Dingo DNA studies I've just learned Dingoes only arrived in Australia about 3,000 and not more than 6,000 years ago. Probably on Indonesian fishing canoes. Which is not neolithic at all. Around the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid in Giza.

But they still provide a good example of dogs reverted to semi-wild state to see that they are nothing like Wolf packs. Look at the wild pack (for want of a better word) on Frasier Island, which is probably best known at the moment. Individual scavengers and opportunists, more like Coyotes than Wolves, if you ask me.

Hi Anthony,

I agree they are scavengers on Fraser. What type of behaviour was the killing of the 9 yr old boy a couple of years ago?

mel.

[BJean]

I have never seen footage, nor heard of any domestic (feral) dog "packs" hunting and bringing down a kangaroo as a team for the purpose of survival.

Hi Kelpie-i

I know it was mentioned in your earlier (probably your opening) post, but I'm finding it difficult to comprehend that it 'matters' whether the dogs are hunting for actual survival (which, amongst our domestic dogs they generally don't need to do) or hunting as a 'pack' because of some ancient instinct.

Likewise Erny

To assert that feral dog pack only hunts out of self survival - unlike the ultruist wild dog which hunts because it is living for the pack -

extricates self survival from pack instinct, when in fact in animals that have an innate sense to form groups, the two are intertwined.

ahhh but then this brings us to the whole point of the topic -

dogs do not have an innate sense of pack - they have a communication system or understanding -

lol or hierachy

can't see new material here other than dalliances with the English langauge and its interpretation.

on feral dog packs killing stock:

they do eat what they kill when the dogs dont belong to a home and have no other food source, and therefore eat for self survival which in turn is survival for the pack -

the DIFFERENCE between chasing an animal and killing it in the wild

and chasing an animal and killing it in a confined space - is that once the first animal is down, the other animals can't really ascape anywhere. So in feral dog pack of 1 or x generations where they target farm stock - the dogs can kill for more than just their appetite. The dogs don't just live off livestock, they catch and eat native/wild animals when they can. But also do not miss an opportunity when it presents itself - no hunter does.

On wild dogs:

last time I caught attenborough chatting about them, I didn't see any altruist pack member dishing out food to the older or weaker - they had to wait their turn until the more assertive ate their fill.

And if there wasn't enough food to go around - the lower ranked dogs went without. And in tough times, they died of starvation.

Is that survival for the pack or self? same thing. You cannot have pack without first ensuring survival of the self.

Edited December 24, 2008 by lilli

[BJean]

Midol,wild dogs do function as a pack.Have a look at the question Nekhbet ask's.Nekhbet asks about the Hunting patterns of Wild dogs and whether they throw themselves randomly at prey or go about it in a calculated and organised way?They go about it as a pack in an organised and skillful manner as sucess on the hunt means survival for the pack.

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again....what "wild dogs" do you keep referring to? Other naturally wild canids, which are not domestic dogs and have not evolved like the domestic dog has, or domestic dogs turned "wild" who are more likely to revert back to their scavenging ways rather than hunt to survive ie, stalk, chase, kill, consume, in packs?? If the latter, please provide proof that such "wild domestic" dogs exist and where...I will not accept feral dogs out for a good time with the neighbours sheep as an answer to this.

proof on what feral dogs do?

most funding for feral dogs is put into their extermination, not on how they get their food source. what matters to the DPI and farmers is that they are there and it costs them money.

The DPI has only just now funded a project in QLD on LGDs and how they work with preventing feral dogs - as part of the study - feral dogs wil be looked at

but not in the way that you require.

If a farmer tells me he has a pair of feral dogs that come and hunt from his stock once or twice a week, I believe him.

I reckon he knows the difference between local dogs out for a night on the town and a feral dog using his stock as a food source

Edited December 24, 2008 by lilli

[Lablover]

It was the best experience ever

I bet. Did he distinguish between wild and caged wolf studies? Mind you, from memory on one of his CDs wild are semi "caged" ie in solo/sometimes isolated groups.

Can you start another thread on his thoughts regarding dominance? (most often simple resource guarding) Or any other topic!!!!!!!!