Dogs And "pack" Theory

[Jen]

very well written...thankyou. I have 6 dogs which are all working dog breeds and in training they all work for what they can get as individuals. They definately do not share! This is not a pack. They all do what works for themselves and as for the hirachi it changes all the time depending on what they are doing. One might be boss at food time while another is boss of the ball. Yet a different dog is boss when it comes to the tug toy. It all depends on what is most important to each individual. Once again this is not pack behaviour and so when it comes to training them it is silly to work with pack motivation in mind. Instead it is reasonable to think what is most important to each individual and work with that. This is why we need to understand the pack or not pack theory after all. Thanks for your post

[Leema]

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!

Please do post details when they are available.

[stumped]

As how I interact with my dogs is not influenced by any of the theories out there this is from an interest standpoint only.

l have watched many dogs interact and often living in large numbers, but l will mention some things l have observed in cattle dogs not wild dogs but working dogs. There is no specific reward for any individual dog, just putting wild cattle in the pen. l am pleased they did it and instinct dictates that they do it. Now when they are out there working a large mob, l see them adopt the same role each time that is effective in getting the overall job done. One will work an opposite flank to me and steer the lead, one will work drag and push stragglers and one arcs from me out overseeing and applying power to control the herd, he will pull up runaways or immediately go to the aid of one of the others if it is challenged and a fight ensues. There is no reward for the dog that rushes to the fray when one of the dogs is in trouble, he may indeed be trampled and run over, and if the fight persists all will leave their post, uninstructed , and work together till it is quelled then return to their positions. Curiously if a dog in that team is injured , say the steering dog, and you insert another that normally works the tail within a short time one of those tail workers will adopt the flank and steering role. Something else l notice is the dog that is in charge of pulling up runaways is always the head dog at feed time, when they take a position in the truck or camp in the shade. All of these dogs work well together if you replace any of the team members but him, put two of those in and there will be a ruckus before one takes charge of that role. Now they dont eat these cattle and l feed them so no need to scavenge, just appears it sorts itself out so we get the cattle back to the yards.

l enjoy working with them , whatever their reasons for doing it.

[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.

Hi Erny, the initial reason for this thread was about the evolution of the dog and, based on Ray's theories, how our domestic dogs today are most likely not the pack dwellers we like to think they are. Then it went off on a tangent with people saying that they see dogs hunting and pack hierarchy stuff.....etc...etc....etc.

Since the theory is that our domestic dogs derived from the village dogs in early BC times, they too are most likely to scavenge to survive if left to their own devices rather than form a pack and hunt.

Since attending Ray's seminar....and I only wish I had taken a voice recorder with me to record what he said throughout the 3 days, it has got me thinking about whether everything I always knew about dogs and the "pack instincts" and "hierarchy" was actually correct.

Many people have given their views which has provided some very good argument, but I still cannot help but think that somehow we might be somewhat incorrect in our thinking of what our domestic dog actually is and what it may become if push came to shove.

Anyway, I think I will wait until he comes to Oz next year and ask him all the questions I didn't think to ask then.

l enjoy working with them , whatever their reasons for doing it

tmc, I totally agree. Nothing nicer than watching the dogs working in harmony.

This is why we need to understand the pack or not pack theory after all. Thanks for your post

Jen, yes I concur. It's always been the case of "because it is written, then it must be". For so long we've had books from Scott and Fuller, Skinner, Lorenz and all those other scientists telling us the way it is. Then along comes another scientist who reckons that some of it may be wrong. Lorenz was the first to admit that he was wrong, this must surely say something.

Did he distinguish between wild and caged wolf studies?

No LL, he did not. But he did recommend going to Yellowstone National Park to see the wild wolf packs there. Apparently they are absolutely amazing to watch.

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

Why are you getting bored with this one??? Perhaps someone else can start it and add their views first up.....I'd have to go and buy a new flame suit!!!

What type of behaviour was the killing of the 9 yr old boy a couple of years ago?

Never heard of this case, what are the details.

[Lablover]

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

Why are you getting bored with this one??? Perhaps someone else can start it and add their views first up.....I'd have to go and buy a new flame suit!!!

Your thread has me listening on one of his CDs as I browse. One particular session includes Ray Coppinger and James Serpell. For example, listening how pet dogs kill versus wild.

Sorry to divert thread again. Makes me think of human (wild) hunters and us the spoilt ones.

[Kelpie-i]

LL, do share some of his comments when you've finished listening.

[OSoSwift]

Kelpie-i

I don't think you need a flame suit, you bring some interesting points. I think it is human nature to be more likely to believe what is infront of them, a newer theory takes a little while to be accepted as we are suspicious and creatures of habit as a rule. This is the first I have heard of these theories and this particular person so I for one would need to do more indepth reading before I adopted his theories as my own, if I decided they were infact correct or not. Nothing wrong with some healthy debating. Have a good Christmas

[Tonymc]

Kelpie-I firstly I am not having a go at you but I find your statement that there are no wild dogs in Australia a little absurd.Go for a trip to the Snowy Mountains,Gippsland and lots of other area.The Dogs I refer to are not domestic dogs sneaking out out a night, then coming back before morning.

These are dogs living and functioning fully in the Wild.

I find the statement that Dingo's only scavenge a fairly ridiculous one.I have first hand seen Dingo's make kills.

There comes a times when hearsay and theories do not hold much weight when compared to real experience. Tony

[Quickasyoucan]

Kelpie-i

I don't think you need a flame suit, you bring some interesting points. I think it is human nature to be more likely to believe what is infront of them, a newer theory takes a little while to be accepted as we are suspicious and creatures of habit as a rule. This is the first I have heard of these theories and this particular person so I for one would need to do more indepth reading before I adopted his theories as my own, if I decided they were infact correct or not. Nothing wrong with some healthy debating. Have a good Christmas

I have to second what Rommimum says, but also to say this, I read the first part of his book and found myself nodding my head, towards the end my head was shaking, however, that doesn't mean I am going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I think that as has already been said, anything that provokes healthy discussion is great, besides, I don't think one has to adopt every theory that is proposed by a particular person, isn't it possible to agree with parts and disagree with some others?

The book was certainly thought provoking. I would be interested if he does come to Australia even if I don't agree with everything in his book as they say in France, Vive La Difference!!

Thanks Kelpie-i for putting this thread up.

[Lablover]

Kelpie-I firstly I am not having a go at you but I find your statement that there are no wild dogs in Australia a little absurd.Go for a trip to the Snowy Mountains,Gippsland and lots of other area.The Dogs I refer to are not domestic dogs sneaking out out a night, then coming back before morning.

These are dogs living and functioning fully in the Wild.

I find the statement that Dingo's only scavenge a fairly ridiculous one.I have first hand seen Dingo's make kills.

There comes a times when hearsay and theories do not hold much weight when compared to real experience. Tony

I should have listened to a friend who stayed last weekend. He had the job of culling 16 in Gippsland.

Kelpie-I, I will try transcibing.

[Kelpie-i]

think that as has already been said, anything that provokes healthy discussion is great, besides, I don't think one has to adopt every theory that is proposed by a particular person, isn't it possible to agree with parts and disagree with some others?

Absolutely agree Quickasyoucan, it's not like I am about to adopt everything he is saying, rather it has stirred my curiousity.

Thanks LL, whenever you have time and can be bothered.

Hey, to everyone who contributed to this thread....Have a Very Merry Christmas, and thanks for your thoughts on the topic.

[Erny]

Why are you getting bored with this one??? Perhaps someone else can start it and add their views first up.....I'd have to go and buy a new flame suit!!!

Kelpie-i ..... absolutely no flaming from my pov.

What you've written of Ray's thoughts/comments/ideas is thought provoking. I remember when I read of his thoughts on this topic, being quite convinced of what he was saying as when he gives all the details/arguments to support his theory, it is quite convincing. As you know I would have looooved the opportunity that you have had by visiting with him and meeting the wolf pack and I would imagine that in Ray's presence I would have been too blown away with his knowledge to have thought to ask questions there and then! LOL

I don't think anyone here is flaming you either - although it might feel as though it is. You've put up a thread and informed us of what Ray's theory is. I think it is great to hear of new and novel ideas and thoughts and these things do take a bit of digesting ...... and what better way than to put it up against what one already believes in. Kind of like kneading bread, I think. Gotta push and pull at it until it feels soft and comfortable, so to speak .

Hope you have a great Christmas day tomorrow, and a wonderful New Year. And hope to catch up with you soon after, if not sooner .

Edited December 24, 2008 by Erny

[WoofnHoof]

I agree with erny, it's an interesting idea worth investigating, while I can see a few areas where I differ in opinion the answer no doubt lies somewhere in the middle!

Merry Christmas everyone

[Nekhbet]

whats wrong with a little healthy discussion? Without discussion there is no education!

Too full of food and xmas cheer *hiccup*

[Lablover]

Thanks LL, whenever you have time and can be bothered.

Hey, to everyone who contributed to this thread....Have a Very Merry Christmas, and thanks for your thoughts on the topic. ;)

My computer's virtual memory and mine have hit a snag. From the computer side, no discs will play. I will be back. Mind you, you naughty girl, I am become a little focused and side tracked on the topic. OCD perhaps, another of my down falls? Happy 2009.

[corvus]

Firstly, I am wildly jealous that you not only got to visit Wolf Park but got to hear Coppinger as well. I haven't read his book, but I've had a lot of people tell me I should.

On the social hierarchy front, I wanted to point out a few things. I posted something about this several months ago. There's an interesting paper on the web called "The Non-linear Dog" that offers an explanation for how dogs could exist without a social hierarchy. It's also good reading and quite challenging. I didn't believe it at first, but when I started to look at the way dogs behaved from that perspective I found it to be pretty sound. I did a fair bit of animal behaviour at uni and just sort of took it for granted that you use words like dominant and subordinate, but unless you work in primates or canines these terms are really only describing the way individuals interact with each other on a case by case basis.

So, if I think about the way dogs interact from the perspective of a bird biologist (one of those hats I've worn) rather than a dog owner, I discover that birds and dogs behave quite similarly in social situations. If I then look at it from the perspective of an evolutionary ecologist, I find that there are still more similarities between all the taxa and how they behave in social situations. There are only a few cases where it all falls apart and a social hierarchy becomes necessary, and they are generally groups I'm not overly familiar with so I give up about there.

Ultimately, every individual seeks to balance getting what they want against risks, such as physical injury. Where they are thrown into a group of strangers, they must test each other and discover when taking risks pays off and when it doesn't. Hence, you get these "structures" where it appears that one animal is constantly deferring to another animal. That may be the case, but it may be simply because the "lower ranking" animal just happens to be the kind of personality that doesn't like to take risks. Or it may be that the "higher ranking" animal is the kind that has discovered risks pay off and the confidence of past success it brings to a confrontation in its body language warns the other animal that the risk of getting into a fight and possibly sustaining injury has increased dramatically.

And confidence is this whole other thing that has become pretty universal. Pretty much animal can tell if you are confident when you approach, no matter how closely related or distantly related they are to you. Confidence tends to illicit a do or die kind of attitude. The animal realises they have to meet you head on, run, or surrender. Meeting a confident individual head on is fraught with danger, but that doesn't mean you can't swing it your way if you are also confident. These things have nothing to do with hierarchy. It's just personalities, experience, body language, and motivation.

As an aside, I think it's important to point out that wolves themselves don't really have packs as such. Usually the "pack" is a family unit of mum and dad and the kids. The so-called "alpha" pair are respected and heeded because they are the parents. New packs are usually formed from a new pair and their subsequent kids. It gets complicated when packs get very big. I believe they often splinter up into small packs and then reform in the cold months when big game is all that's really left.

I could write about this all day as its a veritable minefield of arguments and counter-arguments, but I'll leave it there for the moment.

[WoofnHoof]

I tend to agree corvus, I think that humans influence the hierarchies more than anything else, as the animals can tell who we favour the most no matter how equal we try to make it. That is why the structure is more more solid and defined than it is in the wild, our own sense of structure influences the way the animals behave towards each other.

[Kelpie-i]

Thanks for your post Corvus, it's very interesting.

What you've written about the different personality types ie. more confident or not wanting to take risks etc, is exactly what I was trying to say, although you've written it a lot better than I ever could.

I only wish to had recorded the seminar as there was loads more information that I was not able to take down, nor remember that was vital to this thread, but nonetheless, it was interesting to hear the different opinions.

Is the dog training/enthusiast world ready for a change of idea and come away from the belief of pack hierarchy theory just yet....who knows! :D

[lucylotto]

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.

Hi Erny, the initial reason for this thread was about the evolution of the dog and, based on Ray's theories, how our domestic dogs today are most likely not the pack dwellers we like to think they are. Then it went off on a tangent with people saying that they see dogs hunting and pack hierarchy stuff.....etc...etc....etc.

Since the theory is that our domestic dogs derived from the village dogs in early BC times, they too are most likely to scavenge to survive if left to their own devices rather than form a pack and hunt.

Since attending Ray's seminar....and I only wish I had taken a voice recorder with me to record what he said throughout the 3 days, it has got me thinking about whether everything I always knew about dogs and the "pack instincts" and "hierarchy" was actually correct.

Many people have given their views which has provided some very good argument, but I still cannot help but think that somehow we might be somewhat incorrect in our thinking of what our domestic dog actually is and what it may become if push came to shove.

Anyway, I think I will wait until he comes to Oz next year and ask him all the questions I didn't think to ask then.

l enjoy working with them , whatever their reasons for doing it

tmc, I totally agree. Nothing nicer than watching the dogs working in harmony.

This is why we need to understand the pack or not pack theory after all. Thanks for your post

Jen, yes I concur. It's always been the case of "because it is written, then it must be". For so long we've had books from Scott and Fuller, Skinner, Lorenz and all those other scientists telling us the way it is. Then along comes another scientist who reckons that some of it may be wrong. Lorenz was the first to admit that he was wrong, this must surely say something.

Did he distinguish between wild and caged wolf studies?

No LL, he did not. But he did recommend going to Yellowstone National Park to see the wild wolf packs there. Apparently they are absolutely amazing to watch.

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

Why are you getting bored with this one??? Perhaps someone else can start it and add their views first up.....I'd have to go and buy a new flame suit!!!

What type of behaviour was the killing of the 9 yr old boy a couple of years ago?

Never heard of this case, what are the details.

A few years ago on Fraser Island a 9 yr old boy was mauled to death whilst his brother watched on helplessly. He and families were camping and kids were separated from rest of family...no one got to him in time to save him. I remember it because I have x3 boys of my own and was overwhelmed with the horror, particularly as I had been there only months before with my boys and the dingoes were all around the island. I had to stop my boys from seeking their friendship (they have grown up with dogs but were still young ie ~9yrs old and needed instruction re danger etc.)

My memory says dogs were not provoked but pack no. was greater than children no.

Powers that be made a decision to cull dingoes after that as there were too many on island and not enough food for them due to isolation from mainland.

I'm interested in thoughts on this

cheers

mel

[corvus]

Thing about animals like dingoes is that regardless of whether or not they form packs, hunt, or have a social hierarchy, they are social to some degree and therefore capable of banding together when conditions favour it. I am far from an expert on canine behaviour, but it would seem to me that this case was probably a case of a group of dingoes hunting, but I guess we'll never know. Perhaps they weren't hunting but interested in the kid and their interest was contagious and they all fed off each other until they got excited enough to attack. Animals do weird things when their population density is high and food availability low, if that truly was the case.

My understanding of dingoes, which may be wrong, is that they are generally loners or pairs and when there are more it's usually a family. They certainly hunt, I know that for a fact. It is said they can work together for trickier prey. I don't think there's any natural prey in Australia big enough to support larger groups.

I remember seeing a short film about camp dogs in a remote community in Australia one time. The camp dog pack was very large and they had possibly staked out a territory. At least, they were confident enough to harry people passing by. I believe they got their food from scavenging mostly. My thought is, if there's food enough then dogs will band together. I think of my hare, who is supposedly a solitary animal but seems to prefer company all the same. I have seen hares being a bit social in the wild and my theory is they would prefer to have pals if the constraints on them (food availability, risk of predation) allowed it. This is pure speculation, but sociality has a lot of benefits and I reckon a lot of animals prefer to live in groups even if they don't especially need to.

Kelpie-i, I think there would be a lot of resistance to the notion of no social hierarchy, but I know a lot of regulars from a US-based forum that have already embraced it to various degrees. When I first joined it a couple of years ago, such talk was heresy. Nowadays, you can make a post entirely based on the assumption that there is no pack and no dominance and no social hierarchy and people will not even mention that part of it. They will answer from their own viewpoint. Whether it will become more widely accepted is, I think, dependent on whether anyone can come up with some good scientific evidence to back it up. L. David Mech has some interesting things to say about social structure in wolves. I think he has written a paper to clarify his thoughts on dominant behaviour and submissive behaviour as it was being used to back up arguments he didn't actually agree with. It's available from his website for free.