Dogs And "pack" Theory

[Kelpie-i]

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

LM Again you miss the point.....we are talking if ALL humans perished from the earth....not dogs living in remote villages. And yes there is a high mortality rate amongst today's village dogs due to diseases but others only survive purely because of the food provided to them by the villagers which allows them to survive and reproduce but not to the alarmingly high number that we have here in the Western world.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Kelpie-i

[Kelpie-i]

Dogs rock, again you make very valid points...I only quote what Ray states. I will have to sift through my pages and pages of notes in order to validate his sentiments.

[Dogs rock]

Thanks kelpie-i. Sounds like it would have been a great seminar to attend. Are you organising his visit to Australia?

Of course, I do realise that it is also entirely possible for the entire species to be wiped out - it all comes down to numbers in the end I guess.

I love this topic! However I've only just started contributing to this forum and it's already kept me up past my bedtime... Not good.

[arawnhaus]

Hmmm...

So then, If the present Dog didn't have the Intrusion of Man upon it any longer,would the Dog revert back to early days and into a fully reliant Wolf community or would an entirely different species of animal appear, I guess we will never know...

Canines of today unlike the Ancestor Wolf,live in quite artificial environments,it's unlikely they will have the skills and/or the thought process to truly be 'pack' structured,so they probably would either die out,due to a lack of skill and ability to commune together or they would slowly kill each other. Maybe maybe not..

Just my thoughts..

Edited December 18, 2008 by Delkerabo

[Just Midol]

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.

I still disagree, you really have no way of knowing whether they would or would not hunt to survive.

This is all speculation after all, we have no way of knowing whether dogs would die out or not. There are a ton of different theories, and this man who you went to is only giving one theory.

ETA: Even if pack theory is incorrect, the principles of enforcing leadership are still very important, leadership is important, whether or not dogs recognise us as the leader of a "pack".

Edited December 18, 2008 by Lord Midol

[anthony mazzeri]

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.

[Kavik]

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.

I found this part of his theory very interesting (having read the book) and makes sense to me. Will need to reread it if I want to explain it though

I was also going to bring up Dingoes - as being dogs that have reverted back to being wild, and that they are not like wolf packs, much more loosely structured, and fewer dogs together. There are a few theories as to why - terrain, type of food available (lots of small things like rabbits, not as much big game that would require a cohesive pack).

[Kelpie-i]

CORRECTION......

I have found the part in the book which states the survival of the today dog if humans perished.

"In short, except in rare instances, if all dogs were to die, human life would not be threatened, whereas if all humans died, the domestic dog could not surivive in its present form"

LM, here is some further statements on the supposed social hierarchy theory:

"dogs hardly need a social organisation to feed on discarded chicken bones or mango skins. For dogs, other dogs are no help when it comes to feeding themselves or feeding pups. In fact, other dogs are not only no help in finding garbage, but they are chief competitor for a limited quantify of food. Thus, packing behaviours are not to a village dog's selectived advantage. There are few benefits in getting together to feed and no motivation to feed someone else's pups:

Remebering that our domestic dogs live in the same sense as the early village dog did.

[Kelpie-i]

ETA: Even if pack theory is incorrect, the principles of enforcing leadership are still very important, leadership is important, whether or not dogs recognise us as the leader of a "pack".

Absolutely LM, I agree that there must be someone controlling the activities of our companion dogs at home. We see and hear all to often the problems that come with leaving dogs to their own devices and with no training or guidance. This lends to another type of discussion to the wonder that is our domestic dog.

BTW LM, he used to race sled dogs for 12 years, even winning some much coveted prizes. If you're into sled dog racing, I would recommend reading his book as he has some very interesting insights into the "ideal" team.

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.

Anthony, there are those who believe that the Coyote is the ancestor of the dog and not the wolf. But if memory serves me right and I'll have to read through my notes to double check, that Coyote DNA is not perfectly matched to the dog like the wolf DNA is, which renders this belief as perhaps incorrect.

[Rusky]

Pssst....just a secret....he is coming to Australia in November 09

great

[chris.p.day]

A lot is explained by looking at Darwin's theory of evolution, if there is a survival niche then an organism will grow to fill it.

The wolf - Europe and North America don't have big cats, so you get these big dogs who "pack" together to fufill the "bring down the large herbivores" niche (deer, cows etc), crows (as one eg.) fill the scavenger niche

The hyena - Africa has large cats to fill the "bring down the large herbivores" niche, so hyenas fill the scavenger niche

How would it play out if humans were suddenly not to exist? Well it would depend on the environment and what niches are available to fill.

That's only one half though...if dogs (wolves) originally packed (to bring down large game), what do they do now? Indeed they scavenge (wait to be fed ) But now the primary thing is the social side of things, just like physiology gets shaped by evolution (sharp claws, big teeth!), there are social behaviours that also get shaped along the way.

I have seen no arguments (from Kelpie's source) to suggest how social behaviours in dogs have evolved, or even if they have altered in any significant way. Scientifically "packing" may only refer to the hunt, but there is a reason why most people think of "packing" as the social interaction as well.

Whilst hunting may have gone by the wayside the social side of things may still be in full force within dogs, and studying how dogs work within the social hierarchy is more important than the the change from hunting to scavenging (IMVHO)

Cheers,

Chris

[Kelpie-i]

A lot is explained by looking at Darwin's theory of evolution, if there is a survival niche then an organism will grow to fill it

hi chris.p.day, this is correct, it is Darwin's theory of wolf/dog domestication that is inconclusive, not entirely his theory of evolution.

have seen no arguments (from Kelpie's source) to suggest how social behaviours in dogs have evolved, or even if they have altered in any significant way. Scientifically "packing" may only refer to the hunt, but there is a reason why most people think of "packing" as the social interaction as well.

We, today, do refer to "packing" as the social interaction of dogs, but it is not the correct scientific terminology of the word. That is not to say that most of us won't use the words "dog pack" in our every day conversations to simply imply a group of dogs. I suppose it will depend on who you talk to.

Social behaviours have and do evolve depending on the niche environment (as do physical characteristics), but to pack is merely a developmental process to a specific habitat. The early protodog did not pack as there was no reason for it to and was not beneficial to it's existence. This flowed on to our domestic dog today. As you said, they wait for food to come to them. Since "packing" is not genetic behaviour it would be unfair and incorrect to term our dogs as "pack animals" who display "pack behaviours". Therefore whilst various behaviours have evoled either to accommodate the environment or by way of artificial selection, I believe our dogs do not and will not show any form of true pack behaviour (altered or not) in their existence today.

Whilst hunting may have gone by the wayside the social side of things may still be in full force within dogs, and studying how dogs work within the social hierarchy is more important than the the change from hunting to scavenging (IMVHO)

This would then be the subject of another thread

Edited December 18, 2008 by Kelpie-i

[Rusky]

This interview is interesting and one I had in my dog links.

http://www.workingdogweb.com/Coppinger.htm

I call dogs a 'loose pack' in a class for example where dogs get used to seeing and training with the same dogs. I never agreed with the dominance theory, but that is the beauty of theory, if you don't like one then find one that you do I love that all the observations of wolves show kind leaders. Of course htere will always be an exception to the rule and they have their whipping boy...perhaps he or she first went off in search of food?

I have watched many street dogs and though in villages they gather to warn and bark often they don't run together except in small family groups or 3 or 4. It is quite usual to see a dog running alone and joining his friends for the comparative safety of the group later in the day.

Dogs follow people, even where they are treated badly in some countries.

will think about this all day now.

[Just Midol]

Ohh, I'll read his book I still disagree that there is no social structure but I'll read it anyway

For example, Gizmo does everything before Lily when it does not involve me. If I'm not here, Gizmo is first, with everything. If he wants to sit somewhere, he does it. She moves without any violence usually - I consider this a social structure, sure, it might only exist because if she doesn't move he will make her move and has the capacity to do so, but in my mind that's still a form of social hierarchy. I'm just thinking here, but my definition of social hierarchy might not match the more technical definition.

Even if I changed my mind, I'd still enforce all the rules in the same manner as I currently do because regardless of the theory behind it, it works

[Lablover]

This information is based on the 3 day seminar I recently attended at Wolf Park (US) with Biologist and Ethologist, Prof. Ray Coppinger.

What a wonderful experience. I have only read his book and have a few seminar presentations on discs. One line which includes, see one wolf you have seen them all, dogs are much more interesting. I certainly enjoy watching (and learning from) my five dogs.

Was the whole three day seminar presented only by Prof Ray Coppinger?

[Kelpie-i]

Hi LL, yes it was 3 days with Ray, but we did get to spend 2 x 1 hour sessions in with the wolf pack during the seminar. There were 6 wolves and they were all absolutely beautiful.....and very big!

One of them decided that my sleeve was a tug toy and proceeded to tug at it. Then he took my hand in his mouth, albeit gently. Now when this happens you have to put your other hand in.. .(go figure), turn your hands around and "tickle" the inside of their mouths to annoy them. Well needless to say that this did not work as Renki (the wolf) thought this was a hoot and continued playing with my hands. I must admit that I was a little worried but tried not to show it. One of the keepers lured him off with some treats but he came back for a nice pat and lick later.

On one of the nights they had a "howl" night, where you stood and howled with the wolves. This was awesome as well as eerie. The Coyotes are a hoot, they shrill rather than howl.

I've got heaps of video footage as well as about 200 photos of the whole experience....I also have Ray Coppinger's Ppt presentation on CD. I was trying to upload some pics but for some reason Fotobucket wouldn't play....but I will keep trying.

It was the best experience ever and I would highly recommend it to anybody with an interest in dogs and wolves.

[Erny]

I've read Ray Coppinger's theory on "pack" and I agree that the gentleman gives much food for thought - I love things that counter with good reasoning and argument what we tend to have thought of as fact as it very much makes you think and re-think.

There's also the theory that not all of our domesticated dogs evolved from wolves (although I do like to think so as I much prefer wolves to other of the canid species, but that's just sentimental personal preference on my part :D) - that some of them evolved from other of the lines .... the lines that were more scavengers and worked individually than they were 'pack'.

Was that still Ray Coppinger? I need to think on where I have read on that and refresh my memory.

[Kelpie-i]

Hey Erny

There was some belief that dogs derived from either Coyotes or Jackals (this was mentioned in the seminar), however from memory the DNA of both was quite removed from the dog's. It is the wolf DNA which is indistinguishable from the that of the dogs, which holds strong argument that the wolf IS the ancient ancestor of the dog.

[Nekhbet]

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.

if this was true then how do we explain the proliferation of feral dogs in Australia? Dogs are not such weak creatures we believe them to be they are a lot tougher then I think many give them credit for. I think genetic disease and encumbering shapes would be the first to die as we have bred them to be mildly 'human lifestyle dependant' but quite a few would survive. Its not hard to see since many farmers have their stock taken by ferals - I think they would evetually make the connection that the animal you pull down when you're hungry should be eaten. Hunting breeds, some guarding breeds, LGDs etc would probably start to vanish from random interbreeding between breeds but I dont see why suddenly every dog would be useless and die.

As for no heirachy .. eh then why do dogs find the need to fight, dominate and assert themselves over other dogs. If they had no need for pack structure and heirachy then technically in an environment we provide with food, shelter etc they would have no need to squabble over resources, resource guard, hump, mark territory etc. Look at village dogs, wild dog groups etc they will gladly open a can of whoop ass on a subordinate member that dares pinch food, or other will move back when a certain member moves in for a feed. So then what is the gist of the theory? We simply make friends and become on par with our canine companions? That giving rewards is simply like us 'paying' the dog as we would get a wage and is not a matter of the dog seeing us as a leader/higher pack member?

I'm clinging to my old fashioned theories :D I'm the youngest fossil around maybe but I dont see why a 'pack' has to mean a group of animals that hunt together and share the meal.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Nekhbet

[WoofnHoof]

Interesting topic kelpie-i :D

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.

The thrill and the reward are simply the motivators for survival behaviours in my opinion, I don't think of them as seperate things at all. A hunting behaviour can be quite complex (such as herding behaviours) and I don't think can be classified as a hard-wired behaviour, even though many people do classify it as such. I think that the expression of complex behaviours has to be the result of a combination of hard-wired 'triggers' and a motivator for the animal to learn the behaviour, as in 'if I do this it makes me feel good/not bad' sort of thing. This is where I tend to disagree with current thinking about hard-wired behaviours, yes there are some behaviours in which the animal is on 'auto-pilot', however other behaviours require the input and processing of information so the animal can determine which behaviour and how much of it should be applied to obtain the desired result. Hence the use of an emotional motivator in order to allow the animal to satisfy all of it's needs without having to constantly undertake trial-and-error learning. The genetic 'trigger' for the behaviour might be there but to hard-wire all of those complex behaviours for every situation seems like a huge waste of resources to me. Possibly not relevant but I do think that remnants of those behaviours still exist in modern dogs, many think that the breeding out of some of those behaviours are also the result in morphological changes, since sibes retain many wolf behaviours and there is a paper suggesting that the loss of these behaviours correlates with the loss of the wolf-like appearance. If anyone is interested in seeing it let me know I will try to find it.

I also think that the resemblance between dogs and other canids such as coyotes is probably a result of convergent evolution rather than an ancestral relationship. (convergent evolution = when two species develop similar traits but evolved seperately - like flying foxes and traditional bats, or echidnas and spiny anteaters).

Regarding the social aspect, one of the key factors in domestication is the presence of some kind of social structure, whether the structure was loosely organised in early dogs I don't know but it is believed that as social animals ourselves we have had a much better success rate with animals which form social groups in terms of domesticating. The exception of course is cats but whether they are in fact domesticated is still under debate lol! Certainly they will survive virtually unchanged with or without our help.

I'm glad he qualified his survival statement by adding "in it's present form", it's fairly obvious that dogs have been altered to survive in our world and will no doubt have to alter to survive in a world without us (like any domestic animal really). Whether or not they do will depend entirely on the environment in which they find themselves and whether or not there is sufficient genetic variation to allow for survival in that new environment.