Sibes - Independence

[Just Midol]

This time I am quering the claim of independence.

I know sibes when working WILL ignore a handlers direction if it'll put the dogs in danger (IE, they will avoid splitting a tree (one dog either side)).

Is this simply survival instinct (the dogs are looking out for themselves), is it a genetic predisposition to look out for danger to the "pack" or is it a trained behaviour.

I personally view it as a combination of all three.

This question applies to any breed really but my interest lies in Huskies.

[corvus]

Survival? Perhaps in a sense as wild animals couldn't give a stuff what someone else tells them to do if they think it's dangerous. This is because selfish genes always win and thus get fixed in a population practically instantly (on an evolutionary time scale). To me independence in domestic dogs is more a factor of selective breeding. Breeding an animal that WILL do whatever you say even if it's dangerous is surely much harder than breeding an animal that has retained some of its wild independence, and as most dogs actually won't do something they think is dangerous even if you ask them to, I question to what degree you can breed dependence on direction into a dog in the first place. I expect dogs are probably better at keeping themselves alive than humans are at keeping dogs alive in trying conditions.

About the idea of protecting the pack from danger, this condition doesn't really exist in nature unless the "pack" is very closely related, as in, no more distant than a half-sibling. Then it is called kin selection. I can't say how many times it's been drummed into me that no individual does anything for the good of anyone but themselves. I don't know to what extent this has been tampered with in dogs, but it seems to me that it has been tampered with, but I doubt that dogs are able to anticipate potential danger. They just see and react on the spot. More often than not I suspect they react with themselves in mind rather than their social group.

As for training, yes, I think this is likely to be involved. They should learn from each other when in harness.

[Kowai]

Lol Kapo is so off with the fairies.. I wouldn't call it independence.. Just I donno.. Shes focused on everything at once that its hard for her to focus on/listen to me.

[Erny]

About the idea of protecting the pack from danger, this condition doesn't really exist in nature unless the "pack" is very closely related, as in, no more distant than a half-sibling. Then it is called kin selection.

My avatar girl (Kal, bless her cotton socks and RIP) was most happy if she didn't have anything to do with other dogs. If they kept a reasonable distance, she was delighted and otherwise uninterested in them.

She did have a best mate though, and that was a shaggy dog of poodle & lab mix. Best friend ever and each thought much of each other.

One day down at our park we're out for an off-lead walk. Kal was next to me at the time, her friend was about 20 metres away. From a good distance another dog began to make quick decent upon Kal's friend. Kal's friend knew he was in danger and began to run (he was usually the friendly, love to meet all dogs type of dog) and even began to yelp from fear, as the gap in distance closed. Kal, who normally would exhibit the fear stance in situations such as this, had grown a good couple of inches, ears pricked and leaning forward. She launched into a solid run towards the ill intended other dog with every bit of intent to have a go at him, even though none of his attentions were at any time focused on or toward her.

So by this experience alone I have to disagree with the theory that "pack" must be no more distant than a half-sibling. Interesting thought though and if you have more info that supports that theory links to it would be appreciated.

Edited February 7, 2009 by Erny

[corvus]

It's stories like that one, Erny, that prompted me to say I believe it has been tampered with in domestic dogs. There has been a heap of work done on this in various species in an attempt to find a truly altruistic species, or to prove that altruism doesn't exist. At any rate, the closest anyone has found that I'm aware of is Vampire Bats, who share meals with unrelated individuals back at the roost, but this has turned out to be a tit for tat arragement and bats generally only share with bats that have shared with them in the past, although obviously someone has to be generous for the tit for tat to begin.

I can try to hunt down some papers, but it will have to wait as I'm tired and busy. It is not quite as cut and dried as a half sib, but there is a formula for working out when an individual will take a risk for another individual and when they won't based on the cost to the individual that takes the risk.

The "good of the pack" theory is still a bit of a leaky bucket in domestic companion animals for me. It bothers me because it is not very consistent, and I think that breed can have a lot to do with whether those traits are expressed or not. Wild canids typically hang out in pairs or family groups and defend territories, as we all know. I do not think it's a very big stretch to transfer these strong instincts in dogs to a social group the dog lives with. It's like those pictures of birds trying to feed goldfish because the stimulus of a big open mouth is so strong, although obviously this is a pretty simplified analogy.

Anyway, I am still working out in my head how wild animals and domestic animals differ. Haven't got to packing instinct yet, as it's only relevant to dogs and I like things that are common to other domestic animals when comparing domestic and wild. One thing I've noticed, though, is the ease with which domestic animals bond to unrelated individuals. I wonder if it is as strong as a bond between related animals and it seems likely to me that it is.

[WoofnHoof]

Bit difficult to pinpoint true altruism since there are many who question whether it even exists in humans so it's even more difficult to understand the motivations of animals. I'm sure there are some situations in nature where altruism is not costly and perhaps is even beneficial, whether it is an inbuilt trait is probably a question we wont see answered in our lifetime. :p

[corvus]

I don't think altruism exists anywhere. :p That's just cynical old me, though. I do a lot of generous things, but it makes me feel good to do so, and no doubt I'm setting myslf up to receive generosity from others, so how can I say I'm serving others before myself when it is clearly beneficial to me to do that?

There's a very good book called "The Selfish Gene" that explains all that stuff in an entertaining and clear manner. I've only read a bit of it, but others tell me it was a great read and really gave them some insights into how population genetics work.

[Staranais]

The selfish gene is great. :p It it very well written, and explains very clearly why we should expect to see animals preferentially doing things that will benefit themselves and their families, at the expense of strangers and more distant relatives. (The one major exception is with social animals, when an animal can reasonably expect generosity on its part to be repaid by the recipient at a later date).

The question I think is relevant here is how do animals recognise their families?

Animals don't automatically know who is a family member and who is not. They don't recognise adult siblings if they were separated from them at birth, for example. Birds and mammals only learn who their family is by following a few general rules.

For example: if you grow up with someone, they're probably "family" and worth treating altruistically. Or: if it's in your nest, it's probably your egg, so is worth incubating. Or: any baby animal in your possession is probably related to you, so could be worth nurturing. Or: if the lamb is on your birth site right after birth, it's probably your lamb, and worth raising.

These rules are inexpensive to apply and normally work, or at least have normally worked for most of our evolutionary history. Hence, animals not been under pressure to evolve greater powers of discrimination - despite the fact there are rare circumstances where they can "misfire".

Put a fake egg in a chickens nest - she'll incubate it. Give a woman a kitten, and she'll often nurture it. Give a ewe a new lamb early enough, and she'll treat it like her own (and on the other hand, if a first born lamb wanders away the birth site while its twin is being born, a young ewe often won't go find it and it will die).

In a wolf pack, very young pups only socialise with their siblings and the rest of their family/pack. The assumption that "animals you socialise with in puppyhood are your family" is generally quite correct, as young wolf pups don't have a chance to wrongly imprint on other animals. Since this rule generally works really well for wolf pups, they've had no need to evolve greater powers of discrimination.

In modern times, most puppies interact with humans as well as other dogs. In fact, most of us take particular care to socialise our puppies, as we know that an unsocialised dog will not be happy interacting with strange humans or dogs. So dogs don't "know" that we're not part of their family. We fit the criteria of a family member using the mechanism nature has given them to judge, so they treat us as family.

Just my theory.

[corvus]

Nice post, Staranais!

The only problem I see is what about dogs that join a family as adults? They often become protective of their new family anyway despite not being raised with them. Hence my thought that the system has been tampered with during selective breeding. One thing I find interesting about some of the older breeds with a strong guarding instinct is that they don't always cope well with being rehomed. It is said that Canaan Dogs often take a long time to become comfortable in a new family and sometimes refuse to eat or drink for days because they miss their old family. I have heard that Akitas are also difficult to rehome sometimes. As opposed to a Lapphund who will happily go with absolutely anyone that gives them a cuddle.

[Lablover]

Just Midol, what do you "DO" with your dogs?

[Just Midol]

What?

[Lablover]

Do you trial/test your dog under currrent standards? Obedience, tracking etc?

Edited February 8, 2009 by Lablover

[Just Midol]

No. Why is it relevant?

Edited February 8, 2009 by Just Midol

[Lablover]

Normally pet owners, have no idea, on achieving high standards. The etc.....is due to breed, criteria, genetics, training and health.

[Just Midol]

I'm training a dog in protection for security work. Is that good enough for you? Needs a far higher standard than any trial.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Just Midol

[Lablover]

I'm training a dog in protection for security work. Is that good enough for you? Needs a far higher standard than any trial.

Are you a police dog trainer?

[Just Midol]

I'm training a dog in protection for security work. Is that good enough for you? Needs a far higher standard than any trial.

Are you a police dog trainer?

Sorry, I am training a dog in conjunction with a professional trainer.

I really fail to see your point, your theory on only those involved in trialing understand high standards is completely false.

If you don't start making a point, then I'm going to stop responding to you.

[Lablover]

Good luck, let us know how you progess with your protection work. I agree, most forms of trialling are basic/non high standard.

[Just Midol]

Good luck, let us know how you progess with your protection work. I agree, most forms of trialling are basic/non high standard.

Lmao, I still want to know why you were asking! I just assumed you were trying to annoy me but now I don't think you were :S

I shall. So far it's going well.

[Lablover]

Lmao, I still want to know why you were asking!

Because in every thread, you seem to ask very very very basic questions.