Alphas And Wolf Packs

[corvus]

I was reading this little article http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/iwmag/2008...r/alphawolf.pdf written by L. David Mech talking about his attempts to change the terminology when talking about dominant wolves to drop the term "alpha". It is an interesting article and brings me to wonder what it means for domestic dogs.

On the one hand, dogs are generally tossed in with strangers and expected to get along. Those conditions for wolves create a dominance hierarchy. But on the other hand, dogs are a good deal less territorial and a good deal more amiable to strangers than wolves, and they also never really grow up in behaviour and act like wolf puppies their whole lives. In view of the Non-linear Dog Theory I posted once before, I wonder how this can all be assimilated into something resembling the truth.

The way I see it, in some cases dogs may mix together quite peacefully if they are of compatible personalities. Perhaps they communicate well and are laid back and conflict never really arises.

But then, looking at my mother's two older dogs, Pyry, the smaller boy has pretty much trained Jill, the larger girl as well as Penny and Kivi and my mother's latest dog to respect his every whim. He is a stubborn creature and when he wants something he sets out with utter commitment to get it. He is not concerned if this leads to aggression or violence, although he tries everything else first. To me, it seems that he has built up a history with other dogs so that they know he will always resort to aggression if they don't give in to him. Over time, arguments become very rare because he only has to look at one of the other dogs for them to know they are in for it if they don't give in or find a way to remove themselves. This strategy has worked for him because he isn't obsessed with controlling the other dogs and only bothers to do anything when he really wants something, but when he does do something, he is not bluffing. I am thinking that in a sense he has created a dominance hierarchy, but my thought is it has not formed naturally so much as that he has trained it like we train our dogs to pay close attention to us. He has only once that I know of tried his method on a human and that was over a lizard he found that he desperately wanted to keep and was prepared to fight to the death for if need be. He didn't get to keep it and no one was hurt, but he was incredibly worked up over it.

Anyway, this is just a thought provoking thing rather than an outright question, but some people (no one in particular) often like to say that dominance hierarchies occur in dogs because they occur naturally in the wild, and then we had this conversation recently about whether dogs see the humans they live with as part of their families. How do you see this all tying in with alphas and hierarchies if wolf hierarchies are normally related to age and parenthood?

Edited February 14, 2009 by corvus

[Just Midol]

I was reading this little article http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/iwmag/2008...r/alphawolf.pdf written by L. David Mech talking about his attempts to change the terminology when talking about dominant wolves to drop the term "alpha". It is an interesting article and brings me to wonder what it means for domestic dogs.

On the one hand, dogs are generally tossed in with strangers and expected to get along. Those conditions for wolves create a dominance hierarchy. But on the other hand, dogs are a good deal less territorial and a good deal more amiable to strangers than wolves, and they also never really grow up in behaviour and act like wolf puppies their whole lives. In view of the Non-linear Dog Theory I posted once before, I wonder how this can all be assimilated into something resembling the truth.

The way I see it, in some cases dogs may mix together quite peacefully if they are of compatible personalities. Perhaps they communicate well and are laid back and conflict never really arises.

But then, looking at my mother's two older dogs, Pyry, the smaller boy has pretty much trained Jill, the larger girl as well as Penny and Kivi and my mother's latest dog to respect his every whim. He is a stubborn creature and when he wants something he sets out with utter commitment to get it. He is not concerned if this leads to aggression or violence, although he tries everything else first. To me, it seems that he has built up a history with other dogs so that they know he will always resort to aggression if they don't give in to him. Over time, arguments become very rare because he only has to look at one of the other dogs for them to know they are in for it if they don't give in or find a way to remove themselves. This strategy has worked for him because he isn't obsessed with controlling the other dogs and only bothers to do anything when he really wants something, but when he does do something, he is not bluffing. I am thinking that in a sense he has created a dominance hierarchy, but my thought is it has not formed naturally so much as that he has trained it like we train our dogs to pay close attention to us. He has only once that I know of tried his method on a human and that was over a lizard he found that he desperately wanted to keep and was prepared to fight to the death for if need be. He didn't get to keep it and no one was hurt, but he was incredibly worked up over it.

Anyway, this is just a thought provoking thing rather than an outright question, but some people (no one in particular) often like to say that dominance hierarchies occur in dogs because they occur naturally in the wild, and then we had this conversation recently about whether dogs see the humans they live with as part of their families. How do you see this all tying in with alphas and hierarchies if wolf hierarchies are normally related to age and parenthood?

Few things.

I definitely don't believe dogs are as dominant as wolves.

My dogs aren't expected to get along with any strange people or dogs. I know the two huskies will, because they're snuggle bums, but Montu doesn't really care for people and this is probably going to sound irresponsible to people, but I'd even keep a human aggressive dog (handler aggression is another story though.)

I don't believe animal hierarchies are related to age really, parenthood, yes, but only because imo in the wild parenthood is a side effect of being the top animal. The top animals breed, they don't become dominant and the top animals because the had babies. I am not sure if I am making sense. This is posted without reading the article as at this point in time I am too tired to take information in But remember, everything is a theory

Bed time, will expand later.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Just Midol

[corvus]

Just as a contrast to that, Midol, rabbits are said to base their social hierarchies on age. The top bunny is the one that has been a rabbit the longest. Rabbits fight like demons when they don't get along, so perhaps hierarchies can only really occur when they are of compatible personalities in the first place.

I guess the point was that puppies are always automatically at the bottom. They might get away with murder a lot of the time, but they are just babies and so are given some leeway by tolerant individuals. L. David Mech's description was that young wolves often stay with their parents for up to 3 years and thus see younger generations coming in. Even as they are sitting there on their parents' territory as adults, they still follow their parents, but puppies are taught to respect them. The older offspring leave the pack before challenging a parent for dominance, so it never actually happens. They meander off and hook up with another youngster and start a new pack. Mech also describes the situation in Yellowstone where there are a lot of resources and wolf packs have multiple breeders.

I think there is evolutionary basis for a hierarchy based on age because when you think about it, an older animal has had years to accumulate some serious wisdom. Animals learn from experience, and if an individual has experienced a lot of things and has lived through them all, then chances are they will know how to live through a lot of things a younger animal hasn't experienced yet, so therefore it would be a good idea to follow their lead. In the wild, older animals generally die before they become a liability to a group due to being slow etc. Elephant herds are another one that is led by the oldest female, but she is normally the mother of all the others. In fact, the majority of social animals are very closely related within the group, so perhaps it is a problematic distinction.

[Kavik]

That was an interesting article I like Mech's work, the little I have read and seen.

I think that the way we bring dogs together is different to the way wolves are brought together, and that our selection for particular traits in different breeds of dogs also influences the way they act towards each other. Selecting for certain prey drive attributes (or not selecting for them), 'gameness' in some breeds, and some breeds requiring more personal space than others all makes how they relate to other dogs different to wolves.

We also require that dogs be able to be in close vicinity to each other with no problems (not necessarily friendly or even paying attention or say hi, but not aggressive) that wolves would not do. Unlikely that wolves would go about business with another wolf in the vicinity without checking it out? Like we expect of our dogs in competition? Dog parks for example are more like the way he describes the captive wolf packs where wolves from different areas are thrown in together, where alpha terminology is said to be correct.

The family theory certainly makes sense. The question is how does this help us with dogs?

Edit for grammar

Edited February 14, 2009 by Kavik

[poodlefan]

Personally I often wonder why wolves are considered to be the species on which we base our understanding of dogs.

There are wild dogs in existence and my limited understanding of their behaviour is that in some ways it is quite different to wolves.

The stuff I've seen and read on African Painted Dogs is that their structure is more matriachal, they are far more cooperative in puppy raising and they also will tolerate and accept outsiders to some degree. Their packs are also larger than most wolf packs would ever achieve. They are most successful predators (in terms of hunt to kill ratios) of any African mammal.

I find them fascinating.

Edited February 14, 2009 by poodlefan

[Staranais]

I don't think African wild/painted dogs are actually very closely related to our domestic dogs, Poodlefan. They're in a different genus (Lycaon, not Canis like the dog and wolf). So although they are really interesting, their behaviour probably can't be expected to be particularly similar to our dogs.

I agree with the rest of what you've said, though. Makes more sense to study true wild/feral dog populations like Dingos, rather than wolves, since they're much more similar genetically to domestic dogs than wolves are.

[corvus]

African Hunting Dogs wow me in a big time. 95% success rate in hunting!! Crimony! I think they are considered to be about the most social canid on the planet.

Spotted Hyenas also have a matriachal society. Female hyenas are on the top when they mate and have an elongated clitoris that acts very much like a penis. They give birth through it! Presumably all that mascularisation (is that a word??) has something to do with dominance.

Bush Dogs are also worth checking out for interesting and very social canids, but I think you are right in that Dingoes and perhaps New Guinnea Singing Dogs are where we should be looking.

[m-j]

I think that the way we bring dogs together is different to the way wolves are brought together, and that our selection for particular traits in different breeds of dogs also influences the way they act towards each other. Selecting for certain prey drive attributes (or not selecting for them), 'gameness' in some breeds, and some breeds requiring more personal space than others all makes how they relate to other dogs different to wolves.

To add to what your saying Kavik, maybe this happens in domestic packs also due to the fact they haven't had enough parental supervision/learning and have to sort it out themselves the best way they can?? In the wild I'm assuming that wasting energy through fighting and eliminating each other is also not good for survival as I imagine when say, hunting, where you would increase your chances of obtaining a kill through stategies (placement of pack members). I was watching a doco on a pack of African Wild dogs where they filmed several hunts in an areoplane and it showed the dogs communicating and using strategies during the hunt. I'm imagining wolves could do this also??

cheers

M-J

I'm imagining wolves could do this also??

African Hunting Dogs wow me in a big time. 95% success rate in hunting!!

Well maybe not after reading this

Edited February 15, 2009 by m-j

[poodlefan]

The show that blew me away on African Painted Dogs had "den cams" that showed the dogs in some very interesting lights.

It featured one dog that had broken a front leg hunting (ran into a stump in long grass or similar) that the researchers had thought wouldn't survive long.

3 years later that dog was still alive and kicking with its front leg totally non weight bearing. When the hunting was on (and Painted Dogs hunt over miles, literally running their prey to a standstill on occasions) that dog would still get its share. Researchers followed the hunt and every now and again, one of the pack would go back for the injured dog finding it to make sure it was still on the right trail. Amazing stuff.

[Jigsaw]

It's a long time since dogs and wolves became separate species. We continue to compare them as if looking at wolves will give us all the answers for our dogs behaviours. Yes they share many similarities but having now become a domestic animal with an almost symbiotic relationship with humans we have influenced the dogs behaviour greatly through genetic manipulation and environment. As Mech says, when he published "The Wolf" (1970) there was much reference to Schenkel's study which was the main piece of literature on wolf social behaviour at the time. His later publications have now corrected this "misinformation" about alpha wolves. Interesting to note that he says "it takes about 20 years for new science to fully seep down to general acceptance". Wonder how long then to filter through to the general dog world!

[corvus]

Ah, but Jigsaw, dogs are now considered to be taxonomically a subspecies of wolves. Wolves are Canis lupus and dogs are Canis lupus familiaris. I can't remember what Dingoes are, as they used to be a subspecies of Canis familiaris.

I honestly think this bit of taxonomy may have been off the mark. I also sometimes think humans and chimps ought to share a genus name, but that's just me and I'm not a taxonomist. I haven't read the research that prompted this change, but I thought I heard somewhere that it was based on mitochondrial DNA, which would be interesting because last I heard about mtDNA it was considered second rate to nDNA. Anyway, I'm probably wrong.

[Jigsaw]

Dingos - Canis familiarus dingo (I believe, unless that's changed)!

You've lost me with the nDNA - this is something I've not come across before - if you have a description of it I would love to read it.

Humans, chimpanzees and bonobos share common DNA - up to 98%. There is apparently some debate about changing their classification from Pan to Homo or from Homo Sapiens to Pan Sapiens! But we don't look to chimpanzees/bonobos to explain our behaviour (do we? maybe we do!) nor do we use them as a guide to how we should behave. There may be traits and similarities we can recognise but I think generally most of us would put us far away from resembling a chimpanzee behaviourally.

I wonder if anyone has studied feral dog packs, I mean domestic dogs gone feral and their behaviour?

[poodlefan]

Dingos - Canis familiarus dingo (I believe, unless that's changed)!

You've lost me with the nDNA - this is something I've not come across before - if you have a description of it I would love to read it.

Humans, chimpanzees and bonobos share common DNA - up to 98%. There is apparently some debate about changing their classification from Pan to Homo or from Homo Sapiens to Pan Sapiens! But we don't look to chimpanzees/bonobos to explain our behaviour (do we? maybe we do!) nor do we use them as a guide to how we should behave. There may be traits and similarities we can recognise but I think generally most of us would put us far away from resembling a chimpanzee behaviourally.

I wonder if anyone has studied feral dog packs, I mean domestic dogs gone feral and their behaviour?

There's definitely been research on feral dogs in Australia.

[sandgrubber]

Humans, chimpanzees and bonobos share common DNA - up to 98%. There is apparently some debate about changing their classification from Pan to Homo or from Homo Sapiens to Pan Sapiens! But we don't look to chimpanzees/bonobos to explain our behaviour (do we? maybe we do!) nor do we use them as a guide to how we should behave.

Actually . . . have a look at The Third Chimpanzee (Jared Diamond, 1996). Diamond is a much respected scientist and a brilliant writer. He develops the theory that some of the nasty traits that make human history so brutal are found in chimps as well . . . though chimps lack the means for full scale war and genocide.

I think another place to look in understanding dogs vs. wolves is the process of domestication. Balyaev's work on foxes was amazing . . .

see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/807641/posts

[corvus]

Here's a cool little page that basically sums up where dogs and wolves stand in taxonomy at the moment with links to papers and important characters:

http://www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.htm

It seems I was right and they did use mtDNA, but it explains why they did. The problem with mtDNA is that it is only passed down on the mother's side, so if an individual has all boys, that's the end of the line. They tried to trace back human ancestry through mtDNA at some point and came up with an answer that was clearly not nearly old enough. I don't remember the exact details as I read it several years ago in a very interesting book about Neanderthals.

I believe I have met Rob Wayne when I was in LA (unless there are two Rob Waynes in the biology department of UCLA??). He's a pretty cool chap and full of a lot of interesting tidbits about carnivores and genetics. He is also a good person to have on your Trivial Pursuit team!

A bit of research popped up recently about chimps and Bonobos and their ability to co operate. The conclusion was that we must have a fair dash of Bonobo characteristics in us to have come as far as we have, because chimps are so distrustful of one another due to their aggressive tendencies that they could never co operate and share. It was all about force and usually that meant no one won in the end. Bonobos, on the other hand, are perfectly successful at co operating to obtain food and then sharing it, even with a complete stranger. It was a very cool experiment.

[Jigsaw]

I think another place to look in understanding dogs vs. wolves is the process of domestication. Balyaev's work on foxes was amazing . . .

see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/807641/posts

I didn't realise that this experiment was started 40 years ago! Thanks for that link. I've seen the YouTube vids.

Here's a cool little page that basically sums up where dogs and wolves stand in taxonomy at the moment with links to papers and important characters:

http://www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.htm

Thanks Corvus for that!

From what I can remember from something I've read/seen Bonobos are good at loving looking after each other and chimpanzees were much more aggressive. I would say we share the basic instincts and drives but they are supposedly tempered by our "humanity". Shall have to check out that book Sandgrubber.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Jigsaw

[Staranais]

You've lost me with the nDNA - this is something I've not come across before - if you have a description of it I would love to read it.

nDNA is nuclear DNA, it's the regular DNA found in the nucleus of most body cells, that codes for most of the proteins you make. nDNA is the DNA that an animal gets from both parents - one copy of each gene from mum, one from Dad. So the nDNA gets scrambled up each generation, giving each offspring a unique nDNA code. You share half your mum's nDNA, a quarter of your maternal grandmas, only an eighth of her mum's, and so on.

mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is different. It doesn't recombine during sex - it is present in tiny asexually reproducing organelles (mitochondria) that are found outside the nucleus of most of your cells. Like Corvus says, you only inherit these organelles (and hence their mtDNA) from your mother. That makes mtDNA really good for some studies - because it doesn't recombine each generation, the only variations between different animal's mtDNA will be caused by gradual mutations over the years. Your mtDNA code should be the same (or very similar to) your Mum's and Grandma's, and your Grandma's mum and Grandma, but will be quite different to the mtDNA of an unrelated individual. So it's very good to use when tracing lineages or the relationship between different animals & species.

mtDNA is also great for use in forensic cases or ancient DNA investigations, since there are multiple copies per cell, making it far less prone to degradation than nDNA is.

[m-j]

It's a long time since dogs and wolves became separate species.

One thing I am wondering what determines a separate species? Dogs and wolves have same amount of chromosomes so therefore can reproduce fertile offspring.

This is really interesting thread

cheers

M-J

[corvus]

The biological definition of a species (subject to much discussion) is that they can't breed and produce fertile offspring. So, horses and donkeys although capable of producing mules are different species as mules are sterile. Same deal with lions and tigers. So in that sense it seems correct that wolves and dogs be the same species.

Speciation is a really interesting topic, and often quite hard to figure out in the field. Birds, for example, are full of subspecies, but sometimes it's hard to tell when a subspecies can't produce fertile offspring with another subspecies because they don't even occur in the same area and never meet. There have been some surprising hybrid birds found in the wild and rarely does anyone know if the hybrids are fertile.

[m-j]

Thanks.

There have been some surprising hybrid birds found in the wild and rarely does anyone know if the hybrids are fertile.

I was given a Eastern x Crimson rosella hen that had young to a Yellow. I didn't want to beed them, as at the time I was breeding parrots and more interested in keeping the species pure. I only had them together as I was told that she wouldn't be fertile, as she had had eggs but no young, also I didn't really know what sex the yellow was either. I hand reared the young and sold them as pets which wasn't hard as they were very pretty, but a real heinz variety.

cheers

M-J

Edited February 20, 2009 by m-j