I beg to differ, I dont think you get many humans swinging from tress, picking each others mites of and eating them, not to mention all the unmentanable things

You haven't seen my OH on a saturday night

I take it you meant behaviourally rather than genetically then?

You've obviously never seen the area i live

Well yes, have to agree with that

You cant civilize them all

Yes, but is`nt that what we are talking about with the Wolf V Dog??

My view is that Mech has studied the wolves and has found enough to suggest that Schenkel's original views were very wrong. I can't see how anyone can really disagree unless they've studied wolves like he has - which is indepth and over a lifetime almost? Although everyone is entitled to their view of course

Ooh er

I've just looked at my copy of The Domestic Dog by Serpell and found references I think to the study, there's several by Wayne but I guess the one with the DNA info will be Wayne, R K and Jenks, S M (1991) Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf..

I don't think anyone is saying they can't see the wolf with in the dog, but there are many alterations both genetically and behaviourally due to domestication - regarding how they breed, (which is very different) their skulls and even how they make noises (eg wolves don't have much use for barking, whereas dogs use it a lot to communicate).

Just to be clear, do you mean that you've lived with wolf dogs and with ordinary dogs and so you feel that can prove dogs and wolves are very similar with regards to "alpha" and pack theory, etc? If so can you go into it more?

Dogs studied in the "wild" don't form packs generally though, if they do it's unusual, according to people such as Coppinger who has spent years travelling and studying the subject. At the end of the day, wolves don't really either *ducks* or at least not in the way we originally thought. They have family groups just like humans. Hence it's not appropriate to use "alpha" ...there are some facts that can't be got away from

Wys
x

Yes, I'm not disputing it either


Regardless of ancestry, it is correct that the many thousands of years of domestication have sufficiently altered the dog to be very different, agree

Wys
x

We recently helped out a lady who had been living in Thailand for a few years and brought a couple of the street dogs back with her.

She was shocked that Coppinger hadn't found feral dog 'packs'. She said that it was very evident on the streets. They were very territorial and would never venture into aother pack's territory.

She would often watch a dog trying to gain acceptance and said somethimes they would, sometimes they wouldn't. (thats how she ended up with one of hers!)

This is just her opinions - I have not seen the situation out there.

That's interesting. I suppose territory doesn't necessarily indicate a pack situation though ...I think this kind of interaction has been addressed in the forthcoming study by Casey and Blackwell who critically analyse one or two previous studies regarding feral dogs in various situations

I recall reading about one just recently (not with the Thai dogs!) and it was thought they were living in a pack like manner but it was decided they weren't - reasons were given but I can't rememember who wrote about it. It may even have been Casey/Blackwell again...

Wys
x

Humm......does anyone know what the criteria is that make a Dog Pack?

Surely if the word 'Pack' describes any social group of dogs then all the obsevations made - wild/domestic/feral are relevent *to that situation*?