The dogs were left to their own devices. No one interfered. There are still village dogs around these days.
They scavenge from the waste tip. Who's to say dogs haven't always done this?

Im sure dogs may hunt individually if forced to, they may hunt a slow rabbit, for example, but not as in an organized group (ie pack).

A few articles to show that dogs can and do hunt in packs.

http://www.unitedwildlife.com/AnimalsFeralDogs.html
"Feral dogs may become skilled at hunting in groups for small game such as rabbits and hares and large game including deer and even moose"


http://www.thedesignoflife.net/blog/...w/Default.aspx

"The Carolina dog's ginger coat is also seen in dingoes and other primitive dogs, such as the Chindo-Kae of Korea. They hunt in pack formation, using techniques not commonly seen in domestic dogs. But, unlike primitive dogs, which revert to an annual breeding pattern, the Carolina dog still breeds as many as three times a year.
"


I could go on...I've also found articles about feral dogs hunting in packs and attacking/killing humans.

Sure, the first link says, "Feral dogs may become skilled at hunting in groups for small game such as rabbits and hares and large game including deer and even moose. Some wildlife managers feel that feral dogs are a serious threat to deer, especially in areas with heavy snows (Lowry 1978 )"

But then it states "Others have found no evidence that feral dogs pose a significant threat to deer (Causey and Cude 1980 )"
They may well charge off for rabbits, but is it organized? If a pack brought down a deer in an organized manor then yes, that is a pack at work.

Also it is an old study.


The latest study states
"feral dogs do not exhibit the classic wolf-pack structure, the validity of the canid, social dominance hierarchy again comes into question. Ray Coppinger who has written a book called "Dogs" (A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behaviour and Evolution) probably one of the most important books on dogs published in the last 50 years, The Coppingers studied feral dogs all over the world, and found that all the feral and village dogs he studied did not form packs as we know them, they were more semi solitary animals, who predate on our waste middens and latrines."


I recommend Coppinger's book. It turns a lot of the old theories on their heads.

There have been several studies done in various geographic locations. And in the end it is the same : dogs don't form packs. They form groups, usually made up of a few male-female pairs. It should also be noted that these dog groups make a meager living and have very poor reproductive success.

Since Abrantes has been mentioned, he makes it a point to distinguish between aggressiveness (displays) and aggression (action) and yes both are quite normal. Aggression usually occurs when aggressiveness failed to work (as in "grrrr get away from me!")

Where are these "Villages" then ?

But do these dogs that are studied live in the wild or hang around human habitation ? Do they rear & keep there offspring close to them ???

Qatar, Lebanon, Turkey, Croatia, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Vietnam and India.
One place was a remote island that had been untouched by time or imigration (man and animal).

So how did the feral dogs get there ????

From what I can gather (and I don't claim to have studied this in depth), dogs that are 'fresh feral' and who remain close to humans just sort of 'hang around'.

They do not breed successfully (possibly because at this stage they are not working as a pack) and their numbers are maintained purely by fresh strays joining.

Those that move away from humans do start to form packs, staying together and breeding..interestingly it would seem that over time, their off-spring seem to all revert to a medium sized, short coarse coated (and usually gingerish) type of dog - presumably this is to do with survival of the fitest etc.

To me this makes sense. Dogs are opportunists, which I think most of us have already realised. When around humans and able to scavenge off what humans leave behind there is no need for the level of co-operation between dogs associated with packs. Instead, the dogs will look at what co-operation is needed with humans.

Remove humans (and our rubbish) from the equation and the dogs rely on each other to a far greater extent.

How this then relates to how we should train our dogs is a different matter. I've always been very flexible in my views, not completely ruling out pack heirachy but not thinking it gospel either. I think many dogs would fit into a pack structure if it was necessary for their well being but others may not accept it.

I also think that certain breeds are more likely to fit happily into a pack structure than others. My own dogs don't - they are far more tuned into the relationship with me as they're smart enough to know that I am the provider. IMO it would be a waste of time trying to use pack theory with mine.

How did man get there? How did the village dogs get there?
That is in the study.