|
Location: West Sussex UK
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,044
|
|
Originally Posted by
ClaireandDaisy
I don`t read wolf research because I don`t have a wolf. I suppose it`s quite romantic to imagine you`re striding across the tundra with your (almost) wolf beside you but it`s a bit like calling your tabby cat `Tiger`.
I see where you're coming from but as a feline behaviourist you'd be surprised how much like lion behaviour, is the tabby cat's behaviour!! Cats have been subjected to nowhere near the domestication process of other species & there is some doubt in the scientific world, that they are domesticated at all, in the true sense of the word.
There seem to be 2 threads now on the value of using wolf behaviour to interpret domestic dog behaviour! Both started as something completely different, but have ended up discussing the merits of dominance, pack status, etc!
I think that there is some merit in using the behaviour of wild wolves in their natural habitat to interpret the
possible origins & motivation for some domestic dog behaviour. But we must be careful & appreciate that there are limits on this & that the behaviour of domestic dogs is now so far removed from wild canid behaviour that it has limited use for domestic dog behaviour.
As for using studies of captive or tamed wolves to interpret domestic dog behaviour, I find this a more flawed concept. It would mean using unnatural & “forced” behaviours of a wild animal to interpret the far removed behaviours of a domesticated animal. The process of domestication took tens of thousands of years for dogs ~ it didn’t happen overnight. So using the behaviours of a captive wild animal, kept in unnatural conditions, in no way resembles how domestic dog behaviour has altered through many, many years of domestication.
But it is not just the concept or value of using wild canid behaviour to interpret domestic dog behaviour that has limited use; it is also whether the interpretation & understanding of wild canid behaviour is correct is the first place!! Clearly there’s a whole lot of doubt that a hierarchical pack structure exists in wild wolf behaviour. Even those of you who criticise the work of David Mech, Boitani & others who now doubt the alpha, beta, omega etc structure, must surely accept that scientific research has shown that things are not so clear-cut & that the alpha/dominance type behaviours aren’t sufficient to explain lots of behaviours & interactions between wolves, or between dogs.
So if the whole hierarchical pack structure concept is no longer sufficient for wolves, why on earth is it still being used in domestic dog behaviour, which we already agree is far removed from wolf behaviour?
BTW ~ for those wondering where the term “omega” came from, I did give a suggestion as long ago as post 8 in this thread.