Hi Tass, I thought I gave the link to the paper/(study) itself?
and I quoted underneath.

I remember it as being interesting but I wish I could remember why, now!
Try this, it should lead to the study:
http://www.nonlineardogs.com/socialorganisation.html

Wys
x

Yes, dogs remain as juveniles don't they - we humans like them like that. The experiment with Belyaev's foxes showed how foxes selected for tameness altered their appearance - they ended up with more juvenile features, drop ears, etc


Wys
x

My apologies, I thought the quote was what was at the link. I'll go and have a look.

Ok, I haven't read the whole thing, but the abstract says it was based on 5 dogs, while criticising research based on small sample sizes

It also basically described pair-wise learning that she claims avoids aggression. While this may have been true within her sample we all know intraspecific canine aggression occurs, not uncommonly, between familiar, cohabiting or unfamiliar or non cohabiting dogs so that factor demonstrates her sample is not showing the whole possible range of canine interactions.

She says " The organization of the system is based on binary relationships, which are converted by the agents as quickly as possible from competitive to complementary or cooperative binaries, through the creation of domains of consensus".

So she is saying they start as non-aggressive competitive relationships and then learn through pair-wise interaction to form stable complementary or cooperative pairs that both sides "agreed" to.

Well in my book that is a dominance relationship and a stablised hierarchical relationship of two, utilising the necessary compromise of complementary (which would included complementary dominant:submissive/deferment behaviours)and cooperative behaviour required for harmonious and synergetic group living.

As with any stable hierarchy this saves time and energy so it then becomes available to focus on other activities.

So the remaining issue is whether a group of two constitutes a heirarchy, which of course it does and the learning process is the stabilisation of that relationship.

She states there is no central organisation, but with many pet dogs the owner is, and should be, the central organiser who decides when everyone eats, walks, works spends time alone, together etc etc.

Indeed this statement she makes is itself is not a bad description of a stable hierarchy,by where individuals work out where they fit in, to their individual best advantage and ability ("fitness hill"), without bringing them into conflict ("unchallenged") with other group members:

" whose primary systemic behavior is to gravitate as quickly as possible to a stable division of the fitness landscape so that each animal present is sitting on a fitness hill unchallenged by other group members. "

I entirely agree with her there is not a linear hierarchy but her sample size is far too small to accurately conclude aggression is never part of the learning competitive stage of the process and I would not agree that what she describes does not constitute a hierarchy. Indeed it may well be that some people can only follow the pair wise relationships. That doesn't necessarily mean the dogs can't.

I have certainly known groups of multiple dogs where there was very definitely an establishing ranking/hierarchy, in the zoological understanding, over certain things at certain times, that encompassed all group members.

But it was never linear, nor was it rigid at all times over all resources as some things just didn't matter to some dogs.

I'm with whoever said here who I think said that they didn't accept research that was disproved by their own experience. After all no researcher will have encountered every situation.

Yes but that is the difference between phenotypically neotonised dogs such as CKC Spaniels with large eyes, domed heads, blunt noses and drop ears, and dogs such as huskies and shepherds, who are not phenotyically neotonised.

As has been stated dogs are domesticated to be comfortable around humans, wolves aren't but those dog behaviours you describe come from wolf behaviours, sometimes strengthened by selective breeding:
Herding is part of the predatory sequence, as is ball chasing.
Fully grown adult wolves have now been observed to play together, particularly when courting.
The protectiveness of dogs relates to the protectiveness of wolves over various resources.
Retrieving is how wolves feed baby sitters and puppies, either carrying food in their stomachs or mouths. It is also how they carry surplus to a cache site.

Many dogs are not given the chance to raise puppies or stay in a stable group, nor do males need to stay around to protect their genetic future. As has been said some male dogs do help raise pups, when given the chance.

Likewise some bitches will regurgitate for puppies as do wolves and the begging/appeasing lip licking dogs do is a wolf behaviour, related to food begging by wolf puppies .

Wolf packs do split as youngsters mature and leave to form other packs, with other, unrelated, wolves. Deaths can also split and reform wolf packs and pack members will sometimes spend time away from the pack for a solo expedition for days or weeks, rejoining it again later in some cases.

Much of the dog behaviour you describe is due to training or breeding and because, to risk opening another can of worms, dogs see people and interact with them in the same way as they see dogs, due to domestication.

Obviously I am not saying they cannot tell dogs from humans, or that they interact with each species in the same way (e.g some dogs are great with people but difficult with dogs, or vica versa), but these behaviours directed to humans are the same behaviours wolves direct to other wolves, they are not totally different novel behaviours.

The human relationship with dogs goes back what...10,000/15,000/20,000 years ?? I know the figure you choose depends a lot on how you define a dog and is therefore open to debate but let's face it, it's a long time!


On an academic level you can make a case for saying all dog behaviour can be explained by linking it back to the wolf. You could expain why sent hounds get stuck into a trail and are real sod's to recall by taking it back to the wolf but I think it pushes it a bit. All that selective breeding must of had some effect!!

I find this a very interesting topic. I personally believe in dominance (not the way the word is bandied about now though, and most people I come across seem to equate dominance to aggression...) and pack theory too. Something I often like to observe in the park, with Jake's group of doggy friends.

I also think dogs and wolves are similar enough to be compared... they obviously have some differences but so do dogs of different breeds, and while they may have differences they also have a lot of similarities.

I don't get into the whole studies aspect though, I think they can get quite messy. I have read this thread the whole way through, and tried numerous times to write my opinion but I found it difficult to explain... this is the best I can do

It's a complex subject IMO, with lots of shades of grey and nuances as so many variables come into play in an anyway dynamic situation

You make a good point about differences between breeds.

Studies IME are always a mixed blessing as there are so many things, knowingly and unknowingly, influencing them including bias, sample size and selection, research methods etc.

Yes, wolves are more all rounders, and less specialists than dog breeds can be as scent hounds, sight hounds, herders, retrievers, guard breeds, etc.