An interesting read but his main argument is that dogs do not go in for co operative and controlled breeding, as occurs in wolf packs.

However it has now been proven that sometimes more that just the oldest pair reproduce in a wolf pack so the single breeder argument does not hold true for wolves either, and this discovery is a large part of David Mech re considering the Alpha term to have been overused and misapplied.

He claims dogs do not seek status as they can all breed so the wolf breeding rights status does not apply. However a very large number of owned domestic dogs are neutered so breeding rights are irrelevant. Alternatively breeding is controlled by the owner.

Breeding rights are only one resource of many that are relevant to domestic dogs and as he and Coppinger state, village dogs mainly scavenge (as wolves will also do when the situation presents itself) so co-operative hunting is irrelevant (and possible inaccurate) and I have already described serendipidous apparent co operative attack/hunting behaviour in dogs.

I would certainly agree there are many other considerations in a dog's life that just looking for top status, and as I previously posted, hierarchies couldn't function within packs if everyone was determined to be number one.

So often people disregard that hierarchies also depend on the "foot soldiers" not just the generals, and despotic generals can lead to mutiny.

As for co operative hunting he agrees with Prof Macdonald that this may be a misunderstanding, so I feel myself still left looking for behavioural differences between wolves and dogs, when in the same situations

Village dogs often have plentiful food sources, wolf packs tend to be smaller when food is scarce and larger when it is more plentiful so in similar situations, and if people were as tolerant of wolves as dogs, the situation may become more similar, as is becoming the case with urban foxes who behave very differently compared to rural foxes, despite not being any more domesticated.

Thank you for the link and information though.

yup but the study I remember there were cubs and pups all brought up in a controled way, each getting the same training and attention
I agree that it is prob something dogs learn - but wolves cant learn it

If I'm not mistaken (and it's a while since I last looked at the research), I believe it was found that wolves, even hand reared ones, don't look to humans for help and tend not to look them in the eye

Your question on what a wolf does that a dog doesn't is an interesting one, but I'd turn it on it's head. Dogs do many things that a wolf doesn't, pointing to an evolutionary change. I don't think there will be anyone that denies that dogs originated from wolves, but just as humans do many things that primates don't, yet still retain quite a lot of their behaviours, the same can also apply to wolves and dogs.

And why I have not contributed to some other threads on similar subjects

Just found that paper ,

http://www.nonlineardogs.com/socialorganisation.html

"In her paper, The Social Organization of the Domestic Dog: A Longitudinal Study of Domestic Canine Behavior and the Ontogeny of Domestic Canine Social Systems, animal behaviourist Alexandra Semyonova presents a new and accurate model of what the dog is all about. She explains how dogs construct their social systems -- and that dominance has nothing to do with it. "

"Dogs follow three simple rules as they interact. These three simple rules enable them to form groups of almost unlimited size, absorbing both strangers and other species into the groups they form. These groups are complex self-organising systems, without a central authority. They are much more stable and
elegant -- and at the same time more flexible -- than anything so clumsy as 'dominance' could produce."

"The paper is a compact journey into the life of dogs, how they become what they are, and what really moves them as they construct social relationships."

This was from a few years ago now, I can't quite recall what it says, but I know it was pretty interesting.

Wys
x

but do we actually KNOW they cant? Because no matter who you are, how subtle, how considerate, how confident etc. I do not believe that people will be able to treat a wolf (even from a cub) in exactly the same way to know if they can learn it. OR that they know wolves well enough inside and out to go about it in a way where WE understand their ways of 'asking'

and also the wolf perhaps feels he dosnt need it, so why ask you for help? Compared to a domestic animal....


just my instant thoughts there

Yes, and that is why lone wolves need to be looked at as well as pack wolves as these can be the ones that do not accept pack rules, or have outgrown them and are dispersing (which can potentially hold important lessons for dogs who become aggressive at maturity).

Dispersal to avoid frustration and conflict is an option not available to most owned dogs, but available to feral dogs, and wolves but there are risks with singledom, or in remaining in conflict.

but isnt that a problem with the 'attitudes to pack theory' in itself too?....it takes people to contribute/speak up...otherwise this 'all or nothing' thing will just continue?

We cannot label dogs with Alpha etc but we can label people and know their attitudes because they deemed a dog dominant (in a certain situation ONLY)......

Theories will never 'move on' or evolve into possibly more accurate ones if people just go 'your pro, your anti, your on the fence' (if you know what I mean?)

You are absolutely correct but I often find it uses up too much energy to constantly justify and explain, elaborate and explore.

i am not familiar with this paper and unfortunately without any detail it may be that the three rules turn out to be based on learned experience of repeated encounters between individuals, (win, lose or draw?) which in my definition would be a zoology style dominance theory, maybe a rose by any other name?

With a fluid-dominance theory there needn't be a central organisation, just certain individuals having first dips on things, if they want to at that point, or if in short supply.

It would be very interesting to know what was in this paper.