Just becasue someont is highly respected, doesnt mean that they dont still make mistakes and beoome so single minded and one tracked that they miss the true point!

By the way Wys, I love your continuoulsy friendly and supportive and non comabative attitude in ALL the posts of seen of yours. I love you already. Well done you. x What a great forum!

Just catching up on the posts: I too have only read the abstract and am not prepared to put my hand in my pocket to buy the full paper as I am unemployed at the moment. Hubby used to have free access to such papers, but sadly his subscription has ended, but having read the Abstract and the University Press Release, I have to say I am still of the opinion that the research material used (ie the Dogs Home inhabitants, plus the reanalysis of data previously produced on feral dogs) is not a true representative of your average happy, well-balanced family pet.

I don't think I am being biased (having not read the full paper) to come to this conclusion. Neither am I being negative, I am being very OBjective. Good science has to be based on good research, and I am unconvinced by the subject material of the research.

I couldn't agree more, dogs are not wolves, as per a previous post, the original work from which the myth developed was poor science 50 years ago, never mind now.

My point was that the feral dogs described in the study were in an environment where they were free from human intervention (and therefore having the best chance to form whatever social grouping was 'natural' for them), but still didn't behave in a way supporting a 'wolf like hierarchy'. The group of domestic dogs, given an environment where they could have formed a strict 'pack structure' also didn't.

The conclusion is that dogs don't form the type of hierarchical social groupings that wolves were wrongly suggested to.

But why do they have to be? (as someone who can;t even see the abstract ) I can't see the problem with the research groups mentioned.

From what I am hearing this has nothing to do with the human interaction....it is about the dogs and how the react to each other.

There are many on here who do have a happy, well balanced family pet who have said that there is no pack structure/heirachy or whatever you want to call it and you don't accept that either
Becky

I am opening my mind, I really am Mike, and I just can't get away from the basic facts of the matter - despite your very good defence of the use of the dogs from the Rescue Home.

I accept that the research was "dog on dog" as it were, not "dog interacting with humans". That's fine. But I just keep coming back in mind to the fact that these are dogs that are almost certainly for one reason or another going to be unhappy, and therefore unbalanced. For whatever reason, through abuse and neglect, or through the death of an elderly owner, whatever the reason, these dogs have had their lives turned upside down, and therefore they are not going to present ... even to each other ... as "normal" dogs. I am listening to you when you say that for 6 months these dogs were allowed to interact with each other, but I am struggling to believe that they won't have formed a pack hierarchy over this period.

I haven't read the full paper of course, as I am unwilling to have to pay for it, but if the Abstract is a truthful representation of the full findings, and I have no reason to doubt it other than to me it doesn't make sense, then I would suggest that the "trauma" for want of a better word that these dogs have suffered by their removal from their previous homes has caused them to react differently to each other. This has led me on to something else ... scientific findings with feral dogs are that these animals do not form packs, they form pairs or very small groups, and there seems to be far less of a hierarchical system - more a case of "every dog for himself". Maybe, this is what happened with the dogs in the Rescue Centre - they had effectively become "feral" in that they had been taken away from their previous home and placed in the Rescue Centre. Maybe when this happens to dogs, when they are torn away from their Human Pack, they became as a feral dog - rudderless. At the Rescue Centre, they were allowed to play and interact together, but they had no sense of "pack" and so therefore just formed pairs or small groups, as with truly feral dogs.

Either way you look at it, I still say the science is flawed because IMO dogs that are happy and healthy, living good lives with their human families, are living in a "pack". And Bradwell, Blackwell & Casey would have found this to be the case had they carried out their research on well-balanced family pets.

But how could they have done this? Well, there's the rub. It would have been far more difficult, possibly impossible even. So they had to settle for second best. Bad science in my opinion therefore.

but that's my point! You wouldn't accept any research done, even within your own parameters (i.e. balanced family pet) that suggested anything other than a pack structure.
I can tell you now, with my group, there is no structure at all, in fact I would even go so far as to say that they aren't even 'friends'. They are a group of dogs that get on with each other, play and eat together, go for walks together but if push came to shove it would be everyone for themselves!
Becky

I dont see how you can call this research flawed and yet can totally be behind SE (OT I know) and his teachings. He bases the majority his knowledge on non representative wolves but you are able to see passed this.
This research has been published in a well respected journal and will be analysed and used by scientific peers, I would also imagine in the full paper it will state the method they used and why,what they see to be the flaws, what the chances are that the results would be replicated etc. You, yourself have said you are not a scientist but feel this paper is not valid after only reading the abstract but yet people who are specialist in this field feel that it merited getting published.
I dont think that you are as open minded as you like to think but do admire your 'fighting your own corner' technique

I have to say I haven't read the research and actually don't give a monkeys about it but I do find your statement very interesting.
With my lot they have a relatively fluid structure, With Syd in the lead, they do all get on, they have the odd squabble like any group. They play together, walk together just like yours but there is a bit but, they do look out for each other and if push came to shove they will dive in and defend each other. God help anything that challenges them, it's very much a case of challange one challenge all.

Ah I see that as more of herd mentality. As an example, if you were in a group, you may know some of the people but not all, however if someone screamed and shouted fire than ran in a particular direction, a proportion of the group would do the same. Has nothing to do with pack structure and everything to do with instinct!
Becky