Hi spettadog. Thank you for a great reply A lot of this is stuff I've already seen in reply to pack theory, but some of it I haven't. I'll edit and just answer the more relevant bits if that's ok.



Sorry to be a pain but could you give some quotes or page numbers.


Yes, this is what I gather from the writings too. You could argue that dogs kept in a domestic environment is comparable to the captive pack, in that they are confined to a limited space and are not usually a family, in the sense of parents and offspring.

My experience of keeping dogs together echos the findings in that an unrelated pack is less likely to be stable. There is greater liklihood of a harmonious pack when it consist of a family group. Introducing an outside dog, even when brought in as a young puppy, does cause conflict.


Yes, just the same in a stable dog pack.... although one of the striking differences between dog and wolf is that in domestication, a female often takes the top dog spot. AFAIK this never occurs in the wolf pack.

There's an interesting report on dog pack hierachy here -
http://www.clickersolutions.com/arti...ierarchies.htm


Young puppies eat first by virtue of their dam's alpha position, however in times of extreme hardship, the puppies are the first to die. This is the only viable strategy to ensure the best chance of survival of the pack, and untimately the alpha pair will the last survivors. The strength of the pack lies in the alpha pair.


I think what is evident is that the alphas actually choose when to eat. In times of extreme hardship, or conflict as in the captive pack, they will choose to eat first because this reinforces their position.

I'm not really into this eating routine... my dogs always eat before me, but the rank reduction ritual that includes this, is advised (AFAIK) in times of conflict ie for a dog that shows dominant behaviour towards the owner.


Firstly, dogs are not wolves. They have been selectively bred for thousands of years to have a temperament adapted to domestication. There is huge variation through the breeds but on the whole selection has been based on human friendliness and trainability. It's this trainability that makes most dogs dependant on us and compliant with our lifestyle.

Secondly, if there are owners who exert complete control over their dogs in all situations, They may be making a stressful like for their dogs but I don't see that this makes pack theory any less viable.



This doesn't make their results flawed, it just makes them what they are - data on a captive pack. Yes, animals do behave differently in a captive situation... but are our dogs not also captive?

Wild packs are said to have a more fluid hierachy, but that doesn't mean that there is no hierarchy. There is still the alpha pair and in times of conflict they will exert authority in a very similar way to a captive alpha.

And compare this to a dog pack.......in a normal household situation there is no need for the owner to constantly reinforce alpha position by eating first, not allowing dogs on furtiture, going through doorways first etc. A confident, assertive demeanor is all that's required to establish dominance and the dogs know they can lie on the sofa .....etc, with the owner's permission. This is more akin to the stable, wild pack situation where the alpha wolf also doesn't need to 'bully' the rest of the pack into submission. He rules with quiet assertiveness.

I've seen this analogy on an anti pack theroy website... and really, it's not a good one at all.

The dog is a sub species of the wolf ie it is a direct descendant so very closely related and current thinking is that domestication first occured ~14k years ago. Humans OTOH didn't descend from any currently living species, in fact there are no surviving species of the same genus. We segregated from our closest relative, the chimpanzee, in lineage ~5 million years ago.

Nevertheless there are remarkable similarities in human and chimp behaviour, possibly even more so that dog and wolf. That's the difference between natural selection and domesticastion.



Ah yes I've seen it said that modern day pet dogs are hovering between commensalism and parasitism with us human slaves.


More like 300,000 years.


There are behavioural differences between dogs and wolves but there are many similarities too. From what I gather, there has been very good success at Monty Sloan's Wolf park in the States, in socialising wolf pups.

To do this they must be removed from the mother at about 14 days and handreared to catch the imprinting stage.

I hope there aren't too many of those around now Lottie, as they are really not doing the best for their pups. More dogs are pts for behaviour problems than die due to disease etc as far as I know...in my view socialising and habituating pups takes precedence over anything else (as long as the person is sensible obviously).

Spettadog's said a lot I agree with so I will just cherry pick a few bits here and there now

Do you have any references for those?
As far as I know, David Mech who has done a lot of the recent research has found that in times of hardship the puppies actually do eat first, and the reason he gave was that this was instinctual because the genes had to survive and go on. Not sure if he gave any other reasons but I remember this bit

Mine too, always have

There doesn't seem to be a good reason for this.

I'll check that out when I've time out of interest , I would say catching the imprinting stage would be very important.

Like others, I have somewhat mixed views on behavioural issues for prime time tv. By their very nature, they need to be sufficiently interesting to attract an audience, then cover a wide variety of topics in the short time available. This results in a succession of snapshots without depth.

Worse still, the production team and/or presenters may deliberately re-create aggression scenarios (often the case in Jan Fennel and Britain's Worse Pet), sometimes involving innocent passers by in order to 'sex up' airtime. In one case I know of personally, the production team of Dog Borstall were walking on the Surrey Downs in a spot frequented by dog-walkers and owners. A friend's dog was deliberately targeted and attacked by one of the DB participant's dogs. The attack was full-on and the innocent dog's owner luckily kept full control throughout. Realising that a programme was being made the owner approached the production team. None of the programme 'experts' was present. A complaint was made, followed up in writing, but the programme was aired and repeated twice. The owner received only a one-line letter of explanation from the BBC, along the lines of 'the need to demonstrate bad behaviours to illustrate to the audience the type of training required' (paraphrased).

Frequently what is missing for me in these programmes is sufficient emphasis on really understanding 'dog': its origins, purpose and the canine language it is displaying.
Again and again, the dogs involved in these programmes are flagging their emotional state very clearly indeed. Some are clearly distressed and the behaviours appear to be exacerbated by the presence of tv crew often filming in a small room, etc. A dog does not have to be physically handled to be mis-treated.

I would much prefer to see basic (preventative) dog-handling skills promoted on TV and in-depth programmes on the science available on canine language and emotions. Perhaps then, some of the 'problem' programmes may require less airtime.

Mary

Sorry no, been lost in time... there was though a recent (last couple of years) TV documentary on a Tundra pack that fell on hard times when the critical timing with the caribou migration was out. The pack consisted of just parents, and one litter of pups that died one by one through starvation. The parents stayed with the pups until their death before moving on to better pastures.

I'll see if I can find anything else on this... if you have Mech's writings to hand, I'd be very interested in reading.

I do agree that the instinctual behaviour of the parents is to allow the pups to eat first but not to the extent that it puts their lives at risk. To look at this logically, the alpha pair have a high probability of possessing the genes that secure a phenotype most suited to survival in their particular environment. They each pass on 50% of their gene complement to the offspring but there's no guarantee that any of the pups have inherited the best versions of those genes.

The survival rate in a litter is low normally and ultimately the number of offspring for the entire lifetime fecundity that reach the status of alpha, and so breeding themselves, is very low, or probably in some cases, none at all. The most efficient survival strategy for the species is to ensure that the individuals most genetically suited, and best equipped through maturity and experience to survive, do so to go on and breed again.

Another in-built mechanism common to mammals (all mammals AFAIK) that facilitates survival-of-the-fittest is the switch off of lactation in times of starvation. If it were in the best interest of a species to preserve the offspring in favour of the parents, we would see lactation continuing right up to death by starvation.

I am assuming Wys, that this is the argument you're putting fwd, as this is what I remember from a previous discussion. What I really don't see as logical is.... how on earth can the pups survive on their own? Ok, they may have their parents' bodies to sustain them for a while but we are talking times of hardship. With little experience and severely compromised physical capabilities of hunting, they are doomed without question.

This topic is covered in depth in The Selfish Gene, and I think Dawkins does state the human species is the only one known to self sacrifice in favour of offspring. Even then, I don't think he considers it truly altruistic, as with humans, there is a high probabilty of offspring care by genetically related individuals (again a non-altruistic behaviour).... could be wrong though, it's a while since I've read the book.

I think the crux of the matter is that these programmes are not really designed to educate, or improve the dog situation at all. They're all geared to entertainment and accumulate viewing figures.

The increasing Americanisation of our TV programme styles where every possible situation is turned into a drama is taking hold in many areas. Even wildlife docus.... is the lone wilderbeest calf going to find his mother before the lions get him!.... Is the dog going to learn to do the sit stay in time to pass his first test!!

Unfortunately I don't think genuine education on dog training skills would sit well these days, much less programmes on the science involved.

Absolutely. Quick fix culture, not conducive to depth and rigour, and encouraging the use of widespread generalisations....ah well, thank goodness for academic papers and books.....talking of which, and reading the previous inputs on this thread from Spettadog and Wysiwyg too, I remember reading something similar in Mech a while back. Unless it was a single paper, the references Wysiwyg wanted are most likely either in The Way of the Wolf 1991, or the earlier work, The Arctic Wolf:Living with the Pack 1988. If I can dig out the pages I'll post them.
Mary

Oh thank you Mary... I look forward

Whilst heeding the warning of remaining on-topic here, I am below attempting to answer some specific points raised as queries and examples of citations for reference. If anyone would like these comments shifted, please feel free, I won't be offended, this topic has digressed a little!

The reference from Coppinger, R, 2001. Dogs. A new understanding of canine origin, behaviour and evolution. Especially the intro and chapters 1 & 2, which contend that our dog breeds descend from village dogs that had no need for pack structure (for hunting/breeding) and furthermore other individuals would be perceived as direct competition for (limited) resources ie human waste/leftovers.

I am posting a link to some similar research and discussion. The article itself is well-written, and provides links to sites including David Mech's in the blog at the end.

http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006...estic-dog.html


Sorry Pod and Wysiwyg, the exact Mech references on survival are eluding me. I have so many of his books that finding a specific point is quite tricky sometimes! Maybe something on his site linked above though, and as far as I remember he has a contact facility on his site too

Mary

What I dont like about these programs is their potential for editing. I dont know how much editing occurs with it but they will obviously have the ability to not air programs filmed whereby their methods did not have the desired effect or whereby they did something and it caused a situation to get worse. I'm not saying this happens at all orthat their methods are bad, just simply taht the possibility for editing leaves much to the imagination and by cutting out long periods of time etc they make the whole thing look easier than it is. So when people try it at home they wonder why their dog isnt 'fixed' after a day.