Some thoughts about wolves, dogs, and behavior
I wasn't sure whether to do this as a blog or discussion, but I am hoping some other people will throw in their two cents, so I chose a discussion.
I was on my way home from work the other day and heard the beginning of a story about the loss of the Druid Wolf Pack in Yellowstone. Missing the end, I went online to find more info, since wolves fascinate me.
And the more I learn, the less faith I have in "pack theory" of dog behavior. I think most of us have heard it. Trainers like Cesar Milan (who I do respect) rely on it heavily. The idea is that in a pack, there is a strict structure, and if you behave as the "alpha dog," many of your doggy problems will disappear.
It all makes sense, til I learned that most of the studies of wolves that pack theory are based on were done with captive populations, not wild ones. Turns out that in the wild, a wolf "pack" is most often a breeding pair and their young adult offspring (up to around 2 years old). There are exceptions, and sometimes unrelated adults join, but most often that is not the case. And unlike social prey animals, like horses, the majority of wolves don't stay in a band of unrelated animals. They go off and start their own breeding pair pack. So in many cases, the "alpha" is actually the parent and it's not really natural to have mature adults staying in a submissive role.
The other big thing about pack theory is that wolves (and therefore, theoretically, dogs) respect the established order and the underlings rarely challenge the authority of the alpha to choose resting spaces, food, etc.
In reading about the Druid Pack, many of my ideas of pack theory were challenged. Here's a great link:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/in-the-valley-of-the-wolves...
Some excerpts of things that surprised me:
So much for the idea that the subordinates will respect the pack leader.
Well, apparently alpha males don't even always control breeding rights. Hmmm. This is not what I'd been led to believe at all!
I'd also learned that alphas control the food, but from another study:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/wolf_mech_dominance_alpha_status.htm
Ok, so even if my dog knows I'm dominant, it apparently won't help with food-guarding. It does help with who gets to eat at all if food is scarce, though:
Don't get me wrong, it's not that the study of wolf behavior has no significance. It does seem, though, that as more is learned, perhaps not as much is applicable to dealing with our dogs as I once imagined. The more I think about it the more I think that classical and operant conditioning are the biggest things I use in training my dogs: they are rewarded for desired behaviors, and ignored or (rarely) punished for undesired behaviors. That increases the frequency of the behaviors I like and decreases the frequency of the behaviors I dislike. Even in multi-dog homes, the state of having unrelated sexually mature adults forced to live together and accept subordinate roles does not seem to be the natural order of things, and as the Druid pack exemplifies, in larger packs where resources are abundant and that happens, violence and upheaval seems to follow if the animals are left to their own devices.
And what became of the Druid pack? It appears they have come to a bad end; the natural life of canines is violent and short:
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_14633522
According to the NPR story I heard, the remaining female is half-bald from severe mange and likely won't survive. I know there are a lot of sources out there that romanticize the "natural" lifestyle of canines and talk about how our modern lifestyle is the cause of all sorts of problems. In some cases that may be true, but the fact is that the life of a wild canine is riddled with disease and danger.
What do you think? Is wolf pack theory the model you use in your home for your dogs? Or do you rely more on modern reward-based training styles? Or maybe a bit of both?
I was on my way home from work the other day and heard the beginning of a story about the loss of the Druid Wolf Pack in Yellowstone. Missing the end, I went online to find more info, since wolves fascinate me.
And the more I learn, the less faith I have in "pack theory" of dog behavior. I think most of us have heard it. Trainers like Cesar Milan (who I do respect) rely on it heavily. The idea is that in a pack, there is a strict structure, and if you behave as the "alpha dog," many of your doggy problems will disappear.
It all makes sense, til I learned that most of the studies of wolves that pack theory are based on were done with captive populations, not wild ones. Turns out that in the wild, a wolf "pack" is most often a breeding pair and their young adult offspring (up to around 2 years old). There are exceptions, and sometimes unrelated adults join, but most often that is not the case. And unlike social prey animals, like horses, the majority of wolves don't stay in a band of unrelated animals. They go off and start their own breeding pair pack. So in many cases, the "alpha" is actually the parent and it's not really natural to have mature adults staying in a submissive role.
The other big thing about pack theory is that wolves (and therefore, theoretically, dogs) respect the established order and the underlings rarely challenge the authority of the alpha to choose resting spaces, food, etc.
In reading about the Druid Pack, many of my ideas of pack theory were challenged. Here's a great link:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/in-the-valley-of-the-wolves...
Some excerpts of things that surprised me:
By the end of 1998, the Lamar Valley Druids had seven members, and a growing reputation for conflict. The constant harassment of beta female #42 by her sister, #40, earned #42 the nickname “Cinderella” by the Yellowstone researchers. The put-upon Cinderella created a den and gave birth to pups in 1998, but none survived; the following year #40 attacked #42 in her den, and she again produced no offspring.
Cinderella finally reached the ball in 2000, after a violent turn of events that put her at the head of the pack. She and the other female members of the pack, perhaps tired of #40’s iron-pawed leadership, turned on the alpha female, and killed her.
So much for the idea that the subordinates will respect the pack leader.
The pack expanded to 17 members by the end of 2003, aided by the arrival of a lone black male, #302, formerly of the Leopold pack. #302 may have fathered all of the pups not born to the alpha female. To wolf researchers, he was “Casanova” — a lover, not a fighter, who wooed the females in the group while staying appropriately submissive to alpha male, #21.
Well, apparently alpha males don't even always control breeding rights. Hmmm. This is not what I'd been led to believe at all!
I'd also learned that alphas control the food, but from another study:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/wolf_mech_dominance_alpha_status.htm
Aside from these food deliveries, there appeared to be an ownership zone (Mech 1970) around the mouth of each wolf, and regardless of the rank of a challenger, the owner tried to retain the food it possessed, as Lockwood (1979) also found with captive wolves. Wolves of any rank could try to steal food from another of any rank, but every wolf defended its food (Table 6). Generally, dominant wolves seemed to succeed more at stealing food, but sample size was too small for a definite conclusion to be drawn.
Ok, so even if my dog knows I'm dominant, it apparently won't help with food-guarding. It does help with who gets to eat at all if food is scarce, though:
As for high-ranking animals asserting any practical control over subordinates, the nature of the interaction is highly conditional. For example, with large prey such as adult moose (Alces alces), pack members of all ranks (ages) gather around a carcass and feed simultaneously, with no rank privilege apparent (Mech 1966; Haber 1977); however, if the prey is smaller, like a musk ox calf, dominant animals (breeders) may feed first and control when subordinates feed (Mech 1988; National Geographic 1988).
Don't get me wrong, it's not that the study of wolf behavior has no significance. It does seem, though, that as more is learned, perhaps not as much is applicable to dealing with our dogs as I once imagined. The more I think about it the more I think that classical and operant conditioning are the biggest things I use in training my dogs: they are rewarded for desired behaviors, and ignored or (rarely) punished for undesired behaviors. That increases the frequency of the behaviors I like and decreases the frequency of the behaviors I dislike. Even in multi-dog homes, the state of having unrelated sexually mature adults forced to live together and accept subordinate roles does not seem to be the natural order of things, and as the Druid pack exemplifies, in larger packs where resources are abundant and that happens, violence and upheaval seems to follow if the animals are left to their own devices.
And what became of the Druid pack? It appears they have come to a bad end; the natural life of canines is violent and short:
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_14633522
The pack numbered 11 wolves two months ago, but officials say the alpha female and other members were killed by other packs, the alpha male wandered off, and a skin infection called mange killed others. "They're down to one and that one probably won't make it through the winter," said Doug Smith, Yellowstone's wolf biologist.
According to the NPR story I heard, the remaining female is half-bald from severe mange and likely won't survive. I know there are a lot of sources out there that romanticize the "natural" lifestyle of canines and talk about how our modern lifestyle is the cause of all sorts of problems. In some cases that may be true, but the fact is that the life of a wild canine is riddled with disease and danger.
What do you think? Is wolf pack theory the model you use in your home for your dogs? Or do you rely more on modern reward-based training styles? Or maybe a bit of both?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Beth on
-
Yes, wolves will kill coyotes, and coyotes will kill foxes and cats. Apex predators take out predators that might compete with them for food---- which is exactly why people kill wolves.
I do sympathize with people losing their livelihood to predations. Wolves are just doing what wolves will do; people kill too, and violently, and for sport. It is part of the natural order of things. Wolves were brought to the brink of extinction here, and are extinct in parts of Europe, precisely because they will kill large ungulates, including domestic ones, as part of their feeding pattern.
As far as dogs reverting to instinct, yes they will kill, but feral dogs lack the pack-formation hunting to allow them to be very effective with large game. And feral female dogs are left to their own to try to rear pups, which is why pup survival is virtually nil---- she would need a pack, or at least a mate, to bring her food while she tends the still-nursing pups, and to help her provide enough food to the pups as they grow. But dogs don't do that anymore; it's been selected right out of the pre-programmed behavior.
-
-
Yes, I am well aware that wolves will start to eat animals that are still alive. Lions will too. So will your house cat (if you have a house cat).
"I have no respect for an animal that kills just for the sport of it and does not eat what it kills." Well, with respect, have you ever killed a mouse, rat, cockroach, etc etc etc? Humans routinely kill things that they do not eat, for sport or to protect their territories. Bear hunting is quite popular, and very few people eat bears. A hundred years or so ago, humans routinely killed a couple hundred million birds a year for feathers for decoration on hats.
I've watched house cats catch a critter, hold it, paw at it, let it go just long enough to scamper away and taste escape before pouncing again. Foxes will get into chickens and kill the lot of them. Wolves will hamstring an entire herd of snow-bound elk. Native Americans would stampede an entire herd of buffalo off a cliff. People round up mustangs by helicopter and many of the horses are seriously injured in the panic.
If you hate wolves for killing for something other than food, then do you apply that same standard to every other predator out there? Including humans and their pets? Or just wolves? My aunt's Jack Russells certainly kill, given half a chance. She had a German Shorthair pointer that used to go up into the barn loft to scout the fields for gophers and then go off and kill them; he certainly wasn't hungry.
Again, I sympathize with people losing their stock to predators, but I guess I am trying to understand why people hate wolves for doing what most other critters also do.
-
-
You have really taken the conversation very far from its original intent, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from doing so. If you would like to start your own conversation about the relative worth of wolves, you are free to do so.
Thank you very much. :-)
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah C. on
-
Lets not thread hijack. :( We're talking about dog behavior and wolf behavior and how they are relevant to training and dog behavior theories. Dog behavior is relevant to corgis. :3
-
Permalink Reply by Avyon on
-
If I ever meet you in real life I just want to give you a big hug for that one lol
-
Permalink Reply by Alice on
-
Seriously! I've lost people to drivers; I have not lost anyone to wolves. I know it's possible but there are worse things to worry about.
-
-
I don't know if you're right on the money, Beth, but I think you're on the track. The drives and traits we've bred into our dogs have made them a far cry from proper wolves. Wolves give us hints, not the answers. I think that the answers will have to come from behavioral studies of dogs if anything. They're similar, but not analogous.
-
-
Well, for starters dogs have, over the ages, picked up the ability to understand human body language (something wolves lack). That is a huge behavioral difference right there.
-
-
That and the research that shows that the domestication of dogs leads to neoteny in physical and behavioral features makes me wonder if there isn't more basic differences between dogs and (adult) wolves.
-
-
Well, the newest DNA tracing shows that dogs split off from wolves much sooner than they thought; like cats, it seems they self-tamed long before they were domesticated.
The early wolves that voluntarily (or by force of poor feeding conditions) gave up hunting and turned to scavenging camps would have less benefit from forming tight packs, and in fact may have benefited more by being in small, loose groups. It's all speculation, of course.
Those that were less likely to show dominance or threatening behaviors to humans would have been less likely to have been driven off. And so at least some theorize that non-pack-forming, naturally more submissive ones would have survived to reproduce and the ones who kept traditional wolf behaviors would have stayed, well, wolves.
John W posted that study that showed how quickly captive foxes who were selected for only one trait---lack of fear of humans---- changed behaviors. It was a matter of just a generation or two.
It's all very interesting stuff. I still use leadership theory at times with my dogs, but I think that more often I use mutual benefit systems to shape their behavior.
-
-
There was something that I also read/heard was that dogs behave like wolf pups that never grow out of that pup-like state. Showing affection towards the care givers and play is still a way of learning to hunt or whatever they were bred into doing to replace that. That's why they say your pup licking/kissing you when you get home after a long day of work is more "FOOD? FOOD? DO YOU HAVE FOOD? WHAT DID YOU BRING HOME?" then "I missed you!"
though its a lot nicer to think they missed you ;)
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Rescue Store
Stay Connected
FDA Recall
Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recall
Groups
We support...
Badge
© 2024 Created by Sam Tsang.
Powered by
