Wolf Philosophy

[Flyby]

I'm not wanting to start any heated discussion, and actually I'm trying to find where the boundaries are so I don't do that inadvertantly, but can I skirt on a controversial subject?

I'm learning all the time about Positive Re-inforcement, and I see it working strongly with my own dogs so yes, I'm a fan, but I genuinely wasn't aware about the depth of feeling about other training methods. I didn't for example know anying about this chap Millan, I'd never heard of him.

I have since seen and read a few things I don't agree with, and understand why certain theories are discredited and aren't helpful, and potentilly dangerous. I don't want to compare like for like, I have no agenda here, nor do I wish to re-open any sores - I'm firmly on your side, just needing some gaps filled in..

My question relates more to the philosophy he quotes as his inspiration, principally the pack instincts of wolves. If we can forget CM ever opened his mouth for a minute, and leave him out the picture, is there still legitimate substance to various nature programs which follow wild timber wolves and try to interpret the mechanics of pack behaviour, interaction and instincts?

I'm trying to confirm the problems arise in trying to interpret and adapt these priciples to use them as training 'regime'. (Yes I do know about the studies often being on captive wolves etc but that's not what I'm getting at). Is it possible to distance myself from CM and the like as far as I am able, but retain some respect for the principles of alpha dogs, submissive gestures, pack mentality etc? I don't mean as training aids or philosophies, but simply to take pleasure understanding how wolves behave in the wild.

Before I'd ever heard of CM, I'd seen any number of wildlife documentaries, and was fairly comfortable with how the behavior of these wild animals was being interpreted and presented by the narrator, complete with all the references to pack mentalities, dominant and submissive behavoirs and conditioning etc. Am I correct to assume these programs remain diligent and valid documentaries, and subsequent controversy is confined to how a crude understanding of such behavoirs is being applied and used/misused?

I never did consider these behavoirs as the basis for training dogs, but enjoyed speculation whether a modern pet's behavoir or even a domesticated animal, or even wild animal in captivity might be explained as the vesige of some wild instinct from ancient history. It's a fascinating thing to imagine, but is there any of this natural history I should nowadays be trying to un-learn?

[WufWuf]

I'm sure some of the more educated folk will be able to help answer your questions but if you're interested there's a wonderful book that deals with the question of pack theory and viewing dogs as wolves. It's by John Bradshaw and it's called "In Defence of Dogs" in the U.K and Ireland (I think it came out as Dog Sense in the U.S).

The short answer is dogs are not wolves and I'll leave it up to the smarter more articulate members to give you the long answer.

[JudyN]

I'd be very interested in what the experts have to say, too - after all, there was a discussion just the other day about how in many ways we can rear dogs in the same way as we would rear human toddlers, and dogs are certainly more related to wolves than they are to humans! On the other hand, they have been bred to live with humans, and also they don't view humans in the same way they do other dogs.

I can certainly see a form of dominance and submission in interactions between dogs, and I think sometimes we try a little too hard to avoid not just these terms but the concepts themselves because (quite rightly) we want to get away from the old 'dominace' models.

I guess, as well, it's dangerous to use anything as a model apart from what actually happens in the dog world, because we then follow the model and fail to notice any behaviour in our dogs which deviates from the model - or assume that we need to work harder to shape the dog to fit the model (hence the lengths some people go to to establish 'dominance' over a dog whose reaction is absolutely nothing to do with not seeing the owner as apha).

[WufWuf]

Patricia McConnell did a great series of blogs on dominance on her site I think this is the first one http://www.theotherendoftheleash.com/th ... -dominance

These days I prefer to think of in terms of social status as it fits better with the different levels of behaviour I've seen and it's also something I see with my cats and no one says they have a "pack mentality". Please note that I have no desire for my babies to see me as anything other then a good mammy!

[jacksdad]

I highly, highly recommend the John Bradshaw book. the first four chapters cover this very topic and will answer many of your questions.

http://www.amazon.com/Dog-Sense-Science ... 665&sr=8-1

[emmabeth]

I do think models can be useful, but then there is a human tendancy to force the facts to fit the theory.. and then it all goes a bit wrong.

There probably ARE a lot of similarities between WILD wolves and the way they live, and the way we interact and co-habit with domestic dogs...

BUT, and its a pretty massive (hairy one with its pants down by its knees) but (t), wild wolves live in HUGE open spaces, where there are predators that can and will kill them and indeed, prey species that if approached wrongly, can and will kill them.

Domestic dogs in comparison, live in very very small spaces, with us, and without predators or prey that pose danger.

So we have problems that they wouldnt have,a nd vice versa.

I actually also think that captive wolves can tell us a lot too - they are canids trapped in a small space in an unnatural group (different sub-species mixed, unrelated wolves mixed etc etc), and we see behaviours not displayed in wild wolves.

I think these different models, ALONGSIDE the observation of OTHER wild canids AND feral domestic dogs can be extremely interesting, and useful.

For example, feral domestic dogs do NOT form packs, their family groups disperse very quickly, they 'buddy up' from time to time, or form loose, social groups, IF the environmental context demands it.

Dogs within these communities who throw their weight about, are bossy or domineering with other dogs.... do NOT find themselves 'top of the tree' or in ANY way respected by other dogs. In fact, just like the supposed 'alpha' wolf in captive packs, these dogs are feared and avoided as much as is possible. They get into fights and get injured, they may well get the best food around, but they lead short, dangerous lives, with other community members shunning and avoiding them wherever possible.

THat quite neatly parallels the relationship you find between humans who domineer and bully dogs in a 'captive' environment - they are not respected but feared, animals avoid triggering their aggression as best they can.

This is NOT teh relationship we want with dogs and it doesnt have to be the one we have!

Dogs are behaviourally quite markedly different to wolves - their tolerance for clumsy human behaviour is enormous - a wolf (even captive bred) will not tolerate even 10% of the ridiculous behavioural 'faux pas' that humans commit towards dogs, daily!

Belyaev's study and work with foxes originally bred for fur quite clearly demonstrates how selecting for tolerant, non-fearful responses doesnt JUST change the behaviour of the offspring, it changes their phsyiological features too. Foxes thatlacked a fear of humans and therefore did not react aggressively to them lost their pricked ears, their ears dropped, coats became broken coloured, showing that these behavioral traits we call 'tameness' are not purely learned, but are hereditary.

Belyaev achieved that in only a few generations, think how many generations we have been breeding dogs for and you can see just HOW far removed dogs are from wolves!

[chay]

in addition to the above if i may add some of my (still learning!) thoughts...

My question relates more to the philosophy he quotes as his inspiration, principally the pack instincts of wolves. If we can forget CM ever opened his mouth for a minute, and leave him out the picture, is there still legitimate substance to various nature programs which follow wild timber wolves and try to interpret the mechanics of pack behaviour, interaction and instincts?

wild wolves behave completely differently to captive wolves, and both groups behave completely differently again to domestic dogs. the substance of the documentaries can be, of course, legitimate to the behavior of wild timber wolves, and the pack mechanics specific to the timber wolves in question

I'm trying to confirm the problems arise in trying to interpret and adapt these priciples to use them as training 'regime'. (Yes I do know about the studies often being on captive wolves etc but that's not what I'm getting at). Is it possible to distance myself from CM and the like as far as I am able, but retain some respect for the principles of alpha dogs, submissive gestures, pack mentality etc? I don't mean as training aids or philosophies, but simply to take pleasure understanding how wolves behave in the wild.

wild wolves are family groups - parents, offspring, siblings. they work cooperatively (almost unheard of the animal world!) for the betterment of the group. the parents are the 'natural' alphas - they have the most life smarts and experience and pass this on as to how to live successfully in the wolf-y world. if rival, unrelated groups of wolves threaten the resources of the group, then the aggression and fights occur - against the OTHER group, not within the family. younger wolves, as they grow, may (and do) leave the group to set off and find their own territory and start their own family pack, thus starting the cycle again.

captive wolves, as you have heard about, are completely unrelated animals forced to live in close confines - so there is none of the cooperation of a family group, and ALL of the tension / aggression / competition of unrelated wolves. THIS dynamic is what the CM's of the world base their philosophy on, and thus THEIR interpretation of the 'alpha / submissive / pack mentality' is fundamentally flawed - they are taken from UNNATURAL gestures of wolves forced to live together in an UNNATURAL environment (and still have nothing to do with domestic dogs!)

so yes, of course you can still look at 'pack dynamics' in terms of wild wolves, just make sure you're looking at the right wolves

Before I'd ever heard of CM, I'd seen any number of wildlife documentaries, and was fairly comfortable with how the behavior of these wild animals was being interpreted and presented by the narrator, complete with all the references to pack mentalities, dominant and submissive behavoirs and conditioning etc. Am I correct to assume these programs remain diligent and valid documentaries, and subsequent controversy is confined to how a crude understanding of such behavoirs is being applied and used/misused?

yes, the problem arises in the misunderstanding about how wild animals behave, and comparing that to domestic animals. i'm sure many documentaries still make the mistake of ascribing "dominance" or whatever theories to wolves, but the modern science of animal behavior now understands this is not the case (and i bet you woudl get very different narrations from a doco made say, 20 years ago about wolves than you would one made by john bradshaw just last year) so its also about picking your sources and remaining critical of what you're hearing

I never did consider these behavoirs as the basis for training dogs, but enjoyed speculation whether a modern pet's behavoir or even a domesticated animal, or even wild animal in captivity might be explained as the vesige of some wild instinct from ancient history. It's a fascinating thing to imagine, but is there any of this natural history I should nowadays be trying to un-learn?

the thing that i always try to remember is, dogs just aren't wild animals anymore. they haven't been for a long time. of course they still have ancient instincts (we all do - fear, aggression, self preservation, etc) but this doesn't mean they are just one shade away from howling at the moon.

long before we had fluffy being bred for the show ring, dogs were being unconsciously selectively-bred for temperament - ancient humans would want the dogs that lived BEST with humans, dogs that were difficult to live with were either culled or just left behind (or ran away themselves). this has occurred over human history over THOUSANDS of years... so when you look at it like that, the idea that dogs somehow have this innate desire to "dominate" humans and be "alpha" and all that rubbish, just doesn't stack up. they WANT to live WITH us - it literally was how they were made.

that's not to say there aren't "wild"/feral dogs, there are - but these animals are still the result of thousands of years of deliberate human intervention in breeding so (i think) still count more on the 'domestic' side than the wolf level of 'wild' side of things

i can not recommend enough the book "dog sense" by john bradshaw. it talks about the history of dogs, right back to the wolf days, and it also talks about the observations of other canids as emmabeth describes. it actually addresses the modern science of dog behavior and psychology, in a really accessible way wihtout getting lost in science mumjo jumbo.

[jacksdad]

note, the North American Timber Wolf and the domestic dog aren't related. John covers that in the book too and why that is relevant.

[chay]

quite right jacksdad, thankyou for the clarification

[jacksdad]

team work your post above is just about what I would have said, but much more concise

[Flyby]

Thanks all for the level headed input.

I'll do some reading, to me the curiosity goes hand in hand with owning dogs.

To put my own views in perspective, when I see my dog playing with a ball, I believe its a vestigal hunting instict from when wild dogs survived by predation and presented small prey to their pups to dispatch, and much further back, such behaviour may have it roots in wolf behaviour. But that's as far as I want to go. It's a logical association, but nothing more, and certainly doesn't give me circuit diagram of a dog's mental processing.

Thank you all.

[DogNut]

note, the North American Timber Wolf and the domestic dog aren't related. John covers that in the book too and why that is relevant.

“The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence....

In comparison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence.”

Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D.

“Molecular evolution of the dog family”
Theoretical and Applied Genetics

From: http://www2.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.htm

See also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1524871/

And: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/4/474.full

And: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/12/2541.full

The following supports the hypothesis that dogs are not directly descended from wolves, but are certainly related.

http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/10 ... c-dog.html

Could you please elaborate on your assertion? Perhaps your point is that you contend the North American Timber Wolf is significantly different from the European or Asian versions? But they are all definitely the same species: Canis Lupus.

For a very unique perspective of wild wolf pack behavior, I suggest reading "The Man Who Lives With Wolves", by Shaun Ellis. Or watch some of his many videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_MXskJ568o

[Nettle]

Just to touch on this one particular point

I believe its a vestigal hunting instict from when wild dogs survived by predation and presented small prey to their pups to dispatch

Domestic b itches still do this. It was fascinating from a scientific point of view (albeit upsetting from a human-sentimental one) watching one of my b itches catching a rabbit, partly immobilising it and dropping it in front of her pup when the pup was 11 weeks old. By 22 weeks, the rabbits were being dropped in front of the pup uninjured and she was catching them because the rabbits froze in fear and so the pup had a second or two to rush them and grab them.

You can't beat the evidence of your own eyes. I bet many scientists would be shocked rigid at how competent domestic dogs are at teaching their pups to hunt - but relatively few people breed and keep a pup, and even fewer allow them access to wild prey in a totally natural environment. And of those, how many would watch and let it all happen, or understand exactly what was happening?

[Flyby]

Thanks DogNut, that's the fella I had in mind.

Shaun Ellis was on UK TV a few weeks after I came home with Odin. I'm now expecting people to say ah yes, but his wolves are captive, but all the same...

I remember him taking the camera man in beside the pack, and a big wolf approaching the camera man, jumping up and giving the camera man a close inspection. The cameraman remarked is this the Alpha male? Ellis said no, it wasn't the Alpha males job to assess possible threats to the pack, this was a different roll for a lower status wolf. That made sense, you don't put your generals on the front line. I remember he described the roll as a type of pack 'enforcer' which typically runs at the outer perimeter of the pack, kind of on point duty, spotting threats or prey, assessing their significance for the whole pack, and reacting accordingly. The 'enforcer' title came from the roll where this wolf is also primarily responsible for keeping any wolf which has been excluded from the pack at arms length, thus enforcing the will of the pack leaders to exclude it.

The reason I remember this so clearly is because he went on to describe how many people select their puppies by picking the friendliest and most active pup, typically the first one out the box which runs up to greet the person. That was myself and Odin down to a tee! He assessed such actions as having less to do with the pup being sociable and friendly, but behaviour more likely a 'puppy's eye' version of the enforcer's roll, where the pup was actually looking out for pack, (his litter), and assessing a possible new threat to the pack. As I recall interpreting what he said, he didn't say that some dogs were born alpha wolves, or enforcer wolves, and most would adapt to the roll depending to the circumstances of the pack, however some were 'naturals' and excelled in the roll.

This is precisely the fascinating research I enjoy watching, but feel a bit shy to talk about given the most recent heated opinions. Despite being aware of this, I did not seek to use this knowledge to help train my dog, but it did calm me down in terms of anxiety that my dog was stubborn to react to the recall command, and that this might require me to be more patient. To my mind, that was a win win situation. Fascinating to learn, and I thought helpful to understanding what my dog MIGHT perhaps be thinking while actually changing nothing. And co-incidentally, and IMPORTANT, to my mind not in any way inconsistent with positive reinforcement theories.

[emmabeth]

I think there is some value in watching things like footage of Shaun Ellis and his captive wolves - if you sensibly interpret what is happening and keep it in context.

What people unfortunately do is forget the context, forget the other relevant details, such as Shaun has to manage his pack and split them up as they DO have permanent fall outs, and then squidge around the details to fit with what tehy THINK they are seeing.

Within a captive group of wolves you may WELL get a very strong character dominating the rest of the group - that animal may well get the best of the food, he or she will probably find that other animals defer to them/avoid them...

But is that the relationship you want with your dogs. Thats the question you have to ask I think, at every turn. Do I want my dogs to do xyz because they are captive and have no choice BUT to defer to someone who is a bigger bully than they can be?

For me the answer is no, I want my dogs to do things because THEY want to do them.

Now I will hold my hand up here and say, positive dog training is really, a manipulation of a dogs desires to suit our own needs - we mess with their minds, we alter what THEY want to do by breeding and by conditioning, by socialisation and habituation.

We take a skilled predator and breed and train into it a desire to hand over its kill to us, in some dogs we have taken the 'kill' out of the chain of behaviour so they give us the prey alive. In others we go further back and remove 'catch' and then with training and socialisation we create dogs who herd and drive prey species around rather than catch and kill them...

Um.. I think ive gone off on one! I need more coffee!