The American Vet Society of Animal Behavior Speaks out against Milan type trainers
- Thread starter Dekka
- Start date
If the theory is in part or in whole correct that dogs are neotenic versions of wolves (or ancestors of wolves or even some other canid ancestor) I think that makes a big difference in what is going on with domestic dogs and our lives with them. There is physiological evidence that their tameness has caused a reduction in seretonin levels and other hormones that regulate the emotional responses and caused physical morphological changes as well. They seem to have a delayed onset of adult hood, so that they're basically puppies all their lives. (sort of) This extended puppy hood in my mind makes a significant difference in what their "role" would be in our social group (dogs and humans) as opposed to our relationship with them if they did not have this extended puppy hood. I wonder how different things would be if they hadn't evolved this way during domestication. In fact, I think that this is how they became domesticated and not only domesticated, but domesticated in a way unlike any other domestic animal.
I think too, that possibly their incohesiveness and inconsistency as true pack animals also is linked or related to this extended puppyhood.
I think too, that possibly their incohesiveness and inconsistency as true pack animals also is linked or related to this extended puppyhood.
This is totally out of curiosity, but in your opinion would your dog's retain the same cohesive structure if you were out of the picture? Would they have formed it in the first place without your guidance?
Also, earlier you mentioned that you knew a really hard bitch that didn't like outside dogs, and wouldn't breed except to one specific male. What breed was she? (just really curious) I guess without seeing her myself, I would have interpreted that behavior as a type of dog aggression, similar to how some of the really game strains of bullies won't breed without being restrained. From what I understand, it's wouldn't be out of the question for a dog aggressive animal to not tolerate strange dogs, but to be comfortable with familiar ones.
And you also mentioned how some of the hard bite dogs will go for the handler if the handler is on the ground. Wouldn't that be pure prey drive? I guess I don't understand how that is a type of social behavior. But I don't know everything so maybe I'm missing something.
Also, I think the problem people are having with the "pack" model being used is that, nearly 100% of the time it refers to "wolf pack". They are the ones studied in the most detail, we have the most information about them, that is just how the term is used. And it has been proven to be an innaccurate behavioral model for training dogs. That is what people have an issue with. It can also be interpreted vaguely, like a "pack" of african wild dogs, who have a totally different social structure. It's been tainted by one association and is vague enough it could mean a million other different things. That makes it impossible to be concise with which is important in science.
And for the most part, I agree with your posts, just wanted to throw that in there so you don't misunderstand.
*note: the rest of this is directed at nobody in particular, it is just some observations*
We too have dealt with dogs packing up and killing livestock. Like I said before, dogs will pack up when it's to their benefit (bringing down large game), but these same dogs all split up when it was over. They didn't build dens together. They didn't live together and stake out a territory. They didn't band together to help raise the puppies of the dominant bitch because they all bred at will.
Most of them were feral or strays, a few of them were neighbor dogs (huskies, shepherds, and dalmations). Which is interesting, because the neighbor dogs lived as far as 5 miles apart from each other in a home/farm environment, had completely separate "packs" on their home turf in terms of the humans and other dogs they shared living space with. Specifically it was the husky and shepherd who chose to temporarily pack up with strangers and each other (though they lived 5 miles apart in separate households), they killed my cousins horse. They had packed up with these feral dogs on more than one occasion to take out livestock, but they didn't live together. They didn't go around staking out a territorial boundary with this group of animals. They didn't raise a litter of pups together. They simply got together to hunt, and when it was over went their separate ways. Extremely different from a wolf. I would not say their group consituted a "pack" in the behavioral sense. It was a group of loosely organized dogs hunting together.
It does seem to be an issue of semantics. To a lot of us on here, a "pack" is a group of tightly bonded animals that hunt/eat/den/ together and share the responsibilities of raising offspring, regardless of how closely related those offspring may be. Then there are social animals, who well, socialize, and sometimes cooperate when it benefits them. A lot of the body language and posturing is similar, but the whole underlying structure is really different. Then you have the non social animals, like bears, who pretty much are death to others of their own kind if they aren't interested in breeding.
Also, earlier you mentioned that you knew a really hard bitch that didn't like outside dogs, and wouldn't breed except to one specific male. What breed was she? (just really curious) I guess without seeing her myself, I would have interpreted that behavior as a type of dog aggression, similar to how some of the really game strains of bullies won't breed without being restrained. From what I understand, it's wouldn't be out of the question for a dog aggressive animal to not tolerate strange dogs, but to be comfortable with familiar ones.
And you also mentioned how some of the hard bite dogs will go for the handler if the handler is on the ground. Wouldn't that be pure prey drive? I guess I don't understand how that is a type of social behavior. But I don't know everything so maybe I'm missing something.
Also, I think the problem people are having with the "pack" model being used is that, nearly 100% of the time it refers to "wolf pack". They are the ones studied in the most detail, we have the most information about them, that is just how the term is used. And it has been proven to be an innaccurate behavioral model for training dogs. That is what people have an issue with. It can also be interpreted vaguely, like a "pack" of african wild dogs, who have a totally different social structure. It's been tainted by one association and is vague enough it could mean a million other different things. That makes it impossible to be concise with which is important in science.
And for the most part, I agree with your posts, just wanted to throw that in there so you don't misunderstand.
*note: the rest of this is directed at nobody in particular, it is just some observations*
We too have dealt with dogs packing up and killing livestock. Like I said before, dogs will pack up when it's to their benefit (bringing down large game), but these same dogs all split up when it was over. They didn't build dens together. They didn't live together and stake out a territory. They didn't band together to help raise the puppies of the dominant bitch because they all bred at will.
Most of them were feral or strays, a few of them were neighbor dogs (huskies, shepherds, and dalmations). Which is interesting, because the neighbor dogs lived as far as 5 miles apart from each other in a home/farm environment, had completely separate "packs" on their home turf in terms of the humans and other dogs they shared living space with. Specifically it was the husky and shepherd who chose to temporarily pack up with strangers and each other (though they lived 5 miles apart in separate households), they killed my cousins horse. They had packed up with these feral dogs on more than one occasion to take out livestock, but they didn't live together. They didn't go around staking out a territorial boundary with this group of animals. They didn't raise a litter of pups together. They simply got together to hunt, and when it was over went their separate ways. Extremely different from a wolf. I would not say their group consituted a "pack" in the behavioral sense. It was a group of loosely organized dogs hunting together.
It does seem to be an issue of semantics. To a lot of us on here, a "pack" is a group of tightly bonded animals that hunt/eat/den/ together and share the responsibilities of raising offspring, regardless of how closely related those offspring may be. Then there are social animals, who well, socialize, and sometimes cooperate when it benefits them. A lot of the body language and posturing is similar, but the whole underlying structure is really different. Then you have the non social animals, like bears, who pretty much are death to others of their own kind if they aren't interested in breeding.
:hail::hail:
Great post!
Thanks for answering my questions Hounds!
Something you wrote reminded of some stuff I read/heard about greyhounds. One of the reasons they are muzzled and monitored during turnouts is because you have some dogs (called Screamers) who will let out crazy screaming, which tends to trigger horrific dog fights that end in dead animals. The thinking on that is the screaming triggers some prey drive that gets misdirected onto the Screamer herself, or another dog, usually The Wimp. They're a pretty mellow dog friendly breed being a hound, so for them the prey drive theory makes sense. And old guy who worked greys in Tucson told me that when they got like that, it was the same kind of deaf tunnel vision that they got when running, which made him think it had to do with some kind of misdirected hunting drive. He said the way a Screamer sounds reminded him of a dying rabbit. There's probably a different reason for every situation it happens in though.
One similarity I did notice though, is that the dogs involved in you story, and the greyhounds, were both kenneled together but not really part of the same "family", as greyhounds are crated separately except for their four 60-ish minute turnouts during the day. I wonder if it is a combination of the confinement and some drive getting really wound up without appropriate outlet? At least in dogs. *shrugs* It's weird, I can't wrap my mind around it.
Something you wrote reminded of some stuff I read/heard about greyhounds. One of the reasons they are muzzled and monitored during turnouts is because you have some dogs (called Screamers) who will let out crazy screaming, which tends to trigger horrific dog fights that end in dead animals. The thinking on that is the screaming triggers some prey drive that gets misdirected onto the Screamer herself, or another dog, usually The Wimp. They're a pretty mellow dog friendly breed being a hound, so for them the prey drive theory makes sense. And old guy who worked greys in Tucson told me that when they got like that, it was the same kind of deaf tunnel vision that they got when running, which made him think it had to do with some kind of misdirected hunting drive. He said the way a Screamer sounds reminded him of a dying rabbit. There's probably a different reason for every situation it happens in though.
One similarity I did notice though, is that the dogs involved in you story, and the greyhounds, were both kenneled together but not really part of the same "family", as greyhounds are crated separately except for their four 60-ish minute turnouts during the day. I wonder if it is a combination of the confinement and some drive getting really wound up without appropriate outlet? At least in dogs. *shrugs* It's weird, I can't wrap my mind around it.
I think the biggest problem with a lot of these "models" is that they tend to disregard how intelligent and flexible dogs are. They aren't one thing or another . . . they are highly intelligent, social animals, capable of developing a social structure that is suitable to their situation. Moreover, they have been bred to be partners and companions to humanity for thousands and thousands of years. Of course they don't see humans as other dogs . . . they've been bred to see humans as humans, as another species that is part of their family/pack/social group, and usually the one in charge. Moreover, different breeds are different. I recall reading about soem research that revealed, surprise, that beagles and king charles spaniels formed diferent sorts of social groups than some of the more primitive breeds (I think they used huskies, I can't remember).
Yes, there's a place for packs, and a place for dominance, but because dogs are not robots, and in fact are very, very smart, and because they are not wolves but animals that have been bred to be human helpmates, neither one is the "answer." There is no "answer." There is no solution that works with every dog in every situation, or even most dogs in most situations. There's some good rules of thumb, and there are some really stupid things to do (see e.g. alpha rolls) but there is no solution. Is the dog charging out the door ahead of me because he's dominant? Excited? Doesn't know better? Because someone delibrately trained him that way (Sarama is trained to wait and then proceed me through doors, because I need to close the door behind us). Is sleeping on the bed bad? Depends. Is the dog allowed on the bed? Do they wait for permission? Do they move if you tell them? And solving the problem, if you don't want them there would vary . . . do they growl if you try to get them to move. Ignore you? Huddle under the covers? Wet themselves?
Dogs are smart, adaptable, highly varied, socially adept creatures. No one "theory" is going to tell you how to train them. Is there a place for some of Milan's techniques? Sure, in the right hands, with the right dog, in the right situation. Unfortunatley, they are FAR from the best solution most of the time. But reacting against his "theories" and going completely the other way doesn't make sense either. Dogs are complex. Training is complex. Life is complex. Training a dog is a relationship, and as well all know, relationships are complex.
Yes, there's a place for packs, and a place for dominance, but because dogs are not robots, and in fact are very, very smart, and because they are not wolves but animals that have been bred to be human helpmates, neither one is the "answer." There is no "answer." There is no solution that works with every dog in every situation, or even most dogs in most situations. There's some good rules of thumb, and there are some really stupid things to do (see e.g. alpha rolls) but there is no solution. Is the dog charging out the door ahead of me because he's dominant? Excited? Doesn't know better? Because someone delibrately trained him that way (Sarama is trained to wait and then proceed me through doors, because I need to close the door behind us). Is sleeping on the bed bad? Depends. Is the dog allowed on the bed? Do they wait for permission? Do they move if you tell them? And solving the problem, if you don't want them there would vary . . . do they growl if you try to get them to move. Ignore you? Huddle under the covers? Wet themselves?
Dogs are smart, adaptable, highly varied, socially adept creatures. No one "theory" is going to tell you how to train them. Is there a place for some of Milan's techniques? Sure, in the right hands, with the right dog, in the right situation. Unfortunatley, they are FAR from the best solution most of the time. But reacting against his "theories" and going completely the other way doesn't make sense either. Dogs are complex. Training is complex. Life is complex. Training a dog is a relationship, and as well all know, relationships are complex.
I partially agree, again, but I also believe because of the environment we put dogs in, there isn't a need to form that "tight" pack structure either to survive. But they do display some behaviors to varying degrees depending on the situation and the dog itself. Some almost none, to pretty strong behaviors in others.
In the last situation, they weren't confined together per say, they didn't live together either, but have spent a fair amount of time together. They were confined as in a large area about 80x40 fenced in dog area, but not a 6x10 dog run by any means. But everything was kind of happy go lucky and pretty calm until one dog got stepped on by its owner and then instantly it was a madhouse. Don't feel bad, I can't figure all out either. I haven't seen anything like since either, for which i am thankful.
and Lilavati....great post, it pretty much sums up how I feel.
In the last situation, they weren't confined together per say, they didn't live together either, but have spent a fair amount of time together. They were confined as in a large area about 80x40 fenced in dog area, but not a 6x10 dog run by any means. But everything was kind of happy go lucky and pretty calm until one dog got stepped on by its owner and then instantly it was a madhouse. Don't feel bad, I can't figure all out either. I haven't seen anything like since either, for which i am thankful.
and Lilavati....great post, it pretty much sums up how I feel.
Great post, Lilavati. A lot of wild animals are more flexible than people give them credit for, too. I watched a nature program on a certain group of lions who live in swampy areas and they have some different behaviors than savanna lions, although the only difference is where they live (not genetics.) Among other things, the males in the swamp lion prides were much more involved with cub-rearing and all-around mellow towards the cubs!
Also, one biologist spent year studying a group of baboons who had the typical baboon social structure (dominant males, sometimes aggression towards females, etc.) Then most of the dominant males died. (They were eating off a dump and got poisoned.) And the baboons' social structure changed . . . Now it's matriarchal and there's a lot more cooperation. And they've maintained this "new" social structure for 30 years! Amazing! There's almost never only one answer with animals.
Also, one biologist spent year studying a group of baboons who had the typical baboon social structure (dominant males, sometimes aggression towards females, etc.) Then most of the dominant males died. (They were eating off a dump and got poisoned.) And the baboons' social structure changed . . . Now it's matriarchal and there's a lot more cooperation. And they've maintained this "new" social structure for 30 years! Amazing! There's almost never only one answer with animals.
For these dogs, it's fun! Tyr and Nyx will do that to me if I'm on the ground. They seem to think it's a game I'm playing. Consider too that when bite training is started, the helper - or even the owner doing tug work - might get down on the ground and even lie down to give the dog more of a "win". The dog learns to do this.
That's one explanation as well. Our dogs aren't down playing tug though, it's muzzle work. and yes most times the way the dog "wins" in training is the "bad guy" goes to the ground and dog beats them up with the muzzle on. So this could partially be a learned action.
at the same time, if we're both standing up and an aggressor comes at the handler the dog targets the "bad guy". there are times when the handler could get injured because of the close proximity, but usually it is NOT because the dog targeted the wrong guy. The wrong guy just got in the way. So the dogs can differentiate, but it clearly changes when one person is on the ground.
is it because of "pack" instinct or training?????? Now training can fix this, it's mostly done to show people that think dogs aren't dogs with insincts, but rather they are bonded by some life force and their dog would always protect them and never hurt them. It opened my eyes.
There's more possible reasons as well, and i'm sure that all of them play a role in certain situations, but we're kind of drifting off topic, and that never happens on chaz threads.
at the same time, if we're both standing up and an aggressor comes at the handler the dog targets the "bad guy". there are times when the handler could get injured because of the close proximity, but usually it is NOT because the dog targeted the wrong guy. The wrong guy just got in the way. So the dogs can differentiate, but it clearly changes when one person is on the ground.
is it because of "pack" instinct or training?????? Now training can fix this, it's mostly done to show people that think dogs aren't dogs with insincts, but rather they are bonded by some life force and their dog would always protect them and never hurt them. It opened my eyes.
There's more possible reasons as well, and i'm sure that all of them play a role in certain situations, but we're kind of drifting off topic, and that never happens on chaz threads.
There are many ways in which dogs differ from wolves, even socially. Wolves do not meet a lot of stranger wolves and they are able, space permitting to stay out of each other's territory. Dogs may form social units with stranger dogs many times in their lives. In the company of humans, it is highly likely that they will. Dogs natural habitat is with humans, which was the crux of most of the Coppinger studies.
Lorenz's study of wolves was not only flawed in that he kept wolves from different packs together in the same compound but his view of what was happening was influenced by the times, namely WWII, where everyone was thinking about world domination. The behavior seen as the alpha roll is not truly the alpha wolf dominating the younger wolf. It is the younger wolf appeasing a parent. Expressing good social manners. The only time a wolf might purposefully pin and grab the neck in a real struggle is to rip the jugular vein. And rarely does even a wolf fight end in death. Though, some wolves have died later from injuries sustained in a fight. In the documentaries I have seen, the entire pack will chase off the intruder, so it's not just the "alpha" which is actually a breeding term, who runs of the upstarts.
Dogs do one thing that other species such as wolf and chimp do not do. They look to humans for cues. You can point your finger and a cat will just look at it. A chimp may meet your finger with his. A wolf may not even pay attention. A dog will look where you are pointing. Dogs value humans for our perspective and gain information from it. But they do not view us as odd looking dogs that always walk on hind legs. Watching my dog, he acts differently with dogs than he does with humans.
Classical conditioning may make initial connections but OC is always going on.
And social cohesion is from the bottom up. A leader leads because the others are following. To illustrate that, remember if you have seen where two dogs that were not used to following wind up together. There will be a fight. And it's not about dominance, it's about one not following the other. One or the other will acquiesce and follow, or leave, given the chance, but they do not stay together to endlessly battle it out, unless made to by humans. And leader position is not about size and strength. Shadow's puppyhood friend was a Jack Russell Terrier, one quarter his size but older. And Shadow would follow him anywhere and allow Duke, the JRT, to eat out of his food bowl and water bowl.
That's not say that there aren't dogs that assume a certain position but even so, the position is contextual.
And, at least to start, CM's method and model is based on this Lorenzian model. And has been shown by many others to be inaccurate and downright dangerous. CM has had his arm carved up by a Malamute (I have seen the episode.) What separates CM from others is that he is not afraid of getting bit. Because he does get bit. And the dog learns that he can get away with biting. In other circumstances, the dog has gained a bite record and a date with the needle.
Lorenz's study of wolves was not only flawed in that he kept wolves from different packs together in the same compound but his view of what was happening was influenced by the times, namely WWII, where everyone was thinking about world domination. The behavior seen as the alpha roll is not truly the alpha wolf dominating the younger wolf. It is the younger wolf appeasing a parent. Expressing good social manners. The only time a wolf might purposefully pin and grab the neck in a real struggle is to rip the jugular vein. And rarely does even a wolf fight end in death. Though, some wolves have died later from injuries sustained in a fight. In the documentaries I have seen, the entire pack will chase off the intruder, so it's not just the "alpha" which is actually a breeding term, who runs of the upstarts.
Dogs do one thing that other species such as wolf and chimp do not do. They look to humans for cues. You can point your finger and a cat will just look at it. A chimp may meet your finger with his. A wolf may not even pay attention. A dog will look where you are pointing. Dogs value humans for our perspective and gain information from it. But they do not view us as odd looking dogs that always walk on hind legs. Watching my dog, he acts differently with dogs than he does with humans.
Classical conditioning may make initial connections but OC is always going on.
And social cohesion is from the bottom up. A leader leads because the others are following. To illustrate that, remember if you have seen where two dogs that were not used to following wind up together. There will be a fight. And it's not about dominance, it's about one not following the other. One or the other will acquiesce and follow, or leave, given the chance, but they do not stay together to endlessly battle it out, unless made to by humans. And leader position is not about size and strength. Shadow's puppyhood friend was a Jack Russell Terrier, one quarter his size but older. And Shadow would follow him anywhere and allow Duke, the JRT, to eat out of his food bowl and water bowl.
That's not say that there aren't dogs that assume a certain position but even so, the position is contextual.
And, at least to start, CM's method and model is based on this Lorenzian model. And has been shown by many others to be inaccurate and downright dangerous. CM has had his arm carved up by a Malamute (I have seen the episode.) What separates CM from others is that he is not afraid of getting bit. Because he does get bit. And the dog learns that he can get away with biting. In other circumstances, the dog has gained a bite record and a date with the needle.
Alpha is not a breeding term (although they are more likely to breed than others in the pack.) It is a dominance term. Multiple wolves in a pack may breed in a given year (three Yellowstone packs had two litters apiece this year), but only one female and one male are the alpha.
The alpha roll can be used by a submissive/respectful subordinate . . . or it can be demanded, as with alpha #40 who would literally attack the other females until they rolled. Being rolled to/demanding rolls is absolutely considered a sign of dominance by biologists (among other things, like double scent marking, posture while peeing, posture of tail, etc.)
Fights to the death within the same pack are unusual, but not unheard of; indeed, wolf #40 met her end when she tried to kill her sister's litter of pups. Her sister was "popular" with the other females, who all teamed up with her and ripped #40 to shreds. When biologists found #40 she was in such bad shape that they initially thought she'd been hit, caught under the carriage of a car, and dragged down the road. Fights to the death between two different packs are very common, if wolf packs have filled all the ideal habitat (which is the natural way of things.) 65% of wolf mortality in Yellowstone is due to other wolves.
The flaw I see with the idea that a) "alpha" is interchangeable with "parent" and b) that young wolves will disperse to start their own packs is that it ignores the need for genetic interchange, it ignores the fact that it becomes exponentially more difficult to find wolf-free land to disperse to with each successive generation, and that it ignores the fact that you definitely do NOT want your pack to be composed only of two adults and your untried one year old pups, because the pack next door is going to kick your butt when they come over looking for a fight.
The alpha roll can be used by a submissive/respectful subordinate . . . or it can be demanded, as with alpha #40 who would literally attack the other females until they rolled. Being rolled to/demanding rolls is absolutely considered a sign of dominance by biologists (among other things, like double scent marking, posture while peeing, posture of tail, etc.)
Fights to the death within the same pack are unusual, but not unheard of; indeed, wolf #40 met her end when she tried to kill her sister's litter of pups. Her sister was "popular" with the other females, who all teamed up with her and ripped #40 to shreds. When biologists found #40 she was in such bad shape that they initially thought she'd been hit, caught under the carriage of a car, and dragged down the road. Fights to the death between two different packs are very common, if wolf packs have filled all the ideal habitat (which is the natural way of things.) 65% of wolf mortality in Yellowstone is due to other wolves.
The flaw I see with the idea that a) "alpha" is interchangeable with "parent" and b) that young wolves will disperse to start their own packs is that it ignores the need for genetic interchange, it ignores the fact that it becomes exponentially more difficult to find wolf-free land to disperse to with each successive generation, and that it ignores the fact that you definitely do NOT want your pack to be composed only of two adults and your untried one year old pups, because the pack next door is going to kick your butt when they come over looking for a fight.
According to L. David Mech, alpha male and female were the breeding pair in a pack. A beta, often a brother of the alpha, will not breed with the alpha female. I saw one pack where a beta female tried to present to the alpha male and the pack ran her off. Alpha means breeding rights. Unless, of course, you are saying that Mech is wrong, in which case, that is another debate. The only fights I saw were as I have mentioned wherein either a stranger wolf came in or one of the pack got the itch to breed. And often, at least in Mech's experience, watching wolves in their native habitat, uninterrupted by man, many a wolf grew to adulthood, left the family and started his or her own, never once challenging the alpha.
Also, I don't think the doc on the guy who lives with wolves is a fair representation. He raised the wolves from cubs, training them in what he thought a wolf pack should be, no doubt based on the erroneous Lorenzian model.
Also, I have seen the doc you are referring to and they did not surmise that she was ripped to shreds by the pack that ran her off or any other pack. They determined that she was hit by a truck or car and possibly scavenged by other animals. She was mostly run off.
Also, I don't think the doc on the guy who lives with wolves is a fair representation. He raised the wolves from cubs, training them in what he thought a wolf pack should be, no doubt based on the erroneous Lorenzian model.
Also, I have seen the doc you are referring to and they did not surmise that she was ripped to shreds by the pack that ran her off or any other pack. They determined that she was hit by a truck or car and possibly scavenged by other animals. She was mostly run off.
Mech was not "wrong" in the sense that he recorded inaccurate facts or was lying, but, yes, I do believe it's wrong to apply what he observed to all wolves, everywhere. No doubt when young adult wolves can disperse and form their own packs that minimizes interpack conflict but WOLVES CANNOT ALWAYS DISPERSE. Sometimes all the available land is "taken" by established packs. The fact that he never saw wolves challenging their parents is interesting, useful information, but doesn't negate the fact that last year a wolf took over his father's alpha position in Yellowstone. That doesn't mean Mech's research is worthless; it means people should start pondering questions like, "I wonder why the wolves he watched did this when these other wolves did that? Does it have something to do with the geography they lived in? Do wolves have a better chance to disperse in higher latitudes? Had some wolf disease wiped out a bunch of neighboring packs when he was wolf watching?" instead of saying, "One single study said this so I will deny that anything else could be the truth, even when reality disagrees with me."
(Real life example: There was a study done on catching grouse (to radio collar them) that concluded, based on experimentation, that drop nets were not any more effective than walk-in traps. This spring I trapped grouse and, for us, the drop nets were MUCH more effective. We had a 100% success rating in catching at least one bird per net for over a month and during all that time we didn't catch a single bird in our walk-in traps. So which was correct--our observations or those of the guy who did the net-study? Hard to say without further study. Maybe it was a fluke that he caught so few birds in drop nets. Maybe it was a fluke that we caught so few in walk-in traps. There were also studies saying this kind of grouse never drank water but we saw them perch on cattle-tanks every morning, drinking water.)
Have you ever seen those "Please spay/neuter" posters where they show how you can start with two cats and end up with thousands of cats in a few years as the kittens grow up and have kittens, and those kittens have kittens? Well, that applies to wolves too. Of course, some pups die and some adults die and in times of hardship wolves may not have litters at all (unlike cats or dogs.) But at the same time--they do have litters of up to eight pups at a time. Every year (usually.) If all those pups dispersed and started packs of their own, and THEIR pups dispersed and started packs of their own, and so on, can you imagine how many wolves there would be? The prey animals can only support so many wolves and the land can only hold so many packs.
I've never seen this documentary though it sounds interesting (kind of like Grizzly Man.
You're incorrect. #40F was killed by wolves of her own pack. The 2000 Yellowstone Wolf Report.:
And also:
(Real life example: There was a study done on catching grouse (to radio collar them) that concluded, based on experimentation, that drop nets were not any more effective than walk-in traps. This spring I trapped grouse and, for us, the drop nets were MUCH more effective. We had a 100% success rating in catching at least one bird per net for over a month and during all that time we didn't catch a single bird in our walk-in traps. So which was correct--our observations or those of the guy who did the net-study? Hard to say without further study. Maybe it was a fluke that he caught so few birds in drop nets. Maybe it was a fluke that we caught so few in walk-in traps. There were also studies saying this kind of grouse never drank water but we saw them perch on cattle-tanks every morning, drinking water.)
Have you ever seen those "Please spay/neuter" posters where they show how you can start with two cats and end up with thousands of cats in a few years as the kittens grow up and have kittens, and those kittens have kittens? Well, that applies to wolves too. Of course, some pups die and some adults die and in times of hardship wolves may not have litters at all (unlike cats or dogs.) But at the same time--they do have litters of up to eight pups at a time. Every year (usually.) If all those pups dispersed and started packs of their own, and THEIR pups dispersed and started packs of their own, and so on, can you imagine how many wolves there would be? The prey animals can only support so many wolves and the land can only hold so many packs.
I've never seen this documentary though it sounds interesting (kind of like Grizzly Man.
You're incorrect. #40F was killed by wolves of her own pack. The 2000 Yellowstone Wolf Report.:
And also:
We must be talking about different documentaries.
I caught the bit where you're trying to say that one can make a lot of hay out of one straw. But is it not the same thing to simply quote this one incident in Yellowstone and use it to dismiss Mech's work and that of others?
IMO, the incident you describe is still not about lorenzian dominance. The cast-off refused to follow the order and was excommunicated, so to speak. And it was, by your description more than one member doing the battle, so it's not just a matter of the alpha female doing all the work, which means the other units, who do wish to follow the order are helping to remove the one who will not follow the order. The organization is from the bottom up.
Yes, different packs can fight over territory, especially when hunt resources get slim. But, left alone with plenty of hunting, they keep to their own territories. Which means that a given wolf pack is not trying to "dominate" all of Yellowstone.
Aside from all this hay is the erroneous notion that dogs are just like wolves just because one locus of mtDNA is 2 or less different between wolves and dogs. Even at that, there are 26 genetic markers that are different between dogs and wolves. Talk about making a lot of hay. And there is no archeological link that truly defines dogs as descended from gray wolves, merely that they descended from similar canid ancestors. And at least 100,000 years of living with Man has changed the dog.
What you talk about in the struggle for resources in Yellowstone is what Lorenz did in a much smaller space with a number of different wolves. And then saw the social problems and applied his sense of world domination to that scene.
Not to mention that alpha wolves do not necessarily walk or run at the head of the pack. The fastest one leads the charge. The most agile ones flank. Also, alphas don't necessarily eat first. But they can decide who does.
Again, though, dogs and wolves are different enough socially and structurally that we can only assume some general similarities starting with the taxonomic classification that they are both canids.
And dogs simply do not view humans as dogs. And some of CM's methods are based on being "alpha dog" including the infamous alpha roll. Or fingerbite. Things that wouldn't work on a wolf and certainly can't be depended on to work on a dog.
In the film of the man who raised a pack of wolves, he never tried any of that "alpha" stuff on the grown members. Even he had to follow the order to maintain peace. Bottom up social order.
I caught the bit where you're trying to say that one can make a lot of hay out of one straw. But is it not the same thing to simply quote this one incident in Yellowstone and use it to dismiss Mech's work and that of others?
IMO, the incident you describe is still not about lorenzian dominance. The cast-off refused to follow the order and was excommunicated, so to speak. And it was, by your description more than one member doing the battle, so it's not just a matter of the alpha female doing all the work, which means the other units, who do wish to follow the order are helping to remove the one who will not follow the order. The organization is from the bottom up.
Yes, different packs can fight over territory, especially when hunt resources get slim. But, left alone with plenty of hunting, they keep to their own territories. Which means that a given wolf pack is not trying to "dominate" all of Yellowstone.
Aside from all this hay is the erroneous notion that dogs are just like wolves just because one locus of mtDNA is 2 or less different between wolves and dogs. Even at that, there are 26 genetic markers that are different between dogs and wolves. Talk about making a lot of hay. And there is no archeological link that truly defines dogs as descended from gray wolves, merely that they descended from similar canid ancestors. And at least 100,000 years of living with Man has changed the dog.
What you talk about in the struggle for resources in Yellowstone is what Lorenz did in a much smaller space with a number of different wolves. And then saw the social problems and applied his sense of world domination to that scene.
Not to mention that alpha wolves do not necessarily walk or run at the head of the pack. The fastest one leads the charge. The most agile ones flank. Also, alphas don't necessarily eat first. But they can decide who does.
Again, though, dogs and wolves are different enough socially and structurally that we can only assume some general similarities starting with the taxonomic classification that they are both canids.
And dogs simply do not view humans as dogs. And some of CM's methods are based on being "alpha dog" including the infamous alpha roll. Or fingerbite. Things that wouldn't work on a wolf and certainly can't be depended on to work on a dog.
In the film of the man who raised a pack of wolves, he never tried any of that "alpha" stuff on the grown members. Even he had to follow the order to maintain peace. Bottom up social order.
When someone says "Wolves NEVER . . ." or "Wolves ONLY . . ." you only need one example to disprove them. (Not that Mech himself said this. He said in the wolves HE OBSERVED he had never seen certain behavior, which is accurate. It's when people make the leap from "The wolves he saw never did this so no wolves ANYWHERE do this" that there's a problem.) Mech's research is legitimate, but obviously there's some difference between the packs he studied and these other packs. Maybe something about Alaska/Canada makes the difference. It's hard to say since wolves were/are extirpated out of most of the continental US.
I think you're misunderstanding the situation. The alpha female was the one who died. She (#40, the alpha) had killed one of her sister (#42's) litters before and was very aggressive and domineering towards the other females. #40 approached #42's new den of pups. The assumption (since no one was there to see it) is that #42 attacked her to defend her new litter and the two other female wolves joined #42 (who they hung around with) instead of #40 (who routinely attacked them until they rolled.) Interestingly, after #40's death, #42 moved her litter and #106's litter in with #40's pups and the pack raised all of them. #42 became the new alpha female and was reported as dominating the other females but not harassing them like 40 had done. Also, one of the females (#106 I think) who was harried and stressed while #40 was alpha became one of the pack's best hunters under #42's more lenient eye.
Wolves don't try to "dominate" land, or even other packs (they try to kill them instead), but they certainly try to expand into the best territory. There are certain mechanisms that help packs avoid conflicts (howling and scent-marking for example) but wolf "battles" are not uncommon either. Read the Yellowstone Wolf Project reports . . . Every year there are many skirmishes and attempted takeovers between packs. 67% of wolf mortality there is due to other wolves. And this is in an area with no loss of elk or deer to hunting or habitat loss, since humans aren't allowed to hunt or build subdivisions and mini-malls within Yellowstone.
I think there's a popular conception that it's "most natural" if there's a boundless amount of free land available for dispersal, but that's not really true. Nature abhors a vaccuum. Animals, from sparrows to deer to fish, are good at filling up good habitat. And topography/geography plays a role too . . . Look at Isle Royale, MN. The wolves are literally stuck on an island. But you can't say it's not a natural system . . . they're descended from wild wolves who wandered across the Great Lakes to the island one year when the ice was incredibly thick.
Wolves are definitely not just like dogs and I agree that most of what Cesar Milan says is nonsense (except the part about exercising your dog.) Alpha rolling a dog is a terrible idea, jabbing them in the neck with your fingers--well, I never got what that was even supposed to do.
But that doesn't mean wolves don't do alpha rolls, don't have alphas, or don't have a hierarchical social order. Honestly, some of the literature I've read makes it sound like the wolves hold wolf elections to choose leaders, then all go for tea afterwards. HUMANS aren't that civilized in most countries . . . . Actually, wolf social structure is very similar to human social structure. Band up in clans, cooperate to get food, and go attack your neighbors. That's most of human history right there.
I think you're misunderstanding the situation. The alpha female was the one who died. She (#40, the alpha) had killed one of her sister (#42's) litters before and was very aggressive and domineering towards the other females. #40 approached #42's new den of pups. The assumption (since no one was there to see it) is that #42 attacked her to defend her new litter and the two other female wolves joined #42 (who they hung around with) instead of #40 (who routinely attacked them until they rolled.) Interestingly, after #40's death, #42 moved her litter and #106's litter in with #40's pups and the pack raised all of them. #42 became the new alpha female and was reported as dominating the other females but not harassing them like 40 had done. Also, one of the females (#106 I think) who was harried and stressed while #40 was alpha became one of the pack's best hunters under #42's more lenient eye.
Wolves don't try to "dominate" land, or even other packs (they try to kill them instead), but they certainly try to expand into the best territory. There are certain mechanisms that help packs avoid conflicts (howling and scent-marking for example) but wolf "battles" are not uncommon either. Read the Yellowstone Wolf Project reports . . . Every year there are many skirmishes and attempted takeovers between packs. 67% of wolf mortality there is due to other wolves. And this is in an area with no loss of elk or deer to hunting or habitat loss, since humans aren't allowed to hunt or build subdivisions and mini-malls within Yellowstone.
I think there's a popular conception that it's "most natural" if there's a boundless amount of free land available for dispersal, but that's not really true. Nature abhors a vaccuum. Animals, from sparrows to deer to fish, are good at filling up good habitat. And topography/geography plays a role too . . . Look at Isle Royale, MN. The wolves are literally stuck on an island. But you can't say it's not a natural system . . . they're descended from wild wolves who wandered across the Great Lakes to the island one year when the ice was incredibly thick.
Wolves are definitely not just like dogs and I agree that most of what Cesar Milan says is nonsense (except the part about exercising your dog.) Alpha rolling a dog is a terrible idea, jabbing them in the neck with your fingers--well, I never got what that was even supposed to do.
But that doesn't mean wolves don't do alpha rolls, don't have alphas, or don't have a hierarchical social order. Honestly, some of the literature I've read makes it sound like the wolves hold wolf elections to choose leaders, then all go for tea afterwards. HUMANS aren't that civilized in most countries . . . . Actually, wolf social structure is very similar to human social structure. Band up in clans, cooperate to get food, and go attack your neighbors. That's most of human history right there.
Just read something interesting in a dog breed encyclopedia.
Under the entry for Sarloos wolfdog it says that the breed was created by hybridizing Canadian timber wolves with GSDs. It said that because timber wolves are much more social with other wolves (living in packs) the Sarloos wolfdogs are much easier to train than the Czechoslovakian wolfdog, which was created by hybridizing Carpathian wolves with GSDs. In the wild Carpathian wolves are solitary hunters leading solitary lives, and that apparently carried over to the hybrid offspring.
Just interesting that there is a such a social behavioral difference between timber wolves and Carpathian wolves, given that the genetic difference between those two wolves is probably less than the difference between wolves and domestic dogs.
This website says the same thing. Trying to find some real studies done on it though.
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/saarlooswolfhond.htm
http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/wildlife/wolves/wolf_eurasian.html
Under the entry for Sarloos wolfdog it says that the breed was created by hybridizing Canadian timber wolves with GSDs. It said that because timber wolves are much more social with other wolves (living in packs) the Sarloos wolfdogs are much easier to train than the Czechoslovakian wolfdog, which was created by hybridizing Carpathian wolves with GSDs. In the wild Carpathian wolves are solitary hunters leading solitary lives, and that apparently carried over to the hybrid offspring.
Just interesting that there is a such a social behavioral difference between timber wolves and Carpathian wolves, given that the genetic difference between those two wolves is probably less than the difference between wolves and domestic dogs.
This website says the same thing. Trying to find some real studies done on it though.
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/saarlooswolfhond.htm
http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/wildlife/wolves/wolf_eurasian.html