# Social order of a pack



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

There has been some discussion on packs and the social order within a pack. Somewhere in the discussion someone said something about some of these traits have not been bred oput completely and still manifest themselfs in domestic dogs. I am really curious about opinions on whether we are talking about heritable traits or learned behavior. Personally, I say it is learned behavior and has nothing to do, or very little anyway, with heritable traits. I am curious to see what others opinions are and why.


----------



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

I see it two ways. First the "natural" dominance that the dog has, and that IMO is genetic. Then the social rank within the group, who gets what first, who tells the others what to do, etc, and that is more learned and/or environmental. 

For example, I set the order with my dogs. My favorite is my "beta", and that lets him get away with ordering the others around. If I didn't support him, he would be somewhere towards the middle in there. He does a lot of snarking and shoving to stay on top.

My most naturally dominant dog was in the middle, his less-dominant brother ranked higher because he was smarter, and knew exactly when he could push and get away with it. There was nothing like a fight, it was a relationship they developed over time... Who got to have the water bowl first, who got to lay down in the better spot, who got my attention... I supported it to some degree, because the good one helped me keep the difficult one in check. However, when it came to direct control of resources, there was a difference. When the "natural" dominant had his ball - he owned it. No one else would even try to take it from him, and when he set it down it was still his, no one else would pick it up unless I told someone to go get it...


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Although I've always been top dog/alpha/boss man/dominant, whatever anyone wants to call it, I've seen things happen when I had multiple terriers at a time. 
My dogs have always ran together other then when a bitch would be in heat. Even then it was obvious which male staked out the garage where I would keep the bitch in heat. (I didn't have dog runs at the time. Just dog houses in the back yard).
The interesting thing I observed over the yrs was at the death/passing of the dog I looked at as being top dog. 
I've always looked at any group/pack as having a certain structure. When the top dog leaves it isn't always the dog that was second that takes over. The whole structure can change around till it again settles in. Doesn't have to be fights that decide either.
My two intact, male GSDs are kenneled together now. The older one controls the younger with a look or at most a growl (without being at all pushy about it) but both deffer to me at all times.
Anothe strange thing I've seen in my terriers was when a dissagreement broke out structure often went out the window. That wasn't as obvious when I had multiple non terriers.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I just responded to a thread today on the database that's aimed at discussing the social order among littermates. http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/forum/48505.html My opinion has become, that there doesn't need to be an established "alpha", because not a single one of my 3 one year olds would be subordinate to another littermate, and only one male/female pair would even tolerate each other.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Daryl,

What do you mean there doesn't need to be an established alpha. If left alone, what would happen with your three littermates?


Terrasita


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Daryl Ehret said:


> I just responded to a thread today on the database that's aimed at discussing the social order among littermates. http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/forum/48505.html My opinion has become, that there doesn't need to be an established "alpha", because not a single one of my 3 one year olds would be subordinate to another littermate, and only one male/female pair would even tolerate each other.


not sure what this means either...


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

They would fight to the death.

At 12 weeks age, the fighting among all three turned dangerously serious, and after some careful conditioning I was able to loose Pia and Pike simultaneously, who would appropriately ignore one another, and have done successfully so for around 9 months.

Since that worked for one male/female pair for so long, I kenneled Pitch and Pike side by side for months, and two weeks ago, I began to loose Pitch and Pike simultaneously from their kennels in hopes to further condition them to each other. The real bad blood was always between the girls, not these two. There were a couple moments that nearly sparked a fight with Pitch and Pike, but all seemed precariously fine as long as they continued to ignore one another like Pia and Pike do.

That lasted about a week, until Pike started to sniff Pitch, and I realized she was coming into heat, too late to separate them from what I knew what was about to occur. Pitch was uncomfortable and warned him, but he persisted, and a fight ensued.

It began under the edge of a 3 ft. tall deck in the backyard, while I was filling a water bucket. I couldn't safely get to them without endangering myself, and I attempted to use the high pressure water nozzle to break it up, which had no effect spraying into their eyes and mouths. After no less than 20 min. of head to head fighting, and terrible damage being done, I decided to end it before one was dead and the other nearly so. I heard the irreprable bone crushing sounds of Pike's muzzle under the grip of Pitch, and that decided it for me who to dispatch of the two.

Pitch had a flab of flesh hanging from her face, running from the inside of an eyelid to about two inches down her cheek. Another few punctures, but the vet was amazed at how well her unusual coat type had protected her from what would normally be very severe lacerations. Pike had quite a few open wounds, not as greatly protected. His destroyed muzzle would never have healed well. All damage was from the withers and foreward, because they were continually facing, neither would relent.

If no dog is willing to be "beta", then _there is no "alpha"_, is there?

I'm going to start carrying bear spray at all times.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> I just responded to a thread today on the database that's aimed at discussing the social order among littermates. http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/forum/48505.html My opinion has become, that there doesn't need to be an established "alpha", because not a single one of my 3 one year olds would be subordinate to another littermate, and only one male/female pair would even tolerate each other.


Isn't that abnormal canine behaviour ?


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I've heard this, too, and in some sense experienced it. I looked after my dog's brother for 2 weeks when they were 7-8 months' old and all went well in the house unless one positioned itself under the table or similar, and started guarding against the other. Outside, they just "landscaped" the garden together and when I took them to the river, I was calling "Pascha" when Pascha was by my side and "mine" had taken advantage of divided authority and was racing around the river banks.

The owner and I were in the same Dog Club and later, they were "Spinnenfeinde", that is, they only had to look at each other and would have started a fight if uncontrolled. In the litter, the brother was harmless and mine fought out his wars with the largest female! Someone told me that littermates never get on well together. I've never found it to be good to acquire two litter pups for other reasons, so I don't know whether it would work as they got older.

I watched this litter from Day 1, and could never see an Alpha dog. Occasional boxing matches and the most virile pup grabbed the first bone thrown in, pushed his way into the feeding bowl, etc. 

On the other hand, I am no Eberhard Trumler so don't take my experiences as facts.


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

I believe that it's a training issue that many people just don't want to deal with. I'd be willing to bet that if you took the time to show them what you feel is appropriate behaviour they'd be able to co-exist.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> They would fight to the death.
> 
> At 12 weeks age, the fighting among all three turned dangerously serious, and after some careful conditioning I was able to loose Pia and Pike simultaneously, who would appropriately ignore one another, and have done successfully so for around 9 months.
> 
> ...


So you do understand why my place looks like and add for the power company with all the electric fencing. If people are going to have multiple dogs of the same breed together, it cannot be two dogs at the top of the social order. Two of different levels works well, even two lower levels can work......but who wants them. Not to get off topic, but, the dogs sounf perfect for line breeding Daryl. They have something you cannot put there nor train for. Maybe to much of it but you have to have something worth maintining before you can maintain it. 

I asked about social stucture but it would have been better worded as social behaviors. I totally agree that genetics is going to dictate who is the boss. I asked because I have been around a lot of dogs raised in the house by others and by myself. What I see is that the behaviors or not the same as the ones the dogs raised outside in the family units. The outside dogs take direction better as a general rule. They listen better. This is just some of the very obvious things. The way they interact with eachn other is also different. Palin, I raised in the house myself, has trouble fitting in because she doesn't know how to socialize with other dogs even though she has always been around them. I find that it is very difficult to really discipline a cute young pup like mom and dad do. This I have to attribute to the better attention skills of the dogs raised with mom and dad. The outside dogs learn early on that there are limits. They also learn that passing those limits is not a good idea. So the listen better.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I have to head out but a last comment. What got the wheels turning was Terrasitas comment about aberant behaviors seen in dogs today being raised in the house...by people....all kinds of different people and all kinds of raising. Terrasita is familiar with dogs raised in family units and the seem to develope a very smopoth order to things. The pups are brought up in this environment and they learn from birth. What occured to me is that these aberant behaviors, such as killing pups or constant infighting, are foisted upon an old ancient and deep seated pack mentality. Yet, if one has been around dogs raised in oack, you actually see none of this aberant behavior.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Sorry Don, I don't know if you can say that either. I think it depends of the mental makeup. Just because you raise them together, doesn't mean they are going to get along. I wonder if your inside dog isn't accepted truly by your outside dog because you have elevated her in status by having her in the house. Aberrant behaviors can be genetic and have nothing to do with whethe they were raised inside or outiside. All of mine are inside and they mutually coexist. With Daryl's dogs, they've hated each other from time they were a few months old and there have been hints that this is in the bloodline of the sire. I wonder what the breeder has to say about whether he has been able to have his dogs together. If left to themselves they would fight it out and there is no way of telling who they will consider the winner and who's to say how long it will last. Usually, a bitch and a male will coexist and not fight to the death. Generally males give to a bitch. There might be agrumble or two but not what Daryl describes. I don't consider the fact that they will eat each other as indicative of strength in other areas. Daryl will have to comment on that. Nonetheless, why would you want to linebreed on it? Its a PIA to have to keep dogs separated.

Daryl, is this just with each other? How do they get along with Hutch and Nyx. Cerainly amongst the three they don't have an established social rank order. This is either established by a fight or someone giving. Nor are they a pack. 



Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

*Now, what may be the issue here and what I discovered amongst my own dogs is that just because they live together in the same location or household doesn't mean that THE DOGS consider themselves a pack. This may be the reason for the aberrant behavior. *


The above statement is the statement that Don is referring to. I did not say that you see aberrant behaviors in housedogs. Don wants to make a giant leap that its house dogs raised by people that can't mutually coexist in a pack. First of all I didn't say that. Second I don't believe the house is the issue if they all live in the house together. 

What I said is what determines a pack is the dogs themselves. Just because you put them together in the same environment doesn't mean they are a pack in that sense of the word. 
Don has outside males that can't mutually coexist. Why? They need that electric fence to separate them. As I said in the other thread, due to the numbers and environments they are kept in it would be interesting to know the composition of the sub packs and how this was determined. 

As for Daryl's dogs, I don't think you can "train" them to get along. If you truly have that to the death mentality and that level of social dominance, you'd have to beat them to death. 

Terrasita


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Not sure what he means...

But it appears that Don's dogs do not have most of the issues discussed.

They run in a real pack, they work out the hierarchy and life goes on..

Different yards, to match up dogs that can work it out. And separate those who won't...

I think humans definitely go against nature when breeding in a lot of ways.

To expect all game bred terriers to co-exist would be very foolish, male or female

Breeding good dogs does not always mean breeding dogs that can co-exist in the same area.

There are a huge percentage of "working" dogs that one would not want to keep 2 or more males in the same area..or certain females either..

I think breeding for dogs that can co-exist in a house, as a prerequisite will kill off more working traits than one might think. I know it already has in a lot of breeds.


----------



## Donna DeYoung (Jan 29, 2010)

I have 3 dogs from 3 diff backgrounds and they all live in house and yard together.The small basenji mix dog was a free-roaming un-neutered stray for several years. The doberman was raised indoors and spoiled, but also kept isolated in a back yard w/ a GSD for a year before I got her. The GSD was kennel raised and changed homes a few times. 

After a half year to year of adjustment for each dog, we don't have too much agression anymore. I'd say the owner/leader (myself) helps "even out" or prevent any disputes. It took quite a bit of work on my part. Also helps if you choose the right dogs to live together as a pack. And they are all neutered.

I would say everything is already there instintually for pack behavior - it is training that tames and shapes what is leftover.

IE - This weekend I gave them a test - I handed a pig ear to each dog in the yard. The dobie and GSD looked at me as if I was crazy! They weren't sure what to do. The little dog grabbed his and ran off. The other two politely picked up theirs and went to separate areas of the yard. A year ago there would have been a fight. The big dogs finished theirs first. Then they stalked the little dog who warned them off with a growl. Eventually nap time. Little dog wasn't looking and dobie dashed in to steal the pig ear. No fights. Just low key interactions.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I see what you mean Terraista. It's not a pack if I bring a strange pup into the existing dog's environment. "We" determine the "pack" and determine how it has to be run, whether it suits Meister Proper or not.

As I say, Eberhard Trumler's Research Station and his reports interested me no end but I can't adopt this when bringing various dogs together in the house, garden, etc.

The breeder of my Briard always kept a daughter of one of the litters and then the daughter's daughter, etc. and they all lived in harmony.

However interesting it is to learn about "pack behaviour", I'm convinced you have to sort it our for yourself at home.

There is no way I can copy the wild dog's pack behaviour in the home although I see certain behaviours between the dogs that I would never see in a mono dog household and can learn from it.


----------



## Lynn Cheffins (Jul 11, 2006)

I think alot of it has alot to do with the type of dog you are talking about as most types of dogs have evolved with people choosing them for certain task-related behaviours. Depending on the breed some of these behaviours are either more(hounds) or less conducive to pack living. Nature tends to go to medium and human selection in some instances tends to go to the extremes in temperments. So alot of it is heritable but also the
way they are reared does have alot to do with how smooth things run as alot of social behaviour is picked up very early.
There is some social ordering involved any time you have a bunch of dogs living together but it is not a strict linear trickle down thing and it can be kind of situational and fluid and Bob's point that social ranking is not always settled by fighting is very true.
Al's point the that some of it is training issue rings true in that you can see higher ranking dogs keeping order. Just watch a couple of young males get a little skirmishey - a higher ranking dog can often break up an impending brawl just by showing up and posturing. People do the same thing when you show them what is appropriate social behaviour thru training.
I got a pretty good approximation of a dog pack here and have had for the last 20 yrs or so. My dogs are reared in many aspects similar to Don's but not family groups although most dogs that aren't born here are usually coming here as pups. Any that come in as adults are usually coming from kennels where the rearing practices are similar.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> Not sure what he means...
> 
> But it appears that Don's dogs do not have most of the issues discussed.
> 
> ...


It appears that Don runs dogs together in a pack that indicate that they can get along. That is no different than what we do with house dogs. In the wild they don't all get along either. They work it out through an actual fight or someone giving in. Giving in can also include LEAVING. Remember flight as a survival technique. Where the dogs are forced to be together, its fight it out and establish and hope you don't have a huge vet bill and they both live or separate. 

As Gillian points out, there seems to be the most success with familial groups within a line. Neutered dogs are a different animal altogether. It can be an entirely different dynamics. I do think the human as the leader can step in and equalize the dogs though--some of them. The fight to the death type goes to la la land and they aren't clear once they are in this mode. 

I don't think anyone breeds dog for coexisting in the house. Even in the foo foo world when they talk about the easy keeper, its in terms of how they relate to humans and drive levels and even intelligence. Daryl's dog Hutch and Nyx coexist. Do they have any less working ability and Pitch, Pia and Pike?


Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Lynn Cheffins said:


> Just watch a couple of young males get a little skirmishey - a higher ranking dog can often break up an impending brawl just by showing up and posturing. People do the same thing when you show them what is appropriate social behaviour thru training.
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Al Curbow said:


> I believe that it's a training issue that many people just don't want to deal with. I'd be willing to bet that if you took the time to show them what you feel is appropriate behaviour they'd be able to co-exist.


That's something I would've stated myself, before my experience with this litter. I've raised housefulls of 8 to 12 dogs at a time, with maybe two or three of them in an outside kennel, but on a rotational basis. I've raised lots of litters, and beyond that, many siblings up to 8 months of age together. I'm as firm and stern as any handler I've known, but in this particular instance, I disagree with you. Having one dog of this type is possible to maintain a social order, but not easily done when there is more than one. Maybe if you have a handler for each dog and can correct both simultaneously.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Daryl, is this just with each other? How do they get along with Hutch and Nyx. Cerainly amongst the three they don't have an established social rank order. This is either established by a fight or someone giving. Nor are they a pack.


They each respected the older dogs, Nickie, Hutch, Ozzy, Sasha, and still do. I've not allowed Nyx to be loose with any of them, for her safety, but have to say that Pitch has on numerous occasions displayed friendly language toward Nyx, who willingly displays submissive behaviors toward Pitch through kennel or crate. Pike and Pia are a different story. Nyx, being an outsider that they're unfamiliar with, is the target of very aggressive provocation through the barriers.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> As for Daryl's dogs, I don't think you can "train" them to get along. If you truly have that to the death mentality and that level of social dominance, you'd have to beat them to death.


I completely agree with that. Same of their "cat drive", I've found.

The whole incident has haunted my thoughts, because it would not have occured by continued separation, but I had been really tiring of the necessity to separate them, and they did pretty well the first week. If I had even two seconds to get them apart once I realized she was in heat, I certainly would have, and before they got further under the deck. Pike was unable to mind his own business, understandably, and Pitch couldn't be blamed for her defensive offense. If they weren't fighting under the deck the duration of the fight, I would have thrown a nearby canvas tarp over them and separated them that way.

In any event, I think it's time I find a new home for Pia, and that's what I was preparing for, if Pike and Pitch could get along.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

eTerraita, with "leaving" do you mean leaving the dogs in the house together, not kenneled or crated'

We have always done this and I would swear it is the time when the dogs have no ambition to fight, i.e. no rivalray exists.

I have always left my males (have never had females apart from an adoptive female for a year (Cocker Spaniel, which we mostly took with us) dogs together without qualms. However, having been told we couldn't keep 2 Working Dog GSDs together and we were "nuts" to leave them alone together, we have since separated them when we are away for a few hours - no big deal.

I really think, however, that the reason that these 2 males would (and have) i.e. older "nips" younger is due to our presence and not vice versa because certain privileges (in his mind) are open and to be guarded.

However, have been warned from various reliable sources and it is no problem to have one upstairs and one downstairs whilst we are away for a few hours, and I can now (after warning) sip my cool Pro Secco at the lakeside without worrying :-\"

The other dogs that were always left together were differing breeds as opposed to the 2 GSDs.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I don't honestly think you can generalise, see Daryl's post.

Our GSD males live together in "artificial" harmony. 

If I held the elder GSD on the lead, and the younger, was free, he'd attack him. However, not, as our "Helper" in Schutzdienst said "he'd kill him" but he'd attempt to dominate him by biting in the cheek.

Male dogs, both free, will "mostly" have a "Kommentkampf", i.e. a fight with a lot of growling but not much injury occurring, unless Monsieur Human intervenes and then "close your eyes and count to 100". Normally, if a female isn't involved or something important, the skiffle ends as such.


----------



## Lynn Cheffins (Jul 11, 2006)

I had a couple of females that were like Daryl's and would have quite cheerfully eliminated each other. Neither girl was particularily dominant or scrappy and never fought with another dog but each other. I don't think there is anything that could have made those two co-exist.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

So is everyone here going off the belief that wolves live in a liner social structure? A dominance heirarchy?

I guess I follow the more recent studies and believe wolves are more complex in their social makeup. I believe moreso in the nonlinear structure with the possibility of a linear structure as well. In different species that live in packs you will find their pack dynamics vary according to their environment and how it has to be adjusted to survive in their particulat environment, I've read of this also in wolves. Then there is the whole domestication of dogs is it really that simple to say dogs are comparable to wolves? 

Again, I don't think its as simple as some are making it and maybe there is more value in the nonlinear models and the idea that environment plays a role.

I don't look at my dogs or their training as I'm a "dog" in the alpha position. I like this study which shows the domestication oif dogs has bred them to have special communicative abilities with humans. That is how I view training...communication. 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5598/1634

Just my opinion and how I prefer to look at... Interesting as it would also explain the differ dynamics everyone has seen.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Sure dogs communicate. As for linear and non-linear, I don't really care what you call it, there is leadership at the top and desire for such. Without leadership, there seems to be chaos. I don't know what the big deal is as far as dogs being canids and retaining some of the canid characteristics despite domestication. It seems if you compare some of the behaviors everyone's warm and fuzzy feelings are offended. Dogs have gone beyond wolves in certain respects. However, there are still certain similarities especially how they deal with each other. I think it can also depends on different breeds/selection and genetics. So yes, I believe there is a hierarchy of leadership. I think once you have that leadership at the top, you can sort of equalize the rest. In terms of linear meaning dog A is over dog B and dog B is over dog C, I don't really see the subleties of this going on unless you have puppies and adolescents---again following a familial and age structure. I think if you didn't have the top whether occupied by human or dog, you would have that scrambling for the top.

Terrasita


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

That's true, someone has to be at the top. Rather human than canine, in my case whooooheee, I'm the 1m 52 cm boss of our pack, whatever the 1m 78 cm partner thinks about it!!!


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Well understanding which strucure you follow linear or nonlinear would it not help define how one viewed dogs? One is dynamic and one is for the most part is very rigid. 

I agree with your post until you speak of heirarchy and then I disagree if there are all these variables then how can one simply take a brush and stroke dogs in such a simple light when as you just said different breeds and genetics (and environment) plays a role.

Just look back at some of the posts anyone can read how it is not that simple, everyone has a different experience and one person can not say the other is wrong if they haven't lived it or witnessed it.

T


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I have to qgree with you Tracey, breeds may bring about differences, i.e. varying breeds in household against same breeds.

In the end run, however, whatever the breed, whatever the sex, the owner is there to ensure that law and order exist.

It's as simple as that or as difficult or as complicated, misguided owners make it!


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> *Now, what may be the issue here and what I discovered amongst my own dogs is that just because they live together in the same location or household doesn't mean that THE DOGS consider themselves a pack. This may be the reason for the aberrant behavior. *
> 
> 
> The above statement is the statement that Don is referring to. I did not say that you see aberrant behaviors in housedogs. Don wants to make a giant leap that its house dogs raised by people that can't mutually coexist in a pack. First of all I didn't say that. Second I don't believe the house is the issue if they all live in the house together.
> ...


First off, The reason my dogs ended up being segregated into packs is because every male here(5) react to eachn other the same way Daryls dogs do, but they have never started a fight with a lesser dog. They ignore them. When confronted with a dog near their status, they silently challenge the other dog but they do give them the choice of submitting or fighting. my males don't care which it is. Dominance is there whether there is a pack or not. Dogs have it or they don't. I linebred on this superior dominance because the dogs have to have that level of confidence for what they do. Individually, the dogs are an absolute joy to be with. That strong confidence is a rare thing to have and it is easy to lose through breeding when people, like yourslef, try to avoid it through breeding. I haven't seen the dogs so it may be aberant behavior. If the dogs are cool arould other lesser dogs, it is dominance. That strong of a dog is rare today and linebreeding is the only way to do it consistently. If the dogs are over the top that actually makes them the best candidates for heavy breeding because as Tony said, genetically, over a number of years, dog always vascilate to the average. It is hard to maintain what the original stock was if it is well above average.

As for Palin, it isn't just her T, I said I have been around a lot of dogs....all raised in the house by people. They do not act the same at all. The dog I raised had the best chance to be like my other dogs and ever she is like night and day. I don't really care for her. Compared to the others she is a PITA. I can leave her in the house all day long while I am gone and she is what most folks today would consider a great dog.....but they would have trouble handling her. Gave her to a lady and got her back because she won't listen, and she never stops. She listens to me.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

tracey delin said:


> Well understanding which strucure you follow linear or nonlinear would it not help define how one viewed dogs? One is dynamic and one is for the most part is very rigid.
> 
> I agree with your post until you speak of heirarchy and then I disagree if there are all these variables then how can one simply take a brush and stroke dogs in such a simple light when as you just said different breeds and genetics (and environment) plays a role.
> 
> ...


I can look at my dogs and tell you the order they rank. The bottom female plays with ther pupos more like and equal, the moddle female puts the lower one in her place but never the dominant bitch, the dominant bitch puts anyone but the male in her place. If people are going to say some of this is inherited from wolves, then they should react similarily through all breeds. Most of the aberant behavior is from being raise today by people and never learning how to act like a proper dog. As Pogo said, "I have seen the enemy and the enemy is us"

There has to be a leader, I am the leader over all of the dogs here. I am not a dog, they don't see me as a dog or part of their pack. I am not going to act like a dog because I preferr them to see me as superior in every way. I wouldn't let anyone train one of my dogs that had this belief because I would really have to question their sanity.

Reflect on the farm dogs. Crusty old farmer never let the dog in the house. Dog was born and raised outside by mom. Farmer never trained a dog in his life, but you can bet that dog did what he said. That dog kept you in the car and you had to sit there and honk the horn so folks would know you were there. Not being a dog trainer, why did that dog go lay down when told? Why did he come when told? Get in the truck? Fetch something? Naturally guarded? Maybe because he was raised by a dog and his mom taught him to listen and pay attention? I think most squirrely behavior is the result of people being crappy surrogate parents for a dog.....and because a young dog doesn't have a clue watching people try to act like them. You act like them, they are going to treat you like them.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I can look at my dogs and tell you the order they rank. The bottom female plays with ther pupos more like and equal, the moddle female puts the lower one in her place but never the dominant bitch, the dominant bitch puts anyone but the male in her place. If people are going to say some of this is inherited from wolves, then they should react similarily through all breeds. Most of the aberant behavior is from being raise today by people and never learning how to act like a proper dog. As Pogo said, "I have seen the enemy and the enemy is us"
> 
> There has to be a leader, I am the leader over all of the dogs here. I am not a dog, they don't see me as a dog or part of their pack. I am not going to act like a dog because I preferr them to see me as superior in every way. I wouldn't let anyone train one of my dogs that had this belief because I would really have to question their sanity.
> 
> Reflect on the farm dogs. Crusty old farmer never let the dog in the house. Dog was born and raised outside by mom. Farmer never trained a dog in his life, but you can bet that dog did what he said. That dog kept you in the car and you had to sit there and honk the horn so folks would know you were there. Not being a dog trainer, why did that dog go lay down when told? Why did he come when told? Get in the truck? Fetch something? Naturally guarded? Maybe because he was raised by a dog and his mom taught him to listen and pay attention? I think most squirrely behavior is the result of people being crappy surrogate parents for a dog.....and because a young dog doesn't have a clue watching people try to act like them. You act like them, they are going to treat you like them.


I liked that post. I really did.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> It appears that Don runs dogs together in a pack that indicate that they can get along. That is no different than what we do with house dogs. In the wild they don't all get along either. They work it out through an actual fight or someone giving in.
> Terrasita


Don run's two adults adult males together. One roads until he hits a good track. I turn in the other. They know there is a major fight there. I have even put the dogs out together when not roading them and they are off and running, looking for game to fight. I put up with their dominance because they are good at what they do, but when they come back to the truck, I get the first off the ground and in a box as fast as I can. When they come in together, it is real dicey and I always have 2 cattle prods on the tailgate. Got to keep two of them because if you aren't fast, they will grab them and break them in half. If I have a young male, I walk them into a catch on a leash.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I am on my way out again so I will leave something for y'll to chew on. Over the past umpteen years beaple that have a couple two or three dogs in the house have gotten used to referring to them as a pack. Three males doesn't make a pack. Likewise, very few of the cobinations of household pets makes up a pack. They are just dogs dealing with each other as best they can for the situation. Best if none are equals.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Ok, what constitutes a 'wild' pack that many seem to base their theories on ? As far as I understand, wild packs of domestic dog (which includes feral), don't really exist as such, or at least only fleetingly or small family groups. They are not hunters, but scavengers on man...where they live closely with or to...

I think it could help the discussion if it was defined and agreed on....


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I agree Maggie. ifferent dynamics drive a family unit, a bunch of family pets in the house, a group of dogs running around the countryside.

A couple of months ago, a group of dogs run 30 head of cows off a bluff. They knew which dogs were allowed to run loose in the area and had seen them all running together several times. Whe the AC went to talk to the different parties owning the dogs during the day, there sat the dog in the doorway next to the owner. Needless to say, any loose dogs around there will be shot on site now.

To add an interesting twist back on the social behavior of family units in the dog world, The males are hard core and can't be yarded together. Even in separate yards, there has to be an electric barrier creating a safety zone so they can't reach each other through the fence. Now, we have all heard that there is a dominate bitch in a wolf pack and she will do this, she will do that. The females here are all bred from the same stock and there are dominate ones in each yard, but, unlike the males, I can move any female around to any yard without much of a fuss. What I see is that they are more pliable by fare than the males. I may decide to breed a female to a male in a different yard and never have a problem with serious fighting. Mostly one or the other is more willing to give in. Thinking back to when the dogs were just a group of dogs in the yard, the females used to get into some kill or be killed fights. I hated to even get in to break them up because they would bite me in a heartbeat. There are a few tense minutes for sure so I am closely supervising the females when I move them about. I do see the confrontations, I see the ones that give, I see the ones that don't give and they usually seem to come to an understanding of mutual aggreement.


----------



## Jennifer Marshall (Dec 13, 2007)

I tell people frequently that dogs are not wolves and wolves are not dogs but I do believe in social structure between multiple dogs. 

I have been around and observed/interacted with "wild" feral dogs that existed in a large pack, I have also been around feral dogs that avoided eachother except to procreate. I have been around domestically kept "pet" wolves, and penned up "wild" ones that are not directly interacted with by humans.

The environment definitely changes things, the biggest factor is food. Scavengers don't need a pack, they only provide for themselves. Hunters are better off with a pack. Larger packs are easier to sustain in areas where food is plentiful and the terrain is.. hmm.. "friendlier" - generally territories are also smaller and there is a lot of competition on the borders. In areas where they tend to study wolves because the terrain permits it, the arctic for example, the primary food source is a species that is always on the move and hard to find, so territories are large and packs are small, usually male/female/youngest offspring. The fewer they have to provide for, the easier life is. 

The larger the group of animals the more strict and obvious the social order. But even when you look at the feral scavenger dogs living in cities and rural areas, when they do come in contact with each other there is a social structure. When there are conflicts it is survival of the fittest - the one who wins gets the food and/or the best shelter and/or the right to procreate. Self preservation - keeping less fit animals from continueing to engage in real fights with other animals that have beaten them before, they recognize the other animal as superior, if only in fitness or experience, and in order to avoid injury or death they "submit" and leave the food, the shelter, the potential mate to the "superior" animal. The same dog that submits to one better individual may be better than several others in its territory. It is dominance, but it is without leadership because there is no "group" to "lead." 

Dominance in the wild comes down to which individuals are willing to fight for a resource, and which individuals are healthy/intelligent enough to win those fights. If social interaction is unnecessary for survival then it isn't as obvious because you are not seeing the animals interacting, but dominance in its simplest form ... which animals are better at this game of survival. First individual survival and then survival as a species. 

Not every dog that we select or breed for our purposes is going to be a good candidate for group living. Whether or not dogs act like wolves is not the real point, I compare the two because they are similar species and while notable differences are present, they are social animals and when forced to interact will show a social structure that relies on dominance and submission. It is a very basic order that many species adhere to for survival. 

But domestic animals are not wild animals. We create "packs" by selecting animals that suit our needs or our whimsy, forcing together animals that may or may not be compatible. We have manipulated natural traits and tendencies through selective breeding to produce dogs on the extreme ends and surpassing what is seen in nature.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> First off, The reason my dogs ended up being segregated into packs is because every male here(5) react to eachn other the same way Daryls dogs do, but they have never started a fight with a lesser dog. They ignore them. When confronted with a dog near their status, they silently challenge the other dog but they do give them the choice of submitting or fighting. my males don't care which it is. Dominance is there whether there is a pack or not. Dogs have it or they don't. I linebred on this superior dominance because the dogs have to have that level of confidence for what they do. Individually, the dogs are an absolute joy to be with. That strong confidence is a rare thing to have and it is easy to lose through breeding when people, like yourslef, try to avoid it through breeding. I haven't seen the dogs so it may be aberant behavior. If the dogs are cool arould other lesser dogs, it is dominance. That strong of a dog is rare today and linebreeding is the only way to do it consistently. If the dogs are over the top that actually makes them the best candidates for heavy breeding because as Tony said, genetically, over a number of years, dog always vascilate to the average. It is hard to maintain what the original stock was if it is well above average.
> 
> As for Palin, it isn't just her T, I said I have been around a lot of dogs....all raised in the house by people. They do not act the same at all. The dog I raised had the best chance to be like my other dogs and ever she is like night and day. I don't really care for her. Compared to the others she is a PITA. I can leave her in the house all day long while I am gone and she is what most folks today would consider a great dog.....but they would have trouble handling her. Gave her to a lady and got her back because she won't listen, and she never stops. She listens to me.


Don,

Here's where the selection for that social dominance changes the game and acts as a variable. With my friend's aussie pack, the males run in the group just like the females. This is what I mean by genetics/selection changing things. With humans single selecting for certain traits, it changes things. 

Why is Palin a PITA compared to the other dogs? PLEASE describe the composition of the dogs that you keep together by sex, age, etc. 

Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

QUOTE=tracey delin;203314]Well understanding which strucure you follow linear or nonlinear would it not help define how one viewed dogs? One is dynamic and one is for the most part is very rigid. 

I agree with your post until you speak of heirarchy and then I disagree if there are all these variables then how can one simply take a brush and stroke dogs in such a simple light when as you just said different breeds and genetics (and environment) plays a role.

Just look back at some of the posts anyone can read how it is not that simple, everyone has a different experience and one person can not say the other is wrong if they haven't lived it or witnessed it.

T[/QUOTE]


As far as the linear goes, I guess I would say once there is an established leader it is very rigid. It doesn't change until that leader dies. The only way it changes is if you bring in an adult and try to integrate it into the group/pack and there is a fight challenge; the leader dies; youngster grows up and decides to challenge. I have lived with multiple breeds for quite some time. Each breed it seems has different ways of communicating and they separate themselves according to breeds. What they tolerate from each other changes with a dog of another breed. 

There is no variable concerning the hierarchy once its established. I never said it was simple. But in a household of multiple dogs, someone is the leader. The common denominator amongst all posts is the idea of leadership at the top. I do believe that the human part of the equation can serve as the leader and equalize the dogs. There is a lot of separation because to let the dogs sort themselves out means bloodshed, death and loss of a good dog or a substantial vet bill. 

I don't too often see A over B and B over C. But if you looked at my bitches: Khira is dominant over all. Khaldi is dominant over Mikha and Rhiann. How do I know? Mikha and Rhiann are 3 years old and wil roll over to Khaldi if she stands over them. Mikha and Rhiann are littermates and have had some knockdown drag out fights before they were 3. I'm not sure which is necessarily dominant over the other. They go out together but don't have anything to do with one another if you watch them. If you want to see how they all really relate to one another, you need to watch them outside. Once inside or around me, they ignore each other anyway. 

The only time there have been skirmishes between Khaldi and Khira is when Khaldi is in season. Generally, Khira will put herself between Khaldi and Thor when Thor wans to court Khaldi. But if Khaldi snaps at Thor then Khira wants to punish Khaldi, who isn't necessarily gonna take it. The Khaldi/Khira thing is weird. Khira is fine with Khaldi but Khaldi wants no parts or Khira. If you watch Khira, her prey drive is triggered by the little dogs when they run. This might be the reason Khaldi doesn't want anything to do with her. 

Unless someone is in season, all is well and I don't even think about linear. As long as there is a perceived leader, they get along. But one thing for sure, the linear does seem to follow ages.

Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don,

As you have shown, you can vary certain traits even those in terms of how dogs deal with each other with a selection process that doesn't exist in the wild. As far as what ALL breeds should show if there are certain traits similar to wolves, again look at the traits selected for that makes those breeds different from others. In thinking of the sporting dogs and even certain BCs, one of the traits that they have is how they exist in a dog pack. 

I still don't know that dog-to-dog dominance equates to confidence in the work. You can select for confidence in other aspects that has nothing to do with how the dog relates to other dogs. I wonder what Dick and Selena see with their dutchies in comparing the confidence in their man work vs. how they get along with dogs and if there is any correlation. I don't see the correlation in the dogs I work on stock. Tony does more life and death stock work than I do although the bouv and I have been there done that. He certainly has to have confidence. I'll have to toss this out to him in the other thread. 

I also don't understand your raised in the house correlation either. 


Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Don,
> 
> Here's where the selection for that social dominance changes the game and acts as a variable. With my friend's aussie pack, the males run in the group just like the females. This is what I mean by genetics/selection changing things. With humans single selecting for certain traits, it changes things.
> 
> ...


I have to disagree with you T, my selection may have increased my odds considerabley of getting social dominate dogs, but even if there was just one like them in a litter, they would be the top dog.....so my selction changed nothing other than they have to be yarded separately.

I haven't the time for a breakdown of the dogs T, Palin is outside alot with the other dogs. She grabs pups and shakes them to hurt them, generally does things the others don't and has the yards stirred up all the time. I will say one thing for her, she is a damed good looking dog. We have had several come to Jesus meetings over beating up the younger dogs and she gets better each time. I don't really care if she is a bit different but I will not tolerate beating up the pups because I am not accustomed to it.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Don,
> 
> As you have shown, you can vary certain traits even those in terms of how dogs deal with each other with a selection process that doesn't exist in the wild. As far as what ALL breeds should show if there are certain traits similar to wolves, again look at the traits selected for that makes those breeds different from others. In thinking of the sporting dogs and even certain BCs, one of the traits that they have is how they exist in a dog pack.
> 
> ...


T, that is nonsense. If we are to believe the alpha male only breeds the alpha bitch in the wild, that is the same selection basically. 

You may not know if confidence equates to the work? I don't know if you have done much breeding T but one way to find out is to keep the unconfident ones and try them. If they come from proven stock for the work, the confident ones use those tools better. Always will.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I have to disagree with you T, my selection may have increased my odds considerabley of getting social dominate dogs, but even if there was just one like them in a litter, they would be the top dog.....so my selction changed nothing other than they have to be yarded separately.
> 
> I haven't the time for a breakdown of the dogs T, Palin is outside alot with the other dogs. She grabs pups and shakes them to hurt them, generally does things the others don't and has the yards stirred up all the time. I will say one thing for her, she is a damed good looking dog. We have had several come to Jesus meetings over beating up the younger dogs and she gets better each time. I don't really care if she is a bit different but I will not tolerate beating up the pups because I am not accustomed to it.


 
Don,

Palin just sounds like an outsider that doesn't fit in the group/pack. This is what I mean by we may think they are a pack but the dogs don't. She was raised in the house [elevated] although she had time out with the pack. She's not one of them and she doesn't know her place. She's ladder climbing over the pups and probably doesn't have it to take on the higher ranking bitches. 

Well without you saying how each group is composed, its really hard to picture it. One in a litter/group is fine. Five is chaos and you won't have order. Its also the degree that it manifests itself. 

Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> T, that is nonsense. If we are to believe the alpha male only breeds the alpha bitch in the wild, that is the same selection basically.
> 
> You may not know if confidence equates to the work? I don't know if you have done much breeding T but one way to find out is to keep the unconfident ones and try them. If they come from proven stock for the work, the confident ones use those tools better. Always will.


 
There you go again. Of course CONFIDENCE equates to the work. However, does dog-to-dog social dominance EQUAL confidence in the work? As far as the alpha bitch, alpha male thing, the field studies are interesting that way. One of the things that the field studies seem to point to is the shifting and fighting amongst the bitches. I've watched my own bitches try to shut it down. 

As for the breeding and otherwise, I select for confidence and breed for confidence. Case in point, in Khira's litter, I chose her over the obvious dog dominant bitch in the litter. Khira had more interest in people, independence away from the dog pack, no sound sensitivity, elevation sensitivity and nothing environmental that I could pick up on in the 6 hours I spent with the litter. The dog dominant pink collared bitch had more prey/chase, less independence away from the dog pack, some sound sensitivty and not that concerned about hanging out with us. 

When the ram, mother cow or ewe w/ lambs decides to go for the dog, its confidence and a degree of fight drive or desire to come out on top that is gonna carry the dog through. The lesser confident dog will give way to flight or otherwise not get the job done. Even worse, having seen cattle or rams that just as soon take me out as the dog, they need to step up plate and keep me from taking a hit. So far so good and that's because of that selection for confidence.

Terrasita


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> As far as the linear goes, I guess I would say once there is an established leader it is very rigid. It doesn't change until that leader dies. The only way it changes is if you bring in an adult and try to integrate it into the group/pack and there is a fight challenge; the leader dies; youngster grows up and decides to challenge.
> 
> If you want to see how they all really relate to one another, you need to watch them outside. Once inside or around me, they ignore each other anyway.
> 
> Unless someone is in season, all is well and I don't even think about linear. As long as there is a perceived leader, they get along. But one thing for sure, the linear does seem to follow ages.


I agree with this. My females always knew their place, ignoring each other for the most part, attention fixed on the handler, but there was a heirarchy among them, and it continually changed as one female left, and a different one was added to the group.

Newly brought in puppies would often select a favored younger adult to interact with for a couple months, and grew apart from that as their bond strengthened with the handler, say maybe around 4 to 5 months age.

Sasha, who grew into the group from a puppy, started as lowest on the totem pole to eventually become the "alpha" herself, altering her behavior dramatically toward other dogs when she assumed "the role", and it always seemed to be the dog who had the most seniority with the handler.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I still don't know that dog-to-dog dominance equates to confidence in the work. You can select for confidence in other aspects that has nothing to do with how the dog relates to other dogs.


I would say it doesn't, in an entire sense anyway; little Nyx is most readily submissive to the elder females, but easily the most confident in the work with the handler, and quite comfortable with strangers. A greater degree of socialization has much to do with that. Under a serious threat though, Pitch would handle herself with much stronger resolve. Different aspects, I suppose; one confidence, the other courage. One proactive, the other defensive.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Your just to analytical for me T. It isn't that complicated. I pick my pups at 4 weeks. They are not at all aggressive with lesser dogs. That is confidence. They will challenge any dog and let him call the shots, that is confidence. They do it with a total lack of aggression growling or posturing....well they do stand in front of them and stare. When was the last time you saw an unconfident dog dominate other dominarte dogs? The only time there is a problem is when they are with each other because they are all pretty much equals. I do know what an unconfident dog is T. Don't like them at all because there is to many ifs. These dogs are totally predictable.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> T, that is nonsense. If we are to believe the alpha male only breeds the alpha bitch in the wild, that is the same selection basically.


You mean in wolves or pariah dogs? In wolves, they now know that the top breeding female (wolf ethologists like Mech no longer call them the "alpha pair") will sometimes attempt outside matings with males that are not the "top" male, as they are serial monogamists.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

By the way T, if you recollect other conversations, at 4 weeks, my pups are not picked for dog to dog dominance, they were originally picked for their outward confidence.....they just always turn out the same as they get older....so, because they are the way they are as adults, it had nothing to do with why I picked them as pups.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> You mean in wolves or pariah dogs? In wolves, they now know that the top breeding female (wolf ethologists like Mech no longer call them the "alpha pair") will sometimes attempt outside matings with males that are not the "top" male, as they are serial monogamists.


"Will sometimes attempt outside mating"???? So the norm is top dog to top dog because "occasionally" changes nothing. I don't breed stock dogs. I breed dogs to do what dogs do....hunt. I breed the top dog to the top dog so it is nonsence to say my selection alters the bigger scheme of things. Now possibly if I was breeding for show or sheep dogs I would have different priorities that would make a difference.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Uhhhhh, from prior discussions, you don't always breed top dog to top dog or even confident dog to confident dog. Somewhere there is discussion of breeding less than confident to less than confident and begetting confident. 

Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> You mean in wolves or pariah dogs? In wolves, they now know that the top breeding female (wolf ethologists like Mech no longer call them the "alpha pair") will sometimes attempt outside matings with males that are not the "top" male, as they are serial monogamists.


 
Generally speaking, the assumption is with serial monogamy and wolves, if the alpha bitch is bred by a lesser male, something has happened to the alpha or he shows no interest in breeding. 

Terrasita


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Terresita,
Your views on the pack, although some things I agree with from my own readings some I don't. Can you share what field studies you are following or who's writings you are reading? I'd like to reaed what your reading so I can understand where you are coming from. Bed now....

Thanks
T


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Uhhhhh, from prior discussions, you don't always breed top dog to top dog or even confident dog to confident dog. Somewhere there is discussion of breeding less than confident to less than confident and begetting confident.
> 
> Terrasita


Sorry T, it wasn't unconfident dogs, it was about the ones that acted feral, spooky around people. They were still confident in their element. They were confident as pups also, and still social dominate as adults. Just had no use for people.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Tracy,

Michael Fox did an entire treatise on wild canids which is a collection of studies done by multiple individuals, Mech included. It includes stray dog packs, foxes, wolves in terms of hunt behavior and the social order thing and lots more. Mech I believe actually did multiple studies, hence the wolves in captivity vs. wolves in the wild. A lot has been done concerning the wolves in Yellowstone Park. 

I don't believe they are identical but I have seen parallels just in watching my own dogs over the last twenty years and particularly when I introduced the rugrats--corgis. My friend with the aussie pack, I've known for 12 years and we've watched and discussed her pack dynamics; usually 12-16 dogs that run together regardless of sex. A lot of this stuff comes into play with dogs that live and are with each other sorta 24/7. They aren't separated with crating and kenneling. The other premise is that for the most part my dogs are intact.

I'm in Minneapolis until tomorrow and can give you the name of the the Fox book when I get home. I think initially I googled Mech and wolves. I got into this stuff years ago and couldn't believe the parallels. It actually helped me understand Morgwyn who was as different as night and dog in the whole social order thing than what I had seen from my GSDs. 

Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Also T, if memory serves it was brought up because those same dogs are the ones that ended up producing the 10 gen dogs I am so hi on. I think that was why I started the thread.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Sorry T, it wasn't unconfident dogs, it was about the ones that acted feral, spooky around people. They were still confident in their element. They were confident as pups also, and still social dominate as adults. Just had no use for people.


Again, I think we're discussing different forms of confidence. i.e, Nyx being comfortably social toward the handler and strangers, and the three others less so. The other three being more confident in face of a perceived threat, and Nyx less so. At the moment, anyway. This last week or so, she just started that stage where goes bold and aggressive at imaginary stuff. Pitch went through the same phase, every 15 or 20 minutes charging the door or window and acting fierce. Almost like practicing, like a teenager primping in the mirror, impressed with themselves.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

T, you never commented on why I can move any of my females from yard to yard without problems since the breeding is identicle to the males and some are definitely dominate. I would be really curious as to your views on this.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Again, I think we're discussing different forms of confidence. i.e, Nyx being comfortably social toward the handler and strangers, and the three others less so. The other three being more confident in face of a perceived threat, and Nyx less so. At the moment, anyway. This last week or so, she just started that stage where goes bold and aggressive at imaginary stuff. Pitch went through the same phase, every 15 or 20 minutes charging the door or window and acting fierce. Almost like practicing, like a teenager primping in the mirror, impressed with themselves.


Probably so Daryl, I like the dogs that are independent for hunting.....sometimes they grow up to be too independent. I watch the dogs as they age and they seem to go through stages like a teenager. One month they don't leave your side, the next you mean nothing to them. Never cottoned to a dog that postured as an adult....or a pup either thinking about it.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

*Here is the deal and it is something I don't normally share. It is also something I would have never noticed had I conditioned puppies from the get go so they "all" came like "normal" puppies are expected to.

I have talked about two 10th generation crosses that I am going to concentrate on because out of 70 to 80 litters, these are the only crosses that produced "all" confident pups with no handling before 4 weeks. These two crosses, which is interesting in itself, are the same cross with two pairs of bro/sisters. One bro to the others sister and the same in reverse. Four litters to date and not a spooky pup in the lot. I have put together three sisters on each side of these crosses so what I have is Odin/Goldie/Jenny/Jessie for one cross and the other is Wild Bill/Cassidy/Tootsie/Greta. Odin and all three of his girls have produced and Wild Bill and Cassidy have produced. Odin is the only really solid dog, Goldie has come around but is marginal, all the other are as spooky as march hares, but the pups are phenomenal. Now all these spooky dogs came from solid parents on both sides but a percentage of their litters where spooky even though they were solid as rocks. Great looking dogs but spooky. I can't touch them without cornering them. I never would have gotten to see this and realise what I was seeing if I handled the pups.

Another interesting thing is two half brothers that live on top of their dog houses. Not even one of either of their offspring jumps up on a dog house but vitually all their grandpups live on top of their dog houses. The grand kids are offspring of both 1/2 brothers crossed back to the other half brothers offspring....none of which ever got on a dog house.*

Don you have used dog-to-dog social dominance as a determinant of confidence. Then you say the confidence test is how they come out of the whelphing box to greet you at 4 weeks as the confidence determinant. 

Now regarding the above: *Sorry T, it wasn't unconfident dogs, it was about the ones that acted feral, spooky around people. They were still confident in their element. They were confident as pups also, and still social dominate as adults. Just had no use for people. *

Don, now I'm just plain lost. If you can't touch them without cornering them, how are they confidenct in their own element? If they are feral, spooky, around people--including you, how are they confident? So are we back to dog dominant as determining confidence? How do you take them hunting if you can't touch them. How do you know if they have the confidence for the hunt. Quite frankly I was assuming that the hunt and hogs was your ultimate test for what they were and breed worthiness for your line. 

I have no doubt that you know a confident dog. I also can see how you can breed a pedigree and get better than the sire and dam phenotypically. I recall the 10th generation strength after seeing a 9th generation depression. However, this began as a social pack discussion with you saying social dog dominance was indicative of confidence work. If you say this is a parallel you have seen with your dogs with hog work, all I can say is OKAY....... I think a tight bred line or family of dogs can theoretically have these types of parallels. Might not mean diddly for other dogs or types of work. 

I always thought my friend's aussie social pack was interesting for all the reasons we have discussed. I don't think many people keep a number of dogs and keep them together intact where you can observe these dynamics over a number of years and where dogs grow from pups to maturity to old age. That's why I was interested the composition of your dogs in each group and what you observed as far as the social ranking order.

Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> T, you never commented on why I can move any of my females from yard to yard without problems since the breeding is identicle to the males and some are definitely dominate. I would be really curious as to your views on this.


Hahahahah, sure you would. Remember I asked what the composition was and you didn't have time to tell me. Initially, I thought your situation could be informative on how pack dynamics work. You were more interested in debunking the human as a "pack" leader thing. You've already said that there is a social rank order amongst your bitches and you know exactly what it is. It seems the outsider is Palin who keeps the yards stirred up and beats up on the puppies. There's your answer.


Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> *Here is the deal and it is something I don't normally share. It is also something I would have never noticed had I conditioned puppies from the get go so they "all" came like "normal" puppies are expected to.
> 
> I have talked about two 10th generation crosses that I am going to concentrate on because out of 70 to 80 litters, these are the only crosses that produced "all" confident pups with no handling before 4 weeks. These two crosses, which is interesting in itself, are the same cross with two pairs of bro/sisters. One bro to the others sister and the same in reverse. Four litters to date and not a spooky pup in the lot. I have put together three sisters on each side of these crosses so what I have is Odin/Goldie/Jenny/Jessie for one cross and the other is Wild Bill/Cassidy/Tootsie/Greta. Odin and all three of his girls have produced and Wild Bill and Cassidy have produced. Odin is the only really solid dog, Goldie has come around but is marginal, all the other are as spooky as march hares, but the pups are phenomenal. Now all these spooky dogs came from solid parents on both sides but a percentage of their litters where spooky even though they were solid as rocks. Great looking dogs but spooky. I can't touch them without cornering them. I never would have gotten to see this and realise what I was seeing if I handled the pups.
> 
> ...


LOL, Thank you T, I knew you would search that thread up for me. How many times have I said I pick the pups at 4 weeks when they come oput of the whelping box???? I can't im agine how many times I have said that. Since they all turn out pretty much the same, I probably do correlate the social dominance to confidence. Actually, I would defy you to show me a social dominate dog that hasn't got more confidence than other dogs. 

How can a spooky dog with people be confident in his own element???? Maybe it is a breed thing. LOL Just kidding. Why can't a dog be confident and not like people? I am confident and I don't like a lot of dogs?? Maybe, I let them pack bond. They all had enough confidence to go head to head with thing that would kill them if they made a wrong move. They aren't pets, they are working dogs. They don't have to like me to hunt because it comes natural to them. So you think a confident dog has to like you???? Better ask some of the people here that have worked social dominate dog T.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I am tired an going to bed. T, I hope you are in a less nit picky mood tomorrow because you are driving me nuts. Just to be clear, dogs don't have to like you to be very confident. Confident people don't have to like people. I think you are mixing up what you would consider breedability with confidence. I considered them breedable for what I do because they don't need training for what they did

While social dominate dogs are extremely confident, it does not always translate to work or workability. They make good civil dogs if someone can handle them. Many social dominate dogs include man as something to dominate. Here is a breed difference....none of mine include man so they can excell at most things if a person can train them. They are not dogs you can treat or correct into doing what they are not going to do. There are several threads on social dominance.

Hopefully, that will clear up social dominate and spooky around people.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Tracy,
> 
> Michael Fox did an entire treatise on wild canids which is a collection of studies done by multiple individuals, Mech included. It includes stray dog packs, foxes, wolves in terms of hunt behavior and the social order thing and lots more. Mech I believe actually did multiple studies, hence the wolves in captivity vs. wolves in the wild. A lot has been done concerning the wolves in Yellowstone Park.
> 
> ...



Interesting as I also follow Mech lol........ not familiar with the Fox piece though. A lot of what you are saying to me sounds more like the studies on the wolves in captivity? I have been following the newer models "mech" included which is free range where usually it is "mom/dad" and the "kids" until they are mature enough to go out on their own and start their own packs. More of a dynamic family structure and basically once two wolves have mated they are now automatically alpha. More of a dynamic leadership system rather than a rigid dominance based system. Whatever you can share Id appreciate it. O

t


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNtFgdwTsbU&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Tracey, is Meck, by any chance the one and the same that did the original studies on wolves only to recant most of his findings recently and do an about face.....in a changing social climate of course. If so, it seems a bit of faith would be required to use his stuff in a debate as accurate for anything. LOL Name just seems to ring a bell.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

The great thing about so much of the research out there on dogs is that it is familiar, but how is it PROVEN to be correct, with all the different methods of raising a dog. I could care less about a wild dog, and how it sniffs another dogs ass. It has nothing to do with how my dogs act, and does not take into account breed specific behaviors. So, yeah, cute book and all buddy, but for me it is crap.


----------



## Lynn Cheffins (Jul 11, 2006)

Don Turnipseed;203468
How can a spooky dog with people be confident in his own element???? Maybe it is a breed thing. LOL Just kidding. Why can't a dog be confident and not like people? I am confident and I don't like a lot of dogs?? Maybe said:


> I gotta agree with Don on this one - I have had dogs that it was a challenge to even catch and they were very confident in their work and with other dogs. You had to reel them in like a fish and really difficult to catch. I currently have one that I can only catch with a harness and I don't know if he likes me and I suspect if I was on fire he would not pee on me to put me out. Runs and leads like a top, though. Not my favourite kind of dog to work with or own, though. People read "spooky" and immediately think cringing and enviromentally sensitive but it's not the same.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> Interesting as I also follow Mech lol........ not familiar with the Fox piece though. A lot of what you are saying to me sounds more like the studies on the wolves in captivity? I have been following the newer models "mech" included which is free range where usually it is "mom/dad" and the "kids" until they are mature enough to go out on their own and start their own packs. More of a dynamic family structure and basically once two wolves have mated they are now automatically alpha. More of a dynamic leadership system rather than a rigid dominance based system. Whatever you can share Id appreciate it. O
> 
> t


 
Tracy,

There is heirarchy within the familial structure. It hasn't really mattered to me what name you give it. As Don says its curious to me how all of a sudden its en vogue to declare there aren't any similarities. As I said, there's leadership at the top. If you can't handle the leadership, you go off and start a pack of your own. There are also more than one set of kids and heirarchy now based on age. I don't really know how you define rigid dominance based or dynamic. I always found the captivity distincton interesting since dogs are pretty much captive as well. Anyway, I got into the 2nd Mech study when someone suggested that it was proof positive that the relationship between dog/handler doesn't have to incorporate leadership at all. The bottom line, watch your own dogs. I've seen the pack shifts when the leader dies and the scrambling for position. Or in Khira's case from the time she came through the door at seven weeks, she was trying to figure out how to get to the top. 


Don,

My nitpicking is usually more for trying to get what you are saying. As for spooky vs confident. Part of the element for me is how it relates to its owner. In thinking about the work---hunting. Seems like it would be a logistical issue. You gotta catch it to load it up and then how do you get it back if it doesn't like you. What we refer to as a social dominant dog usually doesn't have anything to do with dogs necessarily. Its also not based on fear. Its one that wants to lead and refuses to submit to human leadership depending on what's involved. If the dog doesn't like you, he basically ignores you. He doesn't run. Anyway, here is where I bail and throw my hands up in the air.

Lynn,

If its a sled dog and you can catch it to harness it and then it will run with the others, fine. You're right, environmental sensitivity has many different definitions and I define it as being able to deal confidently outside of its own territory with people noises, inside/outside, etc. Just goes to show you if someone says a dog is sound you have to ask for their description.


Terrasita


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Tracey, is Meck, by any chance the one and the same that did the original studies on wolves only to recant most of his findings recently and do an about face.....in a changing social climate of course. If so, it seems a bit of faith would be required to use his stuff in a debate as accurate for anything. LOL Name just seems to ring a bell.


Yes but I take favor to a scientist to advance his studies and say "we made a mistake" over one who keeps trying to push the outcome a specific direction. I actually respect him more. The original studies were done on captive animals, which is why they are outdated.

t

links
http://www.davemech.org/news.html

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/resources/mech_pdfs/267alphastatus_english.pdf


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Science used to be respectable. Itm is much like when I was a kid in school, history was fascinating. Thirty years later, I find that much of what they taught was untrue.....or was it true and the powers to be decided a "new spin" would have a better social effect on people. Today it has progressed even farther to where a school book cannot have a picture of an indian with a bow because they don't want kids to think of indians in that light. Likewise, I think todays science is going downhill depending on the paticualr belief a scientist has. I think many are using peoples respect for science to put a very different slant on things...Meck is one of them. Any group has a leader or there would be chaos and infighting. Look at lion prides. Not all that much difference but to many nature shows have been aired to flip flop like Meck did. Lions have a leader, they have a hierarchy. So do wolves.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Science used to be respectable. Itm is much like when I was a kid in school, history was fascinating. Thirty years later, I find that much of what they taught was untrue.....or was it true and the powers to be decided a "new spin" would have a better social effect on people. Today it has progressed even farther to where a school book cannot have a picture of an indian with a bow because they don't want kids to think of indians in that light. Likewise, I think todays science is going downhill depending on the paticualr belief a scientist has. I think many are using peoples respect for science to put a very different slant on things...Meck is one of them. Any group has a leader or there would be chaos and infighting. Look at lion prides. Not all that much difference but to many nature shows have been aired to flip flop like Meck did. Lions have a leader, they have a hierarchy. So do wolves.


I dunno Don, regarding lions for example, there is not necessary one leader....there could be three males who reside over the pride, they all interbreed with all the females no-one knows who is the sire of who, so they all take care of the young....but they are family. The females generally initiate hunting ,and the males are for defense of the territory and pride.

Spain have just beaten Germany 1-0...Holland v Spain final Sorry!


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Really? I must have missed that one. Thne ones I have seen had rogue lions trying to take the pride over. They did that by dethroning the top dog before killing any of his offspring. Killing any kittens brings the female in to season faster. One episode had two rogue brothers drive off the top lion....but that isn't the norm. Maybe it was a bad example as I don't keep up with lions....but I am pretty sure one runs things.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Really? I must have missed that one. Thne ones I have seen had rogue lions trying to take the pride over. They did that by dethroning the top dog before killing any of his offspring. Killing any kittens brings the female in to season faster. One episode had two rogue brothers drive off the top lion....but that isn't the norm. Maybe it was a bad example as I don't keep up with lions....but I am pretty sure one runs things.


The three lions I referred to were brothers and it is not uncommon, two or three brothers taking over a pride. And yes you're right about the killing of offspring etc. You can see the benefits of that....they hunt down and track down all the young males of the pride after killing the young cubs. It has it's benefits once the take over is established for obvious reasons, guess you did miss that one :-D.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Science used to be respectable. Itm is much like when I was a kid in school, history was fascinating. Thirty years later, I find that much of what they taught was untrue.....or was it true and the powers to be decided a "new spin" would have a better social effect on people. Today it has progressed even farther to where a school book cannot have a picture of an indian with a bow because they don't want kids to think of indians in that light. Likewise, I think todays science is going downhill depending on the paticualr belief a scientist has.* I think many are using peoples respect for science to put a very different slant on things...Meck is one of them. *Any group has a leader or there would be chaos and infighting. Look at lion prides. Not all that much difference but to many nature shows have been aired to flip flop like Meck did. Lions have a leader, they have a hierarchy. So do wolves.


Judging the following quote, you're probably right on.

_""If the wolf is to survive, the wolf haters must be outnumbered. They must be outshouted, out financed, and out voted." -L. David Mech_


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

umm yeah... not sure what that quote has to do with anything as far as how it would effect his research?.... but to be fair this is the full quote or at very least more of the text from his book ......... a lil over the top and romanticized? maybe :-\"

Mech writes in his book, "The Wolf."

"Unfortunately there still exists in 
certain segments of human society an
attitude that any animal [except man] 
that kills another is a murderer

To these people, the wolf is a most
undesirable creature.

Once blinded emotionally by such 
hate, the anti-wolf people fail to see
that the wolf has no choice about the 
way it lives; that it cannot thrive on
grass or twigs any more than man can.... 

These people cannot be changed. 
If the wolf is to survive, the wolf haters
must be outnumbered. They must be
outshouted, outfinanced, and outvoted.
Their narrow and biased attitude must
be outweighed by an attitude based on
an understanding of natural processes.

Finally, their hate must be 
outdone by a love for the whole of 
nature, for the unspoiled wilderness, 
and for the wolf as a beautiful,
interesting, and integral part of both.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Your timing is impeccable Daryl. That quote kind of says it all doesn't it. As one of our political parties expouses, "It doesn't matter how you win....as long as you win."


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I am not sure it is worth iot at this point but to get back on topic, Is it normal for a dominate bitch to kill a lesser bitches pups because it is instinctive and inherited from wolves or is it aberant behavior? Is it normal for, say, a dominate bitch to beat the crap out of a subordinate bitch to keep her from breeding? If so, is it a trait handed down from the wolves from a couple hundred years ago.....or is it aberant behavior. Remember, were are talking domestic dogs that get unlimited resourses of food so it isn't like they can't survive. What are some of the other behaviors attributed to wolf packs that we see in dogs today.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

A lot of the recent canine behavior studies I've seen lately favor the use of the Campbell's Test, and have seen it expressed that many ontogenesis and ethologist experts feel that this test currently is the best basis for measuring canine aggression behaviors. I don't have an opinion as of yet, I really don't fully understand it or have considered what it might imply about canine behavior, or the understand the depths of its use in these studies.

At the University of Veterinary Medicine in the Slovak Republic, the following paper has attempted to describe the theoretical basis of the Campbell's Test.

Test of social dominance in dogs

exerpt...



> First, it has to be emphasised that behavioural variability of the dog’s
> ontogenesis, together with changeability of other factors (breed, climatic,
> genetic, and social past of the dog), provide only a predictability character
> to the results, which cannot be accepted as an unchangeable behavioural
> ...


So, the "value" of a dominant social role seems relative to only _that group _to which_ that individual _belongs. This is refering to "rank" or "status", of dogs that _exhert their influence_, but outside the familiarized group (aka, "pack") can be a whole different dynamic. An entirely different confidence game.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Your timing is impeccable Daryl. That quote kind of says it all doesn't it. As one of our political parties expouses, "It doesn't matter how you win....as long as you win."


I never viewed Mech as anything but a phony, an activist in scientist's clothing.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

maggie fraser said:


> I dunno Don, regarding lions for example, there is not necessary one leader....there could be three males who reside over the pride, they all interbreed with all the females no-one knows who is the sire of who, so they all take care of the young....but they are family. The females generally initiate hunting ,and the males are for defense of the territory and pride.
> 
> Spain have just beaten Germany 1-0...Holland v Spain final Sorry!


Maggie, I have been checking on the lion situation. Most say aboouit the same thing

"If a pride is taken over by a new male who has defeated the *top resident male*, he will most likely kill any existing cubs that are under 2 years old. This rapidly brings the females into breeding condition, *ensuring that the strongest male gets to breed and continue his genetic line.*

Didn't see anything about multiple males all breeding at random. Apparently, while there may be several males in a pride, one seems to be top dog so to speak.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Al Curbow said:


> Come to Vegas, Bring your dog.


That is funny shit Al!


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Maggie, I have been checking on the lion situation. Most say aboouit the same thing
> 
> "If a pride is taken over by a new male who has defeated the *top resident male*, he will most likely kill any existing cubs that are under 2 years old. This rapidly brings the females into breeding condition, *ensuring that the strongest male gets to breed and continue his genetic line.*
> 
> Didn't see anything about multiple males all breeding at random. Apparently, while there may be several males in a pride, one seems to be top dog so to speak.


Don, I followed a series on the lions in the Masai Mara for 15 yrs, two prides in particular, it was a particular interest of mine. It happens and is not uncommon, particularly where the prides are large, many of the prides have two males in residence, sometimes three, always brothers.

I'll check around later and see if I can dig up some stuff. Regarding your quote above in bold, the killing of the young cubs is to stamp out the previous line and to bring the females back into season.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Don, this was the series I referred to....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Cat_Diary

Here's a tasty titbit...

(My mistake, they aren't always brothers)


*The Ridge Pride*
This pride has only appeared in the more recent series. The main lions in this pride are Cheza and Sala. These two are young cubs that are growing up together despite having different parents. They were one of the main features of the 2005 series. Now as adults, they have since joined forces with another young lion from the Ridge pride and have taken over a nearby pride.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

> I am not sure it is worth iot at this point but to get back on topic, Is it normal for a dominate bitch to kill a lesser bitches pups because it is instinctive and inherited from wolves or is it aberant behavior? Is it normal for, say, a dominate bitch to beat the crap out of a subordinate bitch to keep her from breeding? If so, is it a trait handed down from the wolves from a couple hundred years ago.....or is it aberant behavior. Remember, were are talking domestic dogs that get unlimited resourses of food so it isn't like they can't survive. What are some of the other behaviors attributed to wolf packs that we see in dogs today..


can you source this?

t


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

At one time it was considered you didn't encroach a female's litter as a stranger. Neither were other females or dogs allowed.

Nowadays, if a breeder has more than one bitch, you will hear about the other bitch (aunty, if you like) helping out.

I don't think it has anything to do with dominance, just instinctive behaviours that are inherent in one bitch and not in another?

Eberhard Trumler describes in his research station in Germany that his helpers were able to visit the bitch and her litter but as soon as the dog reached 3 years, he didn't let them anywhere near the bitch.

How many breeders have the bitch and dog together with the litter? In our tiny country it's seldom.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

tracey delin said:


> can you source this?
> 
> t


Source what exactly Tracey?


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

Like Bob, my experience with multiple dog packs comes from breeding jack russells. I wouldn't be surprised if someone chimed in here saying that there's no fighting in their terrier kennel because of their own personal pack leader status, but I would put that down to luck, constant kenneling or plain old bs. Keep a fair sized kennel of terriers long enough and sooner or later you are going to have animosity between dogs of the same gender which can easily develop into a blood feud that can infect other dogs in the group and turn your kennel into a huge cluster fack. 

To me the whole pack structure thing is often something that owners of multiple dogs want to believe in so that they can keep more dogs than they can humanely manage. Now, I know that "humanely" is a loaded term, but I'm using it on a "case by case" basis here. All of us have our own beliefs about how much freedom, social interaction and whatnot a dog needs. When we start keeping more dogs than we can keep properly, we start to take shortcuts. We want to believe that the dogs will develop a stable aristocratic government amongs themselves so that we can let them all out for a run together when we come home from work and so on.

Unfortunately dog political structures are no more stable than our own. They are constantly shifting and changing with the age and reproductive status of the animals involved. I'm told that environmenht also plays a role in their power relationships so that one dog will defer to another inside but not outside. Size and speed are important factors too, so that a high status dog willl lose rank as it ages. I do think that some of the highly domesticated breeds seem to be more amicable, but in chatting with the top notch poodle breeder we got my daughters dog from I found that he deals with aggression between same gender animals too. And everyone I've talked to agrees that bitches are by far the worst: with males its often a lot of sturm and drang, with bitches the goal is a dirt nap. :twisted:


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

where they are killing the pups, in their own pack. I am "wolfed" out at this point and really cant do another long read on wolves lol.

t


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Gillian Schuler said:


> At one time it was considered you didn't encroach a female's litter as a stranger. Neither were other females or dogs allowed.
> 
> Nowadays, if a breeder has more than one bitch, you will hear about the other bitch (aunty, if you like) helping out.
> 
> ...


Interesting post Gillian. Possibly each of the examples had an environment cause that spawned the belief. How much may have been started because a dog or two reacted strangely for one reason or another. Years ago before I set the yards up the way they are, I had the females separated.I had three sisters, much like I do today in a yard with no male. One had pups. The other two were constantly trying steal them. Not kill them but actually take them back to their dog house. There were some know down drag outs with each other. I have three yards with three sisters in each now and the other yards have multiple females and have never seen any of them steal each others pups. 

I have seen mothers get a bit testy with strangers back in those days. Had one female grab a person by the leg. No male in the yard. Having the male there seems to change the whole mindset of the females. The males seem to relax them. Since mine are all born outside, the females may relax more because the male is on quard duty. Who knows? The dominate males presence does seem to change the dynamics entirely. This leads me to believe many of these aberant behaviors are caused from us trying to take over how they do things without fully understanding that they know more about having puppies than we do.
I know when a litter is being born because the males bark at the house to get my attention. They run back and forth from the gate going to the house to the whelping box. They are actually excited as a rule. Another fascinating thing, in view of how many keep the males away from the bitch and the pups, is that when mom is weaning the pups and gets after them, they will run over and get behind him.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

tracey delin said:


> where they are killing the pups, in their own pack. I am "wolfed" out at this point and really cant do another long read on wolves lol.
> 
> t


Don't ask me Tracey, I didn't make the assertion, I am disagreeing with it.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Margaret Wheeler said:


> Like Bob, my experience with multiple dog packs comes from breeding jack russells. I wouldn't be surprised if someone chimed in here saying that there's no fighting in their terrier kennel because of their own personal pack leader status, but I would put that down to luck, constant kenneling or plain old bs. Keep a fair sized kennel of terriers long enough and sooner or later you are going to have animosity between dogs of the same gender which can easily develop into a blood feud that can infect other dogs in the group and turn your kennel into a huge cluster fack.
> 
> To me the whole pack structure thing is often something that owners of multiple dogs want to believe in so that they can keep more dogs than they can humanely manage. Now, I know that "humanely" is a loaded term, but I'm using it on a "case by case" basis here. All of us have our own beliefs about how much freedom, social interaction and whatnot a dog needs. When we start keeping more dogs than we can keep properly, we start to take shortcuts. We want to believe that the dogs will develop a stable aristocratic government amongs themselves so that we can let them all out for a run together when we come home from work and so on.
> 
> Unfortunately dog political structures are no more stable than our own. They are constantly shifting and changing with the age and reproductive status of the animals involved. I'm told that environmenht also plays a role in their power relationships so that one dog will defer to another inside but not outside. Size and speed are important factors too, so that a high status dog willl lose rank as it ages. I do think that some of the highly domesticated breeds seem to be more amicable, but in chatting with the top notch poodle breeder we got my daughters dog from I found that he deals with aggression between same gender animals too. And everyone I've talked to agrees that bitches are by far the worst: with males its often a lot of sturm and drang, with bitches the goal is a dirt nap. :twisted:


Margaret,, this used to be a war zone. I set things up and moved things around endlessly. Separated the females. Separated males. Until I isolated the males from each other and separated one male and specific females in to family units, there was no peace. I had to run electricity down both sides of all inside fences to keep the males well separated. I hated to break up bitch fights but haven't had one since I can't remember when. Disagreements yes, knock downs no. Having the one dominate male in with them has really had a calming effect on the girls. Actually, it wasn't until this thread that it dawned on me how important a role the males may play in this.....


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Margaret,, this used to be a war zone. I set things up and moved things around endlessly. Separated the females. Separated males. Until I isolated the males from each other and separated one male and specific females in to family units, there was no peace. I had to run electricity down both sides of all inside fences to keep the males well separated. I hated to break up bitch fights but haven't had one since I can't remember when. Disagreements yes, knock downs no. Having the one dominate male in with them has really had a calming effect on the girls. Actually, it wasn't until this thread that it dawned on me how important a role the males may play in this.....


Way cool! That's really interesting Don. I'm happy to be wrong on this one. It's like you've created "true" packs in the kennel. Did you come up with the general idea yourself (if so that's hella smart and creative) ? Do you have any references if you got the idea from something you read?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Margaret Wheeler said:


> Way cool! That's really interesting Don. I'm happy to be wrong on this one. It's like you've created "true" packs in the kennel. Did you come up with the general idea yourself (if so that's hella smart and creative) ? Do you have any references if you got the idea from something you read?


It wasn't an idea at all Margaret. It evolved out of necessity. It actually started with one yard. And I kept trying different ways of keeping the dogs until one day I woke up and there were 5 big yards.

I am actually pretty excited about his thread because while answering Gillians and your posts, I came to realize how critical a part the male does play in so much of this. Two or more males cause the infighting with the females and big tension with the males. One female and multiple males you got big problems. One male and multiple females and they are all fine. 

you may remember the sock hop in the gyp on Friday afternoon after school? Put a bunch of high schoolers in close quarters and let one gal catch another staring at her boyfirend and it was hair pulling time. That's what happenes when there is multiple of both sexes confined in a limited space. Now picture the football star with two or three gals hanging on him.. He is their star, the only star available, they are willing to share. Add one more star and it returns to open warfare. Even I didn't really comprehend how similar our behavior patterns are.


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> It wasn't an idea at all Margaret. It evolved out of necessity. It actually started with one yard. And I kept trying different ways of keeping the dogs until one day I woke up and there were 5 big yards.
> 
> I am actually pretty excited about his thread because while answering Gillians and your posts, I came to realize how critical a part the male does play in so much of this. Two or more males cause the infighting with the females and big tension with the males. One female and multiple males you got big problems. One male and multiple females and they are all fine.
> 
> you may remember the sock hop in the gyp on Friday afternoon after school? Put a bunch of high schoolers in close quarters and let one gal catch another staring at her boyfirend and it was hair pulling time. That's what happenes when there is multiple of both sexes confined in a limited space. Now picture the football star with two or three gals hanging on him.. He is their star, the only star available, they are willing to share. Add one more star and it returns to open warfare. Even I didn't really comprehend how similar our behavior patterns are.


I'm excited about this too! You are seriously the first person I've known to come up with something that seems to be a really good way to organize a kennel that creates a stable, social situation for dog groups. As for the sock hop... haha I remember only too well... showing my age much?!

I'd really like to see some pics of your setup sometime..... Just please don't ask me for pics of my messy place in return!


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Margaret, here is a link with the yards if you scroll down. This is the yard set up before I had to turn it into a mini power station with electric fences on both sides of the regular fences. This is what it I ended up with. One thing that may be of significance is they have room to get away from each other and relax.
http://www.huntingairedales.com/photos_u_-_z.htm


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Margaret, here is a link with the yards if you scroll down. This is the yard set up before I had to turn it into a mini power station with electric fences on both sides of the regular fences. This is what it I ended up with. One thing that may be of significance is they have room to get away from each other and relax.
> http://www.huntingairedales.com/photos_u_-_z.htm


 
That is a really nice setup. I hope your dogs appreciate you! I think you are on to something with the space. I mean you see a pack of pretty much anything lounging around in the wild and they are pretty spread out and use the

Speaking of your dogs: sorry to repeat myself but... WOW... I'll bet you hate breaking up fights haha. There's a lot of dog in those pics.

So nice to meet a fellow setup/kennel freak. \\/


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Don, I mentioned Eberhard Trumler, a scholar of Konrad Lorenz. I have most of his books, in German, but here is a description of Wolfwinkel, his research station in Germany, which even after his death in 1991, is being upheld.

I don't know whether his books have been translated into english but, if so, they are the most interesting, down to earth books about canines that I have ever read:

http://www.gfh-wolfswinkel.de/en/introduction/introduction.htm


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Gillian, according to A Semyonova, Konrad Most didn't know what he was talking about...

For your perusal, or simply just an alternative view....

http://www.nonlineardogs.com/100MostSillyPart1-2.html


Most people don’t know that the entire science of animal psychology got its start in Hitler’s Germany. 
This happened in Berlin on 10th January, 1936, when the German Society for Animal Psychology 
was founded under the auspices of, and sponsorship by, the Nazi government. Konrad Lorenz was 
co-editor and an important contributor, writing many articles for the Society’s journal, Zeitschrift für 
Tierpsychologie. Unlike some others who stood at the roots of animal psychology as a science, 
Lorenz never had problems with the Nazi authorities. On the contrary, he joined the party as soon as 
he could (1938), and the Nazis liked him so much that he was appointed professor of psychology at 
the University of Königsberg in 1940. The admiration was mutual. Lorenz worked at the Race Policy 
Bureau. In 1942, he participated in examining 877 people of mixed Polish–German descent, selecting 
who would and who wouldn’t go to a concentration camp to be murdered. He believed firmly in 
superior and inferior races and consistently expressed great contempt for the latter. He believed in a 
strict, hierarchical society, in which an absolute authority ruled to whom all owed obedience. And, just 
as humans had always done before them, the Nazis — including Lorenz — projected their ideas 
about human society onto the animal kingdom. This is illustrated by the Nazi Cult of the Wolf.

It just so happens that the Cult of the Wolf played a very important part in Nazi ideology. The wolf was 
held up as an example, to show that the Nazis were merely trying to reorganise society according to 
noble, natural laws. Projecting, and without bothering to read any science or to gain any real 
knowledge, the Nazis (and Lorenz) depicted the wolf as a noble, wild, hardened, ruthless animal who 
possessed all kinds of wonderful Nazi characteristics. The wolf lived, just like the Nazi, in a closed and 
elite group. He was, just like the Nazi, absolutely loyal to this group, ready to unquestioningly sacrifice 
his life for the sake of the group if the need arose. The group’s structure was just as hierarchical and 
rigid as the structure of the Nazi Party. Each wolf had a rank he strictly adhered to, submissive to 
those above him, ruthless to those beneath him. Most important perhaps, the wolves were led by a 
sort of Führer: the Alpha Leader. The Alpha Leader was a strong, always male wolf, whom all the 
other wolves worshipped and obeyed at all times, and who was fiercely desired by all the female 
wolves (yes, even the Nazis had sexual fantasies). And now come all the other things we are told 
about dogs. The Alpha Wolf receives deference in all things. He is always the first to eat and the first 
to go through a door. He is always up front in any kind of procession, and he always gets to sit or lie 
higher than the other wolves. The other wolves hurry out of his way when he is coming through. They 
are constantly giving off submissive signals in his presence. The Alpha Wolf can bite anyone he likes 
without getting bitten back. He is so utterly sure of his authority that he can, when in the mood, 
behave mercifully towards his inferiors — for which these inferiors are then infinitely grateful and 
worship him all the more. The similarity to Adolph Hitler can hardly escape us.

In general, it is taboo among scientists to personally attack the author of a theory, but this taboo 
does not (and cannot) apply when the author ignores all evidence to project his purely personal 
prejudices onto the thing he is studying. Such behaviour leaves us no choice but to address the 
personal background that led to such prejudices.

Lorenz specialised in studying birds. His ideas about wolves had their sole source in the Nazi Cult of 
the Wolf, not in science. His ideas about dogs were shaped by — as he later put it — the false gods 
he’d adopted as a young man. He informally observed his own dogs in his living room while he took 
part in Nazi activities. He first published Man Meets Dog, which was based on these observations, in 
1949.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

> He is so utterly sure of his authority that he can, when in the mood, behave mercifully towards his inferiors — for which these inferiors are then infinitely grateful and worship him all the more.


:-\"

Um yeah, thats one way to look at it


----------



## Jennifer Marshall (Dec 13, 2007)

Wow I don't have time to really read through all these posts so I skimmed. 

Just added anothing handful of pennies to this discussion..

IMO, a "pack" is a group of animals that live together because they have to in order to survive - to hunt, to procreate. They depend on eachother. This dependence is key, everyone has a place, a purpose, a reason for being there.

We create groups of dogs, not packs. They are not relying on eachother to survive, and dogs are not stupid, they know this. Dogs can be much less strict in the expression of a dominance hierarchy or much more strict and extreme about it.

We create animals that don't need to be able to survive on their own or within a pack. We bred away self preservation in order to have dogs that are non reactive and confident in the face of new/strange/dangerous things and situations. We breed for things that are against the natural order of a social predator animal - ability to coexist in order to hunt for survival; self preservation that makes them run from danger or to submit when they are outclassed in a fight or not to jump off a cliff after a bird; sensitivity to changes in the environment/territory that tell them when things are wrong and caution when investigating .. and so on and so forth.

I don't believe that dogs are born completely understanding how to communicate with their own species, or that the dominance hierarchy is crystal clear. They have the basics but they have to learn boundaries and consequences. But we erase the need for them to communicate with other dogs/animals and learning from it by controlling them and their environment and forcing them to focus on communication with humans. Then the extreme traits we bred them to have combined with environments that vary so much no 2 places and ways are the same, we get lots of differences. The dog's greatest trait is its adaptability.

There are always going to be exceptions because of the way we raise our dogs and what they make them learn and what we allow them to learn. It has become natural and "normal" for dogs to have such extreme behaviors and extreme variety, but it is not natural when thinking of them only as social predatory animals.

When it comes to wolves, there is a dominance hierarchy - it just isn't as strict as people have been lead to believe. It varies in strictness with the terrain/climate/food sources, but for them to be a pack and to survive, there must be some sort of order. When it comes to breeding, there are a lot of variables, could be that the males in the pack are too closely related to the female, or that the current alpha male is a default alpha (no other adult male in the pack) and not bold enough to squable with the female in order to mate, or the current alpha is past his prime. Who knows, depends on the pack. I watched the female in Blackstar's group fight off the leading male for 2 seasons and then he gave up trying. It isn't just the male that decides to breed, the females can be choosey.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

This is where this topic was originally suppose tp go Jennifer. Most of the aberant behavior we see in dogs today is not some instinctual trait suddenly emerging from their ancestrial wolf packs. Most pack social traits are leaned traits, not inheritable traits. Being learned traits, most aberant behavior is our doing. Every different household may teach the dog something else so he can cope. This makes it exceedingly difficult to lump dog behavior into one or two simple categories. Dog behavior today is so varied that it may even be a stretch calling any of what is seen aberant behavior.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> This is where this topic was originally suppose tp go Jennifer. Most of the aberant behavior we see in dogs today is not some instinctual trait suddenly emerging from their ancestrial wolf packs. Most pack social traits are leaned traits, not inheritable traits. Being learned traits, most aberant behavior is our doing. Every different household may teach the dog something else so he can cope. This makes it exceedingly difficult to lump dog behavior into one or two simple categories. Dog behavior today is so varied that it may even be a stretch calling any of what is seen aberant behavior.


 
What aberant behavior are you attributing to learned and what is the source of the learning?


Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

After giving this subject more thought, I think it is hard to blame many aberant behaviors solely on what the dog has learned in the different environments in which he is brought up. In many environments today, I would think it is safe to assume many behaviors result from a lack of opportunity to learn how to act.


----------



## Jennifer Marshall (Dec 13, 2007)

Jennifer Marshall said:


> We breed for things that are against the natural order of a social predator animal - ability to coexist in order to hunt for survival; self preservation that makes them run from danger or to submit when they are outclassed in a fight or not to jump off a cliff after a bird; sensitivity to changes in the environment/territory that tell them when things are wrong and caution when investigating .. and so on and so forth.


HAHA I did not word that right, what I meant was that we breed against those natural behaviors and tendencies. All the things listed are natural for a social predator like a wild dog or a wolf. Those traits are not desirable in our dogs, we call dogs with those traits nervy or low drive. We WANT dogs that lack self preservation in exchange for non stop drive, for confidence and non reactivity to environmental changes and different stimuli. Etc.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Quote.

Gillian, according to A Semyonova, Konrad Most didn't know what he was talking about...

Unquote

Maggie, I never mentioned Konrad Most (not in this thread). I do know that Konrad Lorenz has been criticised in latter years, though! However Trumler was only his scholar, and most good scholars go on to develop their theories, findings, etc. and to question their former masters.

Thanks for the read - will do it later.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

My mistake Gillian, I had meant Konrad Lenz and not Most.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Don, I mentioned Eberhard Trumler, a scholar of Konrad Lorenz. I have most of his books, in German, but here is a description of Wolfwinkel, his research station in Germany, which even after his death in 1991, is being upheld.
> 
> I don't know whether his books have been translated into english but, if so, they are the most interesting, down to earth books about canines that I have ever read:
> 
> http://www.gfh-wolfswinkel.de/en/introduction/introduction.htm


Gillian, thank you so much for that link on Trumler. It was most fascinating and interesting read. The translation was a bit up and down but I could read that book from what I saw in that short excerpt. The similarities to what he was doing and how my dogs are treated and handled really got my interest, but maybe you knew it would. LOL

Maggie, I thank you for bringing up the specific prides of lions you did. They are an excellent example of how an environment can create aberant behavior. The behavior seen in your example may not be uncommon to the area they are in....but that does not make it normal behavior. These animals have unlimited food and, because or that, have exceedingly large prides. Great example even if you didn't realize it.


----------



## Christopher Fox (Dec 24, 2009)

To answer the original question, I absolutely believe that dogs still carry the genetic material that programs them for social pack behavior. Where do I get the info to make that decision? Umm, well ... I worked at a doggie daycare for a bit. That ought to get some laughs here. I was working less than 20 hours per week as a bartender and had to sit out a winter on the slopes due to a surgery, so I hung out with a 30-40 dog pack in an open envirionment 5 days a week, a few hours per day. And I met some damn cool dogs. I walked away from there with more insight and understanding into dog behavior, the subtleties of dog communication, etc., then I walked in there with.

May sound ridiculous, a dude who worked at a doggie daycare on a board like this talking about dog behavior, but if you think about hanging out 5 days a week with a pack of 30 dogs in an open environment, there are thousands upon thousands of dog interactions to observe every week. The social order and complexity of it amazed me. No, not all of them 'participated' in the pack to the same degree, but most did.

I can think of several examples, but one that jumps out right now is the direction of social aggression, meaning a response from the seargant at arms dogs, the dogs that are not alpha, but higher in rank than most others, when the alpha exhibits aggression - the alpha's target becomes the pack's target of aggression, and it only becomes a target when the alpha says so. I have seen lot's and lot's of puppies approach dogs they are not related to and begin jumping and licking their mouths. I consider that a pack behavior related to wolves as well and not something environmentally learned.

I don't think they are present in all dogs or all breeds, but I think it an accurate generalization.


----------



## Jennifer Marshall (Dec 13, 2007)

Christopher, I volunteer at a boarding kennel/daycare center that has a max capacity of 250 dogs, and they are full almost every weekend. Holidays are CRAZY. I supervise large groups of dogs in the indoor and outdoor play areas, and even though they try their best to match dogs that will be compatible, when you get that many dogs together and most of them have never met before, you get to see a lot of stuff happening. 

No fights, though I am sure they happen. At any given day I interact with at least 60 different dogs, of varying breeds, ages, sizes, and backgrounds. 99.9% of these dogs are just pets, spoiled housedogs, but some are working retreivers, and there are a few mals and nice working line GSDs that come through. Any dog that is high drive and/or high energy gets individual playtimes and walks with employees or volunteers that the owners prefer to have handle their dogs. They are good places to watch dogs communicate and learn about dog body language.

The difference is that these are not real packs, these are groups of dogs. Most of these dogs have never met each other before. They communicate with eachother but never in any group of these dogs is there an "alpha", because we remove dogs from group that are pushy or even too exuberant/rough in their play, to maintain the peace. In a group of dogs that large there really can't be an alpha, one animal cannot completely supervise and lay down the law with that many other dogs. Dogs can respect each other's boundaries without submitting, and they can very easily avoid interaction with individual dogs in groups that large.

As for aggression from the entire group when one dog becomes aggressive... this isn't necessarily a wolf behavior. An entire pack may defend it's territory or it's resources, but within a pack the other packmembers don't gang up on eachother when the alpha is reprimanding a packmate. 

Don't confuse "pack behavior" with species communication. Pack behavior is limited to a pack, a group of animals that rely upon each other for survival. Species communication is dogs interacting with eachother and this is mostly learned behavior.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: The difference is that these are not real packs, these are groups of dogs. Most of these dogs have never met each other before. They communicate with eachother but never in any group of these dogs is there an "alpha", because we remove dogs from group that are pushy or even too exuberant/rough in their play, to maintain the peace. In a group of dogs that large there really can't be an alpha, one animal cannot completely supervise and lay down the law with that many other dogs. Dogs can respect each other's boundaries without submitting, and they can very easily avoid interaction with individual dogs in groups that large.

As for aggression from the entire group when one dog becomes aggressive... this isn't necessarily a wolf behavior. An entire pack may defend it's territory or it's resources, but within a pack the other packmembers don't gang up on eachother when the alpha is reprimanding a packmate. 

Don't confuse "pack behavior" with species communication. Pack behavior is limited to a pack, a group of animals that rely upon each other for survival. Species communication is dogs interacting with eachother and this is mostly learned behavior.

According to who, is this true ? Would you really know the alpha in a pack of weak dogs ?? This is a lot of conjecture and BS based on what you may have learned from the other BSers.

You could say that this is what you see, and what it appears to be, but to say that it "just is" leads to more misinformation and general crap.

Why would social communication not be pack behavior ?


----------



## Christopher Fox (Dec 24, 2009)

> The difference is that these are not real packs, these are groups of dogs. Most of these dogs have never met each other before. They communicate with eachother but never in any group of these dogs is there an "alpha", because we remove dogs from group that are pushy or even too exuberant/rough in their play, to maintain the peace.


In your case, yes, nothing more than a grouping of dogs. Little different where I was as some of these dogs were with each other 8-10 hours per day since puppy hood. 5 days a week, these dog spend more of their waking hours interacting with dogs then their owners. Their owners pick them up and they go home and sleep.



> In a group of dogs that large there really can't be an alpha, one animal cannot completely supervise and lay down the law with that many other dogs.


His name happened to be Denali, and ya'll laugh even harder than you already are if I tell you the breed. No, he did not have eyes on the back of his head, but that was his pack and he ran it. There was an alpha dog, and I wasn't the only one that knew it - _ever *dog* there knew it too[/b]_.



> Don't confuse "pack behavior" with species communication. Pack behavior is limited to a pack, a group of animals that rely upon each other for survival. Species communication is dogs interacting with eachother and this is mostly learned behavior.


I'm not. Don't confuse the random groupings of dogs you are around with the *pack* I hung out with. These dogs did not rely upon one another for survival, obviously, but they don't have to in order to display pack behaviors in the pack situation I describe. Again, these dogs spent more of their waking hours, 5 days a week, interacting with their pack then thier owners. When I started there, the place had been open for over a year. These are not dogs interacting in an uncomfortable situation like a boarding kennel, where all of the sudden the owner drops them off and disappears for several days, nothing around them, from the people to other dogs to their kennel is familiar. They are stressed. They don't know you, they don't know the other dogs and they don't know the surroundings. And if dogs could talk, the would tell you to get them the hell outta there. Where I was, the dogs couldn't wait to get out of the car and into a fenced in area to be with their dog pack. It was where they wanted to be. It was a normal, everyday aspect of their life and routine.

This was not a transient, always changing grouping of dogs. This was a stable population that had little turnover, and yes, there was an alpha male and female that ran the show. That controlled the actions of every other dog there.

I'll disagree with your assessment of the social agggression I have witnessed, but since that is not as clear cut, forget about that one and explain to me how the behavior I, and I am sure many others, have witnessed out of puppies greeting adult dogs by licking their muzzle? I personally do not know anybody that regurgitates food for their dogs, how is that learned?


----------



## Jennifer Marshall (Dec 13, 2007)

Jeff, I already said that IMO a pack is a group of dogs or wolves etc that relies upon one another to survive. Not a group of random dogs out in a play yard.

There is a lot of communication going on, but these dogs are not a pack, they are just a group of dogs. In a smaller sized group there will be one dog that stands out as what most people would call the "alpha" - a dog that is respected and unchallenged by the other dogs, but that does not make that dog an alpha. 

It is inevitable that there will be posturing and minor squabbles, there are subtle interactions that never go past eye contact or squaring off, but none of these dogs are alphas, they are simply the most confident/dominant dog in that particular group. Whenever you put a group of dogs together there will be a lot of communication, but most of these dogs are weak dogs and there is never a real "challenge" of authority.

When you get groups of 30-40 dogs, one dog would be run ragged trying to "be the alpha" and control such a large group. We don't have more than 25-28 dogs at the most in a single group, but it is a lot, and you will see the dogs seperate into several smaller groups. And again, they seperate dogs that show any real tendency towards dominance, they remove pushy or rough dogs.

What I've said in this and my last post are about dogs in daycare or boarding facilities, dogs that are bred for no real purpose other than color or how small their paws are or how big their heads are. Most of them are very laid back or more interested in the group supervisors than the other dogs.


----------



## Jennifer Marshall (Dec 13, 2007)

Christopher, I never said that *all* communication was learned. Dogs do have a natural ability to communicate with their own kind - mostly what they learn is rules and boundaries and consequences. They'd be pretty SOL if they didn't have some sort of natural ability to communicate with eachother.

Face licking is not purely a request for regurgitation, it's a greeting that can be seen an adults as well as pups.

The place I volunteer at has a lot of daycare dogs too, but we don't have any dogs that are around eachother that often. It is my opinion that a pack is a group of animals that relies upon eachother for survival. Everything else is just a group of dogs. Yes they still exibit a social structure, that is natural. I would like to see that dog, Denali, in his group  I do believe that a dog can be unchallenged and more dominant than any dog in a particular group in a daycare facility - we have a little corgi/basset hound cross named "Puppers" that is the "boss" of any group she is in, but she is in no way an alpha. Fun to watch though, she's a nice little dog.

Even species that rarely interact with other members of its species have a social structure and understand dominance hierarchy. Cats and bears for example. Prey animals recognize dominance hierarchy as well - deer, elk, horses. etc.

I don't know that I can fully explain why I view a pack as only a group of animals that relies upon one another ... it's just different. If losing a pack member would make hunting more difficult, they are less likely to actually kill one another - they *have* to cooperate, not just communicate. Dogs are more likely to kill eachother over little things than a wolf is. During breeding season or if the point of the fight is for dominance over the pack, things are much more serious, but otherwise little damage is done in what appear to be serious fights over food, bones, sleeping places etc. Dogs are different, we have bred them to be different. 

So yes, there is communication, and a social structure/dominance hierarchy, but a dog does not have to be in a pack to exhibit or know them, and IMO most groups of dogs are just that, groups of dogs.

I don't preach my word as gospel, these are my opinions based on my own observations and research into the subject.


----------



## Christopher Fox (Dec 24, 2009)

> Christopher, I never said that *all* communication was learned. Dogs do have a natural ability to communicate with their own kind - mostly what they learn is rules and boundaries and consequences. They'd be pretty SOL if they didn't have some sort of natural ability to communicate with eachother.
> 
> Face licking is not purely a request for regurgitation, it's a greeting that can be seen an adults as well as pups.


Not trying to split hairs, but my point was that that is a behavior that is left over from wolf pack behavior. I was responding to the OP:

_There has been some discussion on packs and the social order within a pack. Somewhere in the discussion someone said something about some of these traits have not been bred oput completely and still manifest themselfs in domestic dogs._

Muzzle licking is a behavior trait left over, _'... not been bred out completely ...'_, IMO. And I have seen it in adults as well, in submissive adults, but defintely predominantly in puppies, which is I call it a social behavior as there is a social component to age in a pack.



> The place I volunteer at has a lot of daycare dogs too, but we don't have any dogs that are around eachother that often. It is my opinion that a pack is a group of animals that relies upon eachother for survival.


I got to hang out with an open pack, never seperated. Like I said, thousands upon thousands of interactions to abserve every week. I don't know the true scientific definition of the term pack, especially as it relates to canines, but I don't limit it such. The smartest dog is stil just as smart as a dog. Dogs do not understand the concept of survival. They think, but not that much. You can define a pack however you like, using that survival thing as a stipulation, but a dog doesn't understand that and I don't think that condition needs to exist, especially since I do not think a dog can be aware of a concept so abstract as self-awareness and death, in order to display behaviors in response to stimuli.

Like latent wolf social pack behgaviors, including the intinctual dispostion to revert to those behaviors in the environment I witnessed with the stimuli it produced.

But even if you don't want to call the group I witnessed a pack, does that mean you think I could not then witness any latent pack behaviors as asked by the OP?



> Yes they still exibit a social structure, that is natural. I would like to see that dog, Denali, in his group
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not endorsing daycares, nor would I send any dog I owned to one, nor do I think dog scraps are cool, but yea Denali was not all talk. I witnessed plenty of scraps (not just with the alpha), have seen plenty of puncture wounds, and eventually Denali had to go. No serious injuries, stiches, etc. Very big and athletic dog. One of the reasons I do not endorse doggie daycares, no way to avoid doggie scraps, especially if those dogs form a pack .

In the end though, I was blown away at that dog's natural abilities to be an alpha dog. These behaviors go way, way beyond simply being the biggest, pushiest, toughest dog that got his way.

I understand your definition of pack, but since your definition excludes any dog except a feral one, are you saying there are no latnet or active behavior dogs display that are directly related to heredity from wolves?



> I don't know that I can fully explain why I view a pack as only a group of animals that relies upon one another


I think you are drawing distinctions in definitions that dogs are incapable of drawing. Forgetting the defintion of what _you_ think a pack is, what kind of behaviors would I have to witness to call them pack behaviors?


----------



## Christopher Fox (Dec 24, 2009)

> Why would social communication not be pack behavior ?


I don't want to be the newbie who has never had or trained a sport dog being a smartass, but I can't beleive it took until page 11 for this obvious question to be asked.


----------



## Jennifer Marshall (Dec 13, 2007)

Christopher - did you read my other posts? I have never said that these behaviors are not remnants of wolf behavior. I have said that dogs are not wolves and wolves are not dogs. Part of my distinction is that our dogs in todays society do not need to forage, they do not need to hunt, they do not *need* to socialize and cooperate with one another in order to survive. 

As I said, it is a personal opinion based on observing many animals, not just a group of dogs.
Pack behaviors are confined to animals in a pack - a group that relies upon eachother for survival. My opinion based on observing what I consider to be real packs.

Dogs are not as stupid as you seem to think they are, they don't have to hunt their kibble. 

I have watched wolves and wolfdogs and feral dogs. Even wolves kept in captive situations realize they do not need eachother for survival and you will see some extreme or "different" behaviors.

If you consider every group of dogs to be a pack then yes, all social communication is essentially a pack behavior. You can disagree with me all you like, I post on threads like this because I have real life personal experience not only with domestic dogs, but feral dogs, and wolves. I don't base my opinions solely on books or documentary shows, and a fair amount of what I read I don't fully agree with based on things I have seen for myself.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I have company so can't get to drawn nin here, but, purely by the definition of a "pack" ot os a group of dogs. This is why I normally refer to the dog I have as being raised in family units(pack). The dogs are born and raised in family inits more like what is pictured when one thinks of a wolf pack. They are family units but refered to as a pack. It osn't the same when the dogs go home for the evening to spend the night with the owners

The references to scraps being unavoidable is something that is seldom seen in family units, but is common in a large grouping of dogs. The true alpha dog doesn't have to fight or scrap....particualrily of the others accept that he is the alpha. A look or at the most a growl will suffice normally.

The mouth licking by sibordinates is a good observation Chistopher.....and you may be right. Personally I see it as part opf the dominance/subordinate relationship rather than something pased down from wolves. The approach when a dog comes up to a superior is all about the subordinate acknowledging he is just that to avoid getting his butt kicked. This tail between the legs, head lowered, etc starts before the dog/pup even gets to the dominate dog. The mouth licking is maybe there way of saying thanks for not hurting me. LOL You see it in people also. You can tell they are nervous when approaching a very dominate person and when accepted, they are overjoyed like a pup is when mouth licking. After a subordinate is accepted by the dominate figure and they are acting giddiosh with glee, they don't lick them in the mouth, they spend the rest of their association doing what we call "kissing ass". "Can I get you another drink? Can I get you anything?". There doesn't really have to be dogs in a group setting to see this behavior so I tend to see it as something learned that is going to benefit the subordinate in his mind. In the dogs case...survival around strange/familiar dogs. JMO(In case Jeff is watching.) LOL


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Christopher Fox said:


> I don't want to be the newbie who has never had or trained a sport dog being a smartass, but I can't beleive it took until page 11 for this obvious question to be asked.


My personal opinion is no Christopher. I think social order is largely learned behavior. Why? Dogs today, that are raised mostly indoors, do not act like dogs of 50 to 60 years ago when it was very common for dogs to be born and raised outdoors. Some behaviors may well be traits handed down but so much today is what dogs have learned to cope in entirely different environment. Every house hold creates a different set of challenges a dog learns to cope with. My favorite saying, "Genetics determines what a dog can be. The Environment determines what it will be!". Being as the genetics make up about 35% of what a dog is, the environment carries a lot more weight. 

I got to get back to my company. 

Watching a large group of dogs is an education in itself Chistopher. It is great that you actually took the time to observe all the different behaviors because most people would just see a pack of dogs but never notice the multituide if behaviors.


----------



## Christopher Fox (Dec 24, 2009)

> Christopher - did you read my other posts? I have never said that these behaviors are not remnants of wolf behavior. I have said that dogs are not wolves and wolves are not dogs. Part of my distinction is that our dogs in todays society do not need to forage, they do not need to hunt, they do not *need* to socialize and cooperate with one another in order to survive.


Fair enough on the remnants part. But I understood you to say that the group of dogs I observed were just a group of dogs and could not engage in the pack behaviors that wolves need to survive. That they were not a pack and could be nothing more than a group of random dogs with no structure to the group. That was my disagreement, the confining nature of when, and only when, a dog can actually be exhibiting pack behaviors. No, they don't need to forage or need to have pack behaviors to survive. And I don't need an appendix, yet I still have one. Dogs don't need wolf pack social instincts, but some of them still have them.

I have witnessed it. In a pack of domestic dogs.



> Dogs are not as stupid as you seem to think they are, they don't have to hunt their kibble.


I didn't intend to imply that, I was merely stating that I don't think a dog is capable of understanding that it is not supposed to exhibit pack behavior because it doesn't need the other dogs for survival. That I think your definition of what a pack is and under what circumstances a canine can cannot exhibit pack behavior to be arbitrary. Dogs don't understand arbitrary, they are not smart enough. That was my point. For the record, I am amazed at the level of communication capable between to different species as between dogs and humans and of the 'thought process' that working dogs (not just protection dogs) are capable of.



> If you consider every group of dogs to be a pack then yes, all social communication is essentially a pack behavior. You can disagree with me all you like, I post on threads like this because I have real life personal experience not only with domestic dogs, but feral dogs, and wolves. I don't base my opinions solely on books or documentary shows, and a fair amount of what I read I don't fully agree with based on things I have seen for myself.


I have real life personal experience with domestic dogs as well. I don't consider every group of dogs a pack. I agreed with you that the group of dogs you observed was not a pack, rather a bunch of stressed out dogs wondering where their owner was and who were all these unfamiliar dogs and people. The group of dogs I was talking about was in a much different environment. You don't agree that domestic dogs are capable of exhibiting pack social behavior. Fair enough. We will have to agree to disagree.



> Even wolves kept in captive situations realize they do not need eachother for survival and you will see some extreme or "different" behaviors.


I don't think wolves stupid either, but I do not think them capable of such 'realizations'. They do not exhibit pack behavior because they take a look around their world and say, 'I ain't going to make it, I better find a couple partners and team up to increase my odds of survival.' And conversely, 'I got this sweet zookeeper feeding me, I don't need that jacka$$ over there, so I am going to stop packing up with him/her.'

I would act weird too if I was a wolf and you fenced me in and forced me to be around humans, but I don't think it would be because of the realization that I no longer needed to be part of a pack to survive.

I am not a wolf expert, but ...


----------



## Christopher Fox (Dec 24, 2009)

> The references to scraps being unavoidable is something that is seldom seen in family units, but is common in a large grouping of dogs. The true alpha dog doesn't have to fight or scrap....particualrily of the others accept that he is the alpha. A look or at the most a growl will suffice normally.


The alpha only got involved with outsiders as far as scraps, and very rarely. Most of the scraps occurred between other dogs and a new one or there were several 'pairs' of dogs that just did not like each other and would go at it once or twice a month. Until the Alpha came over and one growl and one quick bite to whichever of the two scrapping he felt needed it and it was over. He would break up 75% of the fights because he could get there first.



> The mouth licking by sibordinates is a good observation Chistopher.....and you may be right. Personally I see it as part opf the dominance/subordinate relationship rather than something pased down from wolves.


I agree that it is most definitely tied to subordinate behavior, but I also believe it to be tied to an instinctual wiring that a wolf puppy does to get food. Maybe it is an old wives tale, but I have always understood that there was a direct relationship to the muzzle licking stimulating regurgitation in the adult wolf. I guess I do not understand. Not trying to be a smartass here, but are you suggesting that dogs, especially puppies licking the face of other dogs is nothing more than a coincidence and a learned behavior instead of a behavior left over from how a puppy wolf must act and behave within the pack to survive?



> My personal opinion is no Christopher. I think social order is largely learned behavior. Why? Dogs today, that are raised mostly indoors, do not act like dogs of 50 to 60 years ago when it was very common for dogs to be born and raised outdoors. Some behaviors may well be traits handed down but so much today is what dogs have learned to cope in entirely different environment. Every house hold creates a different set of challenges a dog learns to cope with. My favorite saying, "Genetics determines what a dog can be. The Environment determines what it will be!". Being as the genetics make up about 35% of what a dog is, the environment carries a lot more weight


I would defintiely concede that the behaviors I talked about were not present in all of the dogs and not even to the same extent in the dogs it was present. Further, that it can be breed specific as well. Most Akitas I have met have crappy wolf pack behavior - not very pack like to want to kill every other dog you meet. I certainly understand the condition aspects you talk about as far as current bred traits, but I don't think it to be such a stretch to observe true remnant behaviors. The face licking being a perfect example. Although the conditions are different, that behavior, the face licking, was never bred for or against. Sure, a puppy doesn't need to be compelled to lick the face of an adult dog to survive, but what breeder would select or deselect for this behavior? Furhter, how many people have let a puppy lick there face? It really isn't something that is disciplined either.

I don't claim to be a dog expert, am on this site to learn, understand that there is a collection of people here who are at the pinnacle of knowledge concerning working dogs ... and I won't argue my point anymore, but I think the face licking is a perfect example of the behaviors you asked about, precisely because it is a behavior that was never deselected for inthe transition from wolf to dog - that behavior is free to make its genetic rounds, generation after generation.



> Watching a large group of dogs is an education in itself Chistopher. It is great that you actually took the time to observe all the different behaviors because most people would just see a pack of dogs but never notice the multituide if behaviors.


Thanks for not busting my chops for using the words 'doggie daycare'. It hurts even more to actually say, 'doggie daycare' but yea, I paid attention and even though I thought I knew about dogs previous to that, the depth and breadth of what goes on with them blew me away. It was a great learning experience, and unique in that I got to watch the same dogs interacting day after day and month after month. It gave me a tremendous appreciation for the uniqueness of each dogs indivdual personality. No two dogs are alike.


----------



## Christopher Fox (Dec 24, 2009)

I don't want to come across like too much of a jackass Jennifer, if I haven't already, so I am done, but I am convinced I was around more than just a group of random dogs, there was definite structure, and I do not mean to demean your experiences you have with dogs and other canines, I just feel pretty strong about what I witnessed.


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

_I agree that it is most definitely tied to subordinate behavior, but I also believe it to be tied to an instinctual wiring that a wolf puppy does to get food. Maybe it is an old wives tale, but I have always understood that there was a direct relationship to the muzzle licking stimulating regurgitation in the adult wolf. I guess I do not understand. Not trying to be a smartass here, but are you suggesting that dogs, especially puppies licking the face of other dogs is nothing more than a coincidence and a learned behavior instead of a behavior left over from how a puppy wolf must act and behave within the pack to survive?
_

I'm thinking it's a hardwired behaviour.

Many years ago I shared a house with a friend and his pack/group of dogs. When I moved in with my great dane, he had a male Newf, a female shepx, their adult son and a puppy from a recent litter. The shepherd female had been a Toronto street dog for a couple of months scavenging in the restaurant garbages before he took her in. She was one of the few dogs in the city just let out to roam on her own. (Not responsible pet ownership, I know) I witnessed her bring home a belly full of food for her pup one day shortly after I moved in. The pup's greeting was not the usual gentle licking that I see from my dogs, but an insistent, pushing, hurry up, around his mother's mouth. She promptly regurgitated a pile of food for him.

Domestic dogs, well fed, well cared for, but allowed to behave and express themselves as dogs. You tell me how she 'learned' to do that for her pup? 

I think a lot of how to interact in a group or pack behaviour is learned, but often dogs have no opportunity to learn - there are a lot of socially retarded dogs out there who have no idea how to read another dog or how to behave around other dogs. That would be the owners' fault. But I also think that there are some dogs or breeds where the traits bred for are not conducive to group harmony. 

Pack or group of dogs? Kinda nit picky for me. I see my dogs as a pack, but to others they may just be a group. Is the difference just that they aren't hunting together to survive? They behave differently when they are together, whether its chasing bunnies together or they way they meet and greet a strange dog. The fact that there are three of them together changes the dynamic. 

They do have a social order and stupid games they play with each other and politness they exhibit, rudeness that gets scolded. That to me is pack behaviour. 

The most frequent 'game' seems to be blocking access. Lying somewhere, like a doorway, to prevent another dog going by. When I first moved into an apartment, my old Rottix would lie between the boxes and the couch, keeping the Lab out of the living room. When I moved the boxes to give more space so they could get by, she started lying between the couch and the chair, again, blocking the living room. Absolute and deliberate. This to me is social order. No fight, no posturing, just small things amongst themselves.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Many people have brought my bitches back to be bred because other airedales won't try to breed them. When one of my males starts to mount them they try to attack him and he soundly puts them down and tells them how it is going to be. Every one of the females upon getting up has displayed the very animated mouth licking. I don't think they are looking for a meal. Maybe there is a subtle difference in the way it is done. I have seen pups looking for a meal and it does seem to me there is more than mouth licking. Seems they have their whole face in moms mouth and tend to be rough about it. At any rate, I think we are talking about something different with the mouth licking. When a puop has half its head in your mouth with its nose down your throat is would say that indeed would cause a gag reflex. I think we have two different but seemingly similar things going on here. Leslie may have brought a new dimension to this.


----------



## Jennifer Marshall (Dec 13, 2007)

Well I'm getting tired of repeating myself  So this will be my last post in trying to communicate with all the people that don't read my posts properly....

Dogs DO conform to social/dominance hierarchies whether or not they are in a pack. Being in a pack has nothing to do with whether or not they WILL conform to and display dominance hierarchy behaviors that are very comparable to the social dominance hierarchy of wolves.

BUT being in a pack as I define a pack... a group of animals that rely upon eachother to survive... there are very noticable differences in HOW, WHEN, and WHY these behaviors are displayed.

I don't expect most of you to understand or even agree with that I am saying regarding a real pack vs a group of dogs. The reason is because I can guarantee you have never seen the behaviors I am trying to explain, you have never watched a real pack of animals(as I define a pack) interact for extended periods of time and thus have nothing to compare the behaviors you see with. Don't feel bad about it, either - I lived in the mountains like a recluse for several years and had lots and lots of time on my hands to wander around and observe things. I am young and had no responsibilities at the time and so I could do whatever I wanted which included seeking out animals to observe for hours and hours. I don't expect other people to be as nerdy or obsessive as me - I just prefer people actually read what the heck I'm typing before shaking their fingers at me.


----------



## Jennifer Marshall (Dec 13, 2007)

P.S. 

Regarding mouth licking, it is not just a regurgitation behavior. As Don says, it is a display of submission. It is a greeting, a way of saying "I am subordinate."

Why is this behavior so special to you people? There are lots of behaviors dogs exhibit as signs of submission or dominance that are similar to the way wolves communicate, including tail posture, ear set, facial/eye expression, body tensing, shouldering in, raising or lowering of the head, rolling over to expose the belly .. etc etc etc etc etc etc etc


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: The reason is because I can guarantee you have never seen the behaviors I am trying to explain, you have never watched a real pack of animals(as I define a pack) interact for extended periods of time and thus have nothing to compare the behaviors you see with. Don't feel bad about it, either - I lived in the mountains like a recluse for several years and had lots and lots of time on my hands to wander around and observe things.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure ya did. You look athletic and outdoorsy to me. I am sure you were there with your trusty rifle, and video camera hanging out with that big pack of wolves.................. riiiiiiiight. 

We have never seen them either. LOL


----------



## Kerry Foose (Feb 20, 2010)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: The reason is because I can guarantee you have never seen the behaviors I am trying to explain, you have never watched a real pack of animals(as I define a pack) interact for extended periods of time and thus have nothing to compare the behaviors you see with. Don't feel bad about it, either - I lived in the mountains like a recluse for several years and had lots and lots of time on my hands to wander around and observe things.
> 
> Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure ya did. You look athletic and outdoorsy to me. I am sure you were there with your trusty rifle, and video camera hanging out with that big pack of wolves.................. riiiiiiiight.
> 
> We have never seen them either. LOL


I think Jeff needs an intervention, or friends, because he just seems to flap his lips (or in this case his fingers) to hear his mighty self speak. 
When Jeff speaks . . . no one listens (except himself):-\"


----------



## Kerry Foose (Feb 20, 2010)

Jennifer Marshall said:


> Well I'm getting tired of repeating myself  So this will be my last post in trying to communicate with all the people that don't read my posts properly....
> 
> Dogs DO conform to social/dominance hierarchies whether or not they are in a pack. Being in a pack has nothing to do with whether or not they WILL conform to and display dominance hierarchy behaviors that are very comparable to the social dominance hierarchy of wolves.
> 
> ...


thank you for your useful and thoughtful posts. It is refreshing to read posts with actual information/theory and points of real discussion. =D>


----------



## Christopher Fox (Dec 24, 2009)

> Dogs DO conform to social/dominance hierarchies whether or not they are in a pack. Being in a pack has nothing to do with whether or not they WILL conform to and display dominance hierarchy behaviors that are very comparable to the social dominance hierarchy of wolves.


I assume myself to be one of the 'people' not reading your posts, so I'll reserve my right at a last attempt as well. In my last attempt to repeat and clarify with you, I think your definition of a pack, most definitely as it relates to wheteher or not domestic dogs can display hardwired wolf-pack behavior to be completely arbitrary - you do as well from your qualifying that definition as your opinion. My caontention is less how you define and more that dogs, if they are hardwiired for pack behavior.

I understand heirarchy. I understand heirarchy amongst a group of unfamiliar or familiar dogs. The hiearchy I referred to was amongst a *pack* of dogs. Not heirarchy amongst familiar dogs that undrerstand who can kick who's ass. My other problem is you keep writing me and my experiences off. Unless their is information I am not aware of, you have _*not*_ observed a group of dogs in an environment similar to what I experienced. Dogs that spent more time, 5 days a week, with the pack I describe, than they did their owners. This was not a group of dogs that 'knew each other'. A good portion of these dogs knew only this arraingement since their owner gotr them as puppies.

I had very cool experience of witnessing domestic dogs form a pack and exhibit pack behaviors. It is a shame you have not had that experience and merely want to tout your own, dissimilar ones as validation to discredit mine.



> Regarding mouth licking, it is not just a regurgitation behavior. As Don says, it is a display of submission. It is a greeting, a way of saying "I am subordinate."


Christopher Fox said it as well. I also said I witnessed in more in puppies, the implication of it being a hardwired behavior that has a time component attached, like suckling, most will grow out of. And its source?

Hardwired remnant wolf pack behavior, just as Don was asking for people to opine upon.

_Somewhere in the discussion someone said something about some of these traits have not been bred out completely and still manifest themselfs in domestic dogs._



> Why is this behavior so special to you people?


It satifies and supports a 'Yes' to Don's inquiry. So does Leslie's example. She is one of your 'people' too I Imagine.

Remenant wolf pack behavior exibiting itself in dog's, regardless of your arbitrary definition of what a wolf pack is no matter how many confined and stressed out domestic dogs and wolf packs you have observed.



> The reason is because I can guarantee you have never seen the behaviors I am trying to explain, you have never watched a _real pack of animals*(as I define a pack)*_


Kinda hard to lose an argument when you attach a caveat such as that, eh Jennifer? How convenient.



> Don't feel bad about it, either - I lived in the mountains like a recluse for several years and had lots and lots of time on my hands to wander around and observe things.


I just moved down to the Dirty Denver from 10,000' reclusive Rocky Mountains. I had similar experiences, can that qualify my opinion as well? And no, I don't feel bad about anything. I don't accept your authority on this, so no bubble of mine was shattered.



> think Jeff needs an intervention, or friends, because he just seems to flap his lips (or in this case his fingers) to hear his mighty self speak.
> When Jeff speaks . . . no one listens (except himself)


I think he makes a valid point. I have seen wolves, in Colorado, more than once. I don't know how the hell I would stay close enough to them to observe them, without the finacial support of a grant from the govt or college or National Geographic.

I had preceisely enough time to say, 'Holy Sh!t, those are wolves. Sweet.' And then gone. I have had more obserrvation time from a Lynx encounter and mountain lion ecounters than the few times I have seen either solo or 2-3 wolves.

Ya better observe quick, 'cause they ain't gonna let you look at them for long.


----------



## Christopher Fox (Dec 24, 2009)

> I think we have two different but seemingly similar things going on here. Leslie may have brought a new dimension to this.


I think not a new dimension, but merely about the clearest example in this thread. I guess I don't understand the distintion, mouth licking submissively not being an inherited trait, because it deos nto result either in outcome or initial intent of the licker getting a meal.

What other source could there be Don, but a hardwired behavior, an action as a result to stimuli and not conscience thought? A purely, coincidental learned behavior that so many of us have seen spontatneously erupting in dog populations that are seperated from one another? And, again, since you have experience breeding, why are you surprised it exists still, in varying strengths, if it is not something that I have ever seen anywhere as a behavior *de*selected for in breeding operations? In fact, in the grand scheme of things, I would say that it has been unintentionally selected for in many cases. How damn cute is that puppy that jumps all over you and wants to lick your face, you know, a cute little puppy giving you 'kisses'

Your average dog owner, the largest group of dog owners, eat that kind of stuff up. They think it is cute as helll, take that puppy home, breed their cute puppy store bought akc golden to the nextdoor neighbors and bingo, half dozen little golden retriever puppies for sale in the Denver Post that have a genetic disposition to face licking (among probably a multidude of other nasty genetic predispostions) all becuase the 10 yearol kid that got to pick out the puppy at the store giggled and smiled when that little puppy started licking his/her face and mommy and daddy thought that was cute too and that is the one that got to come home and hook up with the neghbor's dog.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: I think Jeff needs an intervention, or friends, because he just seems to flap his lips (or in this case his fingers) to hear his mighty self speak. 
When Jeff speaks . . . no one listens (except himself)

I find this amusing. If you have a problem with what I am saying, and this is the best you can do to as far as expressing WHY I am wrong, then it is sad at best.

I can see where people would think that I have no friends. LOL

I am a realist. People get very hurt by things that I say sometimes, but it is the fact that I am calling them on their bullshit, that is what is hurting them.

The girl is 24, maybe. She is in no physical condition to be trekking after wolves and not becoming their lunch. Maybe this hurts her feelings, but what am I to think when she puts it out there that she is observing these animals in the wild, but is really poor, and bla bla bla, and then she posts silly little endings to her sentences like : you have never watched a real pack of animals(as I define a pack)

It is nice that you have come to rescue her, but really, don't go all wonky on me and expect me to get all butthurt. Look what she wrote, and think about what an idiot you look like defending that..... without any reason WHY you think she is right.

So, yeah, I think you are an idiot.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Maybe what makes it a good topic is that anything anyone says is pure speculation from what they preceive is going on. I say much is learned behavior, others are romantics and see it as inherited from the wolves. Nobody can prove anything one way or another.....not even if they read Mech.

Here is an example of something similar to mouth licking. I brought D'ville in yesterday to start teaching house manners. Since she isn't used to the house at all, I let her check it out and told her to get on Jack's chair. It is funny, but almost all, when they tire of staying there will start slowly sliding off like they don't really mean to be getting down. Finally, they just actually fall off the chair. Where did they inherit such behavior if they have never been in a chair? How about when they want to play I got the stick and no one else does. They come up and entice the other by putting the stick down close to the disintersted one......then they look away like they are not paying attention. Where or how do they learn this stuff??? Or maybe this non survival stuff is inherited also.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Where do genetics start?

Maybe a stupid question for some but for instance, my white and black Newfoundland started to search for (with rejections) driftwood on the beach. It was early morning and we sat and watched him running around, sniffing for driftwood, picking up a piece, rejecting another, and carrying it off to the little wood behind us.

When we left, we went to see what he'd done with the wood and found a pile of driftwood. I can well imagine that Newfoundlanders used the dogs for collecting firewood. Why the "selection"? That's beyond me. He always did this though. When out in the woods with him, he'd bring back a young treet nearly or a small twig. We used to roam the woods and one day, as he came back to me with a small twig, I threw it away and gave him a large log to carry, whereupon he dropped the log and ran to search and find the twig.

The selection is not so important maybe but the wood collecting is. No wolves would have any necessity to search and collect wood. They didn't have any matches :razz:

Manfred Heyne, the greatest Shepherd, said that obedience in the GSD is genetics and for breeding, this had to be apparent.

I've known of the Papa Wolf behaviour: puts a piece of meat in the middle of the ground. Waits until one of his offspring nears it and races forward, growling until junior retreats, scaredly. Waits again, junior approaches meat, papa makes as though to stand up and junior retreats. This goes on until papa just has to raise an eyebrow and junior retreats. Voila! I see this a a behaviour. Maybe that we should copy - not slight to vehement but vehement to slight. This cannot be genetics - where would this happen with domestic dogs?

BTW Eberhard Trumler's findings were mainly based on Dingo dogs and a lot of his findings were also from Scott and Fuller, USA. I was introduced to Scott and Fuller from a UK breeder of Malinois who sent his dogs to Holland to be trained sometimes. His name was Ian and he is a huge man but can't remember his surname.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Ian Walshaw is the Malinois Breeder "Briarquest", but can't find his website. Pity.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

The type of behaviour Don refers to with the stick and enticing the disinterested one, I've experienced this type of behaviour in most of my dogs but particularly the jack russells. I had one gsd who would take this behaviour to another level, he would take the dog's toy and parade with it for awhile in front of him to no avail. He would then try dropping it close by the other dog and then feign disinterest, then when that didn't work he paraded with the toy (a large hard rubber dumbbell) and drop it right on top of the other dog's head....he then got his prize lol

I had always put that down to personality, so probably in part due to genetics, dogs seeking out crack and interaction with each other and something to squabble over and win.



And Gillian, I believe Ian Walshaw is no longer into breeding the mals that's probably the reason his website is down now.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Not to mix this up, but I sat and watched Hunter as a 10 mo old roughly, parade a piece of canvass up and down a fence line adjoining the yard with another young dog in it. He would bounce around and fling the canvass in the air until he had the others attention. What followed fascinated me. He took that piece of canvass and laid down where there was a partial hole under the wire fence and pushed the canvass through with his foot. He layed there until the other dog reached for it and quickly jerked it back out of reach and proceeded to parade up and down the fence with it. This went on for some time. It couldn't be learned behavior. It wasn't genetic I am sure. It had to be a level of reasoning. Enter reasoning into the equation. How much can a dog actually figure out on his own that is neither learned nor genetic in origin??


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Not to mix this up, but I sat and watched Hunter as a 10 mo old roughly, parade a piece of canvass up and down a fence line adjoining the yard with another young dog in it. He would bounce around and fling the canvass in the air until he had the others attention. What followed fascinated me. He took that piece of canvass and laid down where there was a partial hole under the wire fence and pushed the canvass through with his foot. He layed there until the other dog reached for it and quickly jerked it back out of reach and proceeded to parade up and down the fence with it. This went on for some time. It couldn't be learned behavior. It wasn't genetic I am sure. It had to be a level of reasoning. Enter reasoning into the equation. How much can a dog actually figure out on his own that is neither learned nor genetic in origin??


How about sense of humour? Or is that too anthropomorphic a concept to apply to dogs? 

I can't think of a survival application for the 'I've got something you can't have game', so it has to be just, plain fun, unless someone else can suggest something else.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

_Enter reasoning into the equation. How much can a dog actually figure out on his own that is neither learned nor genetic in origin??_

Ha ha, now how on earth could one prove or substantiate this at this point in time ? First off, how would you prove/substantiate that a dog figuring something out was not of genetic origin ? The conversation will be a little out of my depth should it progress here, due to my experience you get some smart dogs and I reckon smart and brains are largely inherited. I'm one of nine and we all have brains bar one lol .


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Actually, I don't think alot of anything here can be proven. We could just pass it of as all genetic based on how smart an individual dog is. There has been a number of studies, so I have been told about problem solving, which is reasoning, and that ability to problem solve is largely attributed to the environment. A lot of studies, and conclusions arrived at, with the belief that dogs don't reason. I see them reasoning all the time so where does that leave all those studies?

One of the things people disliked about my dogs was that if they corrected them in a fashion they didn't think was fair, they would destroy something belonging to that particualr person and bring it and drop it at their feet and then blow them off for the next week. I have had it happen on numerouis occassions and hitting them has cost me dearly in very expensive Resistols, cloths, perscription glasses, etc. Where would they possibly learn such behavior? It could be genetic as far as brains enough to get even. I think they reason a lot more than we give them credit for yet people think if they get down to their level and act like a dog that they don't know the difference. My dogs don't try to bite me if I whack them across the top of the head for something, they steal something of mine and destroy it. Biting would be more instinct so what is this?


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

I wouldn't disagree with anything you said in that post Don, I reckon many dogs are reasoning all the time, some more than others. I think the more scope you give a dog to reason...the better it will become at it.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

_It is funny, but almost all, when they tire of staying there will start slowly sliding off like they don't really mean to be getting down. Finally, they just actually fall off the chair. Where did they inherit such behavior if they have never been in a chair?_ 

Got my own theories on that one Don....you sure it isn't a learned behaviour ? :-D


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Here is a thought. Woves natural fear of man. Is it instinct or learned behavior? If one of them dies every time they see a human, they learn humans are very dangerous. What about when they are protected....do they learn they have nothing to fear? I don't know about wolves but bears and mt. lions do. Bear hunting was stopped for two years here some years back. Late 80's I think. By the end of the second year the re-instated bear hunting because of the extensive property damage. Property damage as in breaking into homes, cabins, trailers and destroying them. Sounds like fear is a learned behavior rather than instictual. Another example would be deer. You always see more deer just alking around talking to someone than you do when sneaking around acting like a predator during hunting season. The animals have learned to fear certain behaviors over others rather than the species.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

maggie fraser said:


> _It is funny, but almost all, when they tire of staying there will start slowly sliding off like they don't really mean to be getting down. Finally, they just actually fall off the chair. Where did they inherit such behavior if they have never been in a chair?_
> 
> Got my own theories on that one Don....you sure it isn't a learned behaviour ? :-D


No, I am not sure....but where would they learn it? It is like teaching a dog to down stay and watching them, without being obvious you are watching, ever so slowly creep out of position until they get so far away that they just stand up like there is nothing to it. It is like when they slowly position themselves to fall off the chair. It is like in their mind, they didn't actuall and purposely get down so it is ok. They play innocent. They actually treat us like we are as stupid as many assume them to be. Theyn play us 24 hrs a day. They even have trainers acting like them to better communicate withn them. No wonder dogs have such a highly developed sense of humor.


----------



## Kerry Foose (Feb 20, 2010)

So, yeah, I think you are an idiot.[/QUOTE]



This post just confirms my thoughts on you.
I won't bother to dignify it with any response other than that I will continue to read this and all other posts that are thoughtfully and respectfully submitted. As per usual I will continue to ignore your posts as they merely serve to be rude and ignorant and have little to no value in the current discussion.
To the rest of you, thank you for your thoughts and ideas on this and other threads.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Don, you're not getting out of that last one so easily and staying fashionable .

Take the polar bear for example, as I understand it he has no innate fear of man, he's top of the food chain in his place. Dogs study you of that I have no doubt, now maybe De ville may not have been de only one to study what goes on  but I get what you're saying, I really do. So, I think the genetics go along with the environment, and I think it can be very difficult to get a decent evaluation when one isolates the two.

I think that's what they call adaptive radiation, no ?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

maggie fraser said:


> Don, you're not getting out of that last one so easily and staying fashionable .
> 
> Take the polar bear for example, as I understand it he has no innate fear of man, he's top of the food chain in his place. Dogs study you of that I have no doubt, now maybe De ville may not have been de only one to study what goes on  but I get what you're saying, I really do. So, I think the genetics go along with the environment, and I think it can be very difficult to get a decent evaluation when one isolates the two.
> 
> I think that's what they call adaptive radiation, no ?


Adaptive radiation??? You lost me. I haven't it a clue as to what they call it. I still haven't read a book on dogs so what they call things these days doesn't mean a lot. Adaptive radiation sounds more like something to do with cancer or physics.

An intersting thing to observe would be how well the learning patterns and problem solving of todays crate raised dogs compare to dogs raised in an environment conducive to learning. Maybe the instinctive thing could be better isolated with dogs raised in crates that haven't had the opportunity to really learn to function properly.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Adaptive radiation??? You lost me. I haven't it a clue as to what they call it. I still haven't read a book on dogs so what they call things these days doesn't mean a lot. Adaptive radiation sounds more like something to do with cancer or physics.
> 
> An intersting thing to observe would be how well the learning patterns and problem solving of todays crate raised dogs compare to dogs raised in an environment conducive to learning. Maybe the instinctive thing could be better isolated with dogs raised in crates that haven't had the opportunity to really learn to function properly.


 
As far as I'm concerned, I think you've just popped in a nutshell but I'd go one further, it's not just the crate but the mentality.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

maggie fraser said:


> As far as I'm concerned, I think you've just popped in a nutshell but I'd go one further, it's not just the crate but the mentality.


Not very subtle huh?


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Not very subtle huh?


Being the very pinnacle of subtlety myself, I can't but disagree !

Maybe a couple of the academics on here will chime in and bang us to rights.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Not to get off topic Maggie, but, Deville has been in Jack's recliner for about an hour and a half without getting down. I am not even in the room. I am in the bedroom on the computer. This is her second time in the house. After she gets used to coming in and chilling in one place.....a week or so, I will start letting her have the freedom in that one room which is basically wide open to the kitchen and has the trash bag in it. This way she gets to learn to stay off the counters and out of the trash all at the same time. Looks like she is going to be a real easy dog for the house. By confining them to one spot, it virtually eliminates the use of a crate for poddy training also.


----------



## Maureen A Osborn (Feb 12, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Here is a thought. Woves natural fear of man. Is it instinct or learned behavior? If one of them dies every time they see a human, they learn humans are very dangerous. What about when they are protected....do they learn they have nothing to fear? I don't know about wolves but bears and mt. lions do. Bear hunting was stopped for two years here some years back. Late 80's I think. By the end of the second year the re-instated bear hunting because of the extensive property damage. Property damage as in breaking into homes, cabins, trailers and destroying them. Sounds like fear is a learned behavior rather than instictual. Another example would be deer. You always see more deer just alking around talking to someone than you do when sneaking around acting like a predator during hunting season. The animals have learned to fear certain behaviors over others rather than the species.


 Don, I am thinking that it is instinctual, and here is back up from my trainer who is in fact been training a wolf for some time now...please see link

http://selfhelpdogtraining.com/wordpress/?p=124


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Wolves have a natural fear/suspicion of ANYONE/ANYTHING new in their territory. It's natural preservation plain and simple. 
We've bred that out of dogs......for the most part. 
What we call a fear biter in our dogs is probably more natural then the outwardly confident dog that fears nothing and will boldly go up to anything new in it's yard.
With that said we can add "Bred for" to genetics and learned behavior.
Natural selection breeds for/eliminates the very brave/forward (by human standards) animal in most species.


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

I get the impression that a number of the respondents to this thread are arbitrarily arguing with Don because they can't or won't understand that he is discussing the problem of keeping a large group of working dogs in stable, long term groups. He isn't talking about a situation like my own where I have three highly disimilar dogs that live with the people here at least as much if not more than they live with each other. Sure, my poodle behaves submissively towards the border collie and the GSD: her mamma didn't raise no dummies! Sure, the GSD young male ran along after the mature border collie for his first year and is not doing so as much now that he is starting his second year.Of course all of that is instinctual and can be attributed to innate drives, but to claim that I have a true pack here seems misuse the term pack to the point of meaninglessness.

If we want to get all academic and condescending here, then lets consider set and setting; The term set refers to the intrinsic qualities of dogs that seem to appear independent external qualities. "Setting" of course refers to social variables, physical environment in particular and probably some other stuff that I can't come up with atm. As most people know, the trend in behavioral science has been to find that an enormous number of behaviors that we once thought to be derived solely from set are actually derived from a complex and necessary interaction between set and setting, so that while even such a basic behavior like newborn suckling is heavily influenced by maternal licking and nuzzling.

So, while it is kind of silly and frivolous to argue over what a true pack is, it makes sense to consider how closely the setting for Don's packs resemble that of wild dogs or wolves. Don provides an environment for his packs that has much more in common with those of wild canines than with the circimstances of my group of pet/working dogs.To me, the situation of dog groups like mine has very little to do with pack structure and when I run into someone who wants to argue that they be managed like a pack, my first thought is that the person has an investment in training that bases itself entirely on outdated theories of of animal behavior( particularly old school dominance theories).

It boggles my mind that anyone who has any serious interaction with dogs could be anything other than impressed and pleased and in fact grateful to Don for discussing his kennel structure and offering some great ideas on how to keep groups of high maintenance working dogs. I guess the problem is that it's only too possible these days for people to see themselves as accomplished trainers, handlers etc etc without having ever bred a litter or having kept more than four or five flyball dogs.

As for crates, you gotta love them for their capacity to dial down craziness in a pinch, but like every form of management I've ever come across crates fail to be a fundamental long lasting solution.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Wolves have a natural fear/suspicion of ANYONE/ANYTHING new in their territory. It's natural preservation plain and simple.


You sure about that Bob? I was watching a National Geographic show last night And noticed that even in Africa, non of the animals seem to have what you call "a natural fear" of man. They keep an eye on them sure but they don't even get up and hide. Seems mighty strange that the only animal that mother nature gave this extreme natural fear to was wolves. One has to wonder how they were almost driven into extinction by hunters in the last couple of centuries. Possibly the persecution made them what they are. Curious, did Mech decide they had a"natural fear/suspicion of ANYONE/ANYTHING new in their territory? He is the origin of much of what is known about wolves.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Not to get off topic Maggie, but, Deville has been in Jack's recliner for about an hour and a half without getting down. I am not even in the room. I am in the bedroom on the computer. This is her second time in the house. After she gets used to coming in and chilling in one place.....a week or so, I will start letting her have the freedom in that one room which is basically wide open to the kitchen and has the trash bag in it. This way she gets to learn to stay off the counters and out of the trash all at the same time. Looks like she is going to be a real easy dog for the house. By confining them to one spot, it virtually eliminates the use of a crate for poddy training also.


Do you have Blackjack in the house at the same time, or only one at a time if/when house training ?

I think an older or more experienced dog in there who knows the ropes, will accelerate the learning process for her although I don't expect her to take long at all as you surmise.

As for her sliding off the recliner...maybe you should postion a couple of cushions on there to give her a little more support, it can get tiring lounging but not relaxing in one position for any length of time I suspect....you ever tried it before ?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Maggie,

I just finished another Alexander McCall Smith series. Reading your posts always takes me back to thinking of Isabel Dalhousie and her philosophical humor. 

Terrasita


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Maggie, have you heard the joke about the Scottish goalkeeper that attempted to commit suicide by throwing himself in front of a bus ?

It went under him.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Maggie, have you heard the joke about the Scottish goalkeeper that attempted to commit suicide by throwing himself in front of a bus ?
> 
> It went under him.


What Scottish goalkeeper would that be then...didn't know we had a "goalkeeper" : )


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Maggie,
> 
> I just finished another Alexander McCall Smith series. Reading your posts always takes me back to thinking of Isabel Dalhousie and her philosophical humor.
> 
> Terrasita


 
I'm not familiar with those authors Terrasita, they sound Irish ish and Scottish names....what do they write about ?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> You sure about that Bob? I was watching a National Geographic show last night And noticed that even in Africa, non of the animals seem to have what you call "a natural fear" of man. They keep an eye on them sure but they don't even get up and hide. Seems mighty strange that the only animal that mother nature gave this extreme natural fear to was wolves. One has to wonder how they were almost driven into extinction by hunters in the last couple of centuries. Possibly the persecution made them what they are. Curious, did Mech decide they had a"natural fear/suspicion of ANYONE/ANYTHING new in their territory? He is the origin of much of what is known about wolves.


Don, in Africa the animals are so used to seeing people that it's no big deal to them. 
With some of those shows you occasionally see a panoramic view with a dozen or so camera trucks and tourist busses in the background.
The one guy regularly has a cheetah jump on top of his van. Seems she's found out it makes a great viewing point. 
One of the first books I remember reading about wolves was one by Lois Chrisler (sp).
She raised wolves by hand in order to return them to the wild. She often commented that something as simple as a new box in the yard would create a great deal of suspicion. Most of the wolves had a very hard time of it. A few would cautiously investigate and SOME of the others would follow. Some never adjusted to the newness. These "investigators" were also the ones that were more apt to connect with the humans.
SOME can adjust and some can't. 
That's no different then the many feral dogs that hang around in small towns and villages around the world. Nobody owns them but they themselves had 'selectively" bred to the dogs that "hang around".
With dogs we've purposely, selectively bred for the "investigators". The ones that go forward. 
Would you breed to a dog that shied away when it saw a hog? 
Wether it's the wolf at the campfire theory or the Coppinger theory of the wolf that hangs at the trash dump to explain the origin of dogs, I'm doubtful if early man selected the fearful wolves to breed nor the very aggressive ones. Those pups probably became part of the evening meal. 
The fearful dogs still pop up in breeding as do the forward "investigators". It's our selection process that gives us the dogs we want. Not all want the same thing and not all have a clue even what they want but WE have selected from nature and expanded on the traits we like. Sometimes that "trait" is nothing more then the money offered for the pup.
The bird dog has been selectively bred to inhibit it's stalking till it has become a "on point". The terriers have been selected from the top of that pile of "forward investigators".
On down the line. 
All of our selections were/are based on what the wolf/early dog offered us. We just enhanced it or screwd it up depending on our individual wants and needs . You and I want a good hunting terrier. Some want nothing more then money in hand but it all comes down to selection of what was/is offered.
If you want to show an example of lack of natural fear I would have chosed the Galopagos island critters instead of Africa. ;-)


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

What is it anumals fear Bob? The prey animals like wildebeast don't even get excited when a pack of lions walks by them to the water hole..,..as long as they walk in a non predatory fashion. As soon as lions act like predators. the prey animals run for their life. Seems to me if they feared the animal, just the sight of a lion would send them into a panioc. That is not they way it happens. It is the body lanquage they fear.

Thank you Bob.You bring up a good point in the fact that animals in Africa show no fear of people because they see so many people on these tourist vehicles. What you are saying is that they "learned" they meant no harm from body language. Conversly, if a tourist shot one of them every time they came around, they would indeed learn"to fear" people. It appears to me to be a learned behavior both ways.

Your example of something as simple as putting a box in a wolf compound creating suspicion . Is fear the same as suspicion? I have seen many dogs that, when going through a doorway, will jump halfway across the kithen if a broom that has always been on one side of the door is moved to the otherside. That isn't fear. That is suspicion coming from survival instincts. More of a primitive natured dog that hasn't had survival bred out. IMO anyway.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

I think that is quite an interesting take on the fear v suspicion, wolves have historically been persecuted by man for thousands of years largely due to when man started keeping livestock and growing crops...it seems logical then that fear is a learned behaviour. It seems prior to this time, no-one is quite sure of quite what the relationship between man and wolf was, but with the giving up of hunter gatherer status, wolf became an agricultural pest and hence was persecuted, therefore required fear for his very survival.

So, what does the fear v suspicion have to do with the discussion, it seems wolves have required fear of man for their survival.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Good lord. Now you are debating the definition of fear. Broom drops, dog runs= flight. It startled him. Now the true test is whether after he startled he went up to it. If not, fear or suspicion. I drop pans in ex pens or outside of it. Any o f the puppies that don't immediately run up to it to check it out or option #2 ignore it, are rejected from consideration. 100 posts ago on page 7, post 61 Don provided examples of genetic fear from his own breedings, including the level of frequency it reproduced. There is the debate of whether or not fear can be overcome by conditioning which is why Don doesn't handle his puppies before week #4. Whether or not it is overcome doesn't negate the fact that it was originally there. 

Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I supplied no such examples T. I am sure you remember where you dug up the thread concerning spooky pup. Go back to it and later in that discussion I corrected the use of the term spooky and replaced it with feral because it was a far more accurate term. Besides, if you believe a dog has to like you to be confident, we are definitely on a different wave length. You really figue spooky(feral) bred to spooky(feral) will consistently produce rock solid pups if it is truly genetic???. The thread you keep going back to was concerning other reasons for some of the pups being more feral acting so the small piece you pulled up is well out of context.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don,

What is the difference between feral and spooky. These are supposed to be domesticated dogs, not wild animals. As for confident, you have your own definition. Whatever it is [feral or spooky], I think you would agree with those pups, it wasn't learned and based on your description, it couldn't be masked, counterconditioned or changed otherwise. 

Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Don,
> 
> What is the difference between feral and spooky. These are supposed to be domesticated dogs, not wild animals. As for confident, you have your own definition. Whatever it is [feral or spooky], I think you would agree with those pups, it wasn't learned and based on your description, it couldn't be masked, counterconditioned or changed otherwise.
> 
> Terrasita


How do you know if it can't be counter conditioned. Since you seem to remember everything I have witten, maybe you remember the countless times I have said that those are the pups that need the handling, not the solid ones. I have whole litters that wouldn't let me touch them but I can still teach them to sit, lay, and get in their pens without ever touching them. They follow me around the yard one step behind but don't want to bet touched. That is how they grow up without handling. 

I did ask for your opinion as to why I can move the girls from yard to yard withy no problems.


Also I would appreciate some comment or explanation as to how you figure the spooky is genetic based on what I mentioned in the last post....since you did bring it up.

Previously you asked me to give you a complete breakdown of what each family unit consisted of so you could better access what and why they do certain things. T you don't even know why I can move the girls at randon within all the family units so what do you really think you can tell me based on knowing what the makeup of each family unit is? Your not going to know unless you have seen it.

Two can play this game T.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

maggie fraser said:


> I think that is quite an interesting take on the fear v suspicion, wolves have historically been persecuted by man for thousands of years largely due to when man started keeping livestock and growing crops...it seems logical then that fear is a learned behaviour. It seems prior to this time, no-one is quite sure of quite what the relationship between man and wolf was, but with the giving up of hunter gatherer status, wolf became an agricultural pest and hence was persecuted, therefore required fear for his very survival.
> 
> So, what does the fear v suspicion have to do with the discussion, it seems wolves have required fear of man for their survival.


Sobject like this go from here to ther largely through necessity I think. Pack structure in dag being learned vs instinct. Learned behavior vs instinct is just so debateable in scope that it is hard to set definite parameters.

Picture walking down a busyn sidewalk with a number of people comiong towards you. Some are talking to each other, some have Ipods and are singing to themselves, etc. One is coldly staring right at you making eye contact and is moving to where he is in front of you. Your not afraid of people but body laguage as instilled fear in you unless you have your hand wrapped around and HK Compact .45. Animals read body language. We are animals and read it also. You wouldn't have feared that one person had he not had the body language. Even something that instills a degree of suspicion rather than fear is good, That suspicion is why you wrapped your hand around the grip of that HK.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> How do you know if it can't be counter conditioned. Since you seem to remember everything I have witten, maybe you remember the countless times I have said that those are the pups that need the handling, not the solid ones. I have whole litters that wouldn't let me touch them but I can still teach them to sit, lay, and get in their pens without ever touching them. They follow me around the yard one step behind but don't want to bet touched. That is how they grow up without handling.
> 
> *Perhaps its the language you use "spooky as march hares" and can't touch them unless you corner them. Now we have more information---its just a matter of touching them. I'm even more interested in how you train them to sit, lay and get into their pens if you can't touch them or only get so close to them. But they could also model th other dogs especially if there was food or reward involved. As for the counterconditioning. When you mentioned these dogs you stated they were breeding adults. You spoke in the present in terms of them being spooky and you weren't able to touch them. One with some work you described as "marginal." If they are still touch sensitive at adulthood, it wasn't counterconditioned. *
> 
> ...


*The game is yours Don, not mine. As I've said before, I've been trying to figure out just where you are coming from but maybe its just verbal volleyball which makes understanding it impossible.*

*T*


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Ok, so maybe you get the social thing. So ****ing what ? LOL It doesn't really matter.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

T, I have neither the inclination nor the time for these eternal games of verbal volleyball on every thread we are both on. It is like your sole pupose is to is to find something where I may have contradicted myself. Give it a rest. 

I am a breeder first and foremost. What "specific" female might that suggest to you that I put in a yard with a specific male???? Possibly the specific females would be the ones I want to breed to that specific male?? :idea: :idea: :idea: 

I just don't have the time to break everything down into minutia for you. . And just for the record, your friends dogs, about 18 running loose together is nothing like how these dogs are raised. Years ago, they were like your friends and it was a war zone which is what led to raising them the way they are now. 

There are feral acting pups that need handling, There are solid pups that grow to be feral as adults, most likely because they prefer the company of the the other dogs, which I think you may know as pack bonded. They get this way because of me more than likely. I can be a bit abraisive with the dogs also when they are misbehaving. The result is they may avoid me because they have the room to do so. With the older dogs that were solid as pups and pack bonded, have no problem breeding them. The feral acting pups, I give all the attention and sell them as pets. Now maybe we can get back to behaviors and instincts in social groups.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Terrasita - 1 Don - 0 

haha


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: Terrasita - 1 Don - 0 

haha


Based on what ?? Typing in bold letters ??


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: Terrasita - 1 Don - 0
> 
> haha
> 
> ...


LOL! Srsly. A bolded wall o' text constitutes a DQ in my book.

If I get a couple of hours later on imma read that beast and respond. Meanwhile off to Pilates.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Dang, I leave early for the valley to pick up 200lbs of chicken for the dogs and come back to.....Maggies very obvious humor. LOL

T, I hope the last post I made, helped connect all the dots you have been unable to connect. If not, read it as many times as needed until you figure it out. It is all there.

Question T, how does your good friend contol breeding with 18 intact dogs running loose? Very obviously not the way I do it. And, why do you keep emphasizing that hers and yours are intact??? Is it supposed to be something special? Mine are all intact also. Big deal. Possibly if you explained in more detail, I could fit these few pieces together to make sense. :wink:


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

You don't really want to continue this do you? Don, I've spoken very little about my dogs so there is no emphasis. My 14 year old male bouvier has been king for all of his life. Although my male corgi Rory now deceased would have challenged that to the death if we would have allowed it. When Teva died two years ago, I noticed my bouv bitch Khira correcting Thor and he basically ignored her. She was obviously assuming the role. I do think she has somewhat risen with his aging the last six months. Its little things like he won't come in the kitchen if Khira is in there while I'm cooking--sometimes. The term used to describe bouviers is "equable." With Thor not really protesting, Khira softened toward him. At times she licks his ears and doesn't object to him lying on my side of the bedroom. They have become a pair, somewhat. The interesting thing about Khira is that she is dog dominant and came into the house as a 7 week old thinking she could take my two GSD bitches. Thor wouldn't allow it though and intervened on their behalf which was totally out of character for him. Before Khira, Thor would grumble at the puppies until they were about 5 months old. Then he would play with them. Not so with Khira. He never yielded to her and never played with her. Unlike the other dogs, he could stop Khira dead in her tracks at a distance of 50 feet, just standing. There was even one incident where he walked over and purported to take his food. You would think she as the puppy should have yielded. Nope. She tagged him and it was on. Hubby and I both jumped up yelling platz and that ended it. Together as a threesome they held Khira in place until she was about two. At two, she challenged Teva, but both of them would yield to me and I shut that down. I was the equalizer between those two. They coexisted until Teva died. The two other males in the house [corgi and BC] wouldn't dare challenge Thor. I believe that the neutered population is different in terms of dog tolerance and I think they can remain puppy like especially if neutered before Age 1 year. Nothing scientific--just an observation. As for my friend, she knows her bitches and they all cycle within a week of one another. For those few weeks, she separates males from females. As I said, this is a family of dogs with several generations from Age 16 down. There is no squabbling or scrambling within the base familial strain. She hasn't done the tight inbreedings that you have done but there is consistent line breeding. As I said before, breeding in a different strain can cause discension as far as all getting along as a cohesive pack. She has had a bitch out of a certain line that was interesting. She was in season and my friend took her to Michigan so her husband wouldn't have to deal with her. By the time she got to Michigan, she would have sworn that the bitch had gone feral. She acted as if she didn't even know her. She called me and asked, what now??? Obviously, my friend wasn't a part of her life/pack as the dog saw it. Taken away from her familiar surroundings and her dog pack, she checked out. Solution: take her away from the dogs until you think she is actually bonded to the person. This improved her alot. Is she mentally sound??? No. Did she breed her???? No. Part of the issue with this strain that she bred into is that they are not what I call people sound and you have to work with them ALOT to condition them to being around people reliably. 

One of the new fangled studies out there on dog dominance was with a neutered male population and the premise of the study was that they couldn't determine a dominance heirarchy. I'm not surprised. One thing that doesn't occur with dogs living outdoors as packs or in the laboratory setting is the competition for the handler/owner. If I'm not careful I can cause an upheavel just by who I select as the working dog for the day or even the order. That can raise the status of the dog amongst the dogs. My dogs don't care who eats first, goes out, etc. They do care who does the work first. It especially comes up when I have to retire the older alpha dog and take the young scrubs. With Asta, she would actually grab Rory's muzzle when he came in the door. Remarkably, he understood. It was her way of saying, "I'm still it." He'd let her say it and keep moving. Knowing Rory, that was always amazing to me. 

Jennifer raised the issue of defining pack and dogs dependence on another for survival. Again we have the issue of the dog's point of view. Igrid and Tasha mutually coexisted and basically ignored each other as far as I could tell. However, if you watched them, one would wait for the other to go out into the yard together. I would have said that Ingrid lived for me only. But when Tasha died Ingrid was obviously depressed. I was in the ER with her one night and all they could tell me was that all of her organs were enlarged. She'd spend the day sorta just hangin out on the futon. She eventually worked her way out of it. To me, Ingrid had an attachment and dependence on Tasha. Watch dogs patrol their yard perimeters. They are depending on what another. My friend's pack actually had an alert system. If the alpha male barked, they went on immediate alert and guard. If others barked, they just ignored it. 


As for the dot connecting, I've been curious in terms of what traits you selected for with hunting in mind and in the past asked what training was involved and the frequency of reproducing those traits with your breeding program. Your posts throughout this thread and the last one have connected the dots beautifully in terms of what you seem to be striving for striving for.

Terrasita


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

So, Don is trying to breed a good working Airedale by selecting for a very primitive dog while holding on to as many traits as he can from modern airedale breeding stock. 

He manages his groups by trying to mimic conditions in wild canine packs while trying to keep these landsharks securely. His approach is very similar to the traditional methods of terriermen in the UK. It's only here in North America that working terriers are managed in individual runs and crates.

Terriers and to a lesser extent working border collies work in such a way that their primitive (or in the perjorative) feral qualities are absolutely necessary to their usefulness. I still don't see what there is to argue about here. Given his goals, it makes sense to me that Don would handle his pups as little as possible. He's not trying to breed a biscuit eater, he's trying to breed a fierce beast that will hunt and hold some of the most formidable prey out there.

As for picking puppies with a reasonable degree of confidence that they will kick ass, I think the best way is to pick the one who acts most like an ancestor that you know is good when it was a puppy. . I don't think it hurts to pick the one that looks like and feels like an ancestor you know is good. Repeat breedings ftw... Personally if I had the space I'd pick by keeping a couple of the better ones and wait til they start to work and pick the best then. Picking puppies is a dreadful crapshoot. 


Anyway, three cheers for Don and his quest to bring back the working Airedale: It's got to be a crazy hard thing to do, and I certainly wouldn't have the balls for it, but if he does I say *BOOYAH! **

*Bolded just for U Jeff!


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Margaret said; _He manages his groups by trying to mimic conditions in wild canine packs while trying to keep these landsharks securely. His approach is very similar to the traditional methods of terriermen in the UK. It's only here in North America that working terriers are managed in runs and crates._

That's quite an interesting point there, I hadn't thought so much about that. I bought my jack russells from traditional terrier men, the last pup I bought the breeder had been breeding them for most of his life I had gathered, and was around 75 odd years old.

My pup had not been handled much if at all when I got him, and I remember how my dog as a pup didn't care for much handling. As he grew older he liked to sit close beside me but did not like any physical contact until he was around three yrs old. He's a very confident and highly sociable dog....interestingly whilst visiting another traditional terrier man last year, I had noticed he kept his dogs in much the same manner. Big yards with several dogs in them...boys together, and bitches together, none mixed, and is not an unusual manner of keeping breeding working terriers here I think.

Although I am not so well versed of breeding practice in general, I don't think I've ever come across crates being used much in breeding practice, and those that do are referred to as puppy farmers, puppy mills I think you call them over there.


----------



## Kerry Foose (Feb 20, 2010)

Margaret Wheeler said:


> So, Don is trying to breed a good working Airedale by selecting for a very primitive dog while holding on to as many traits as he can from modern airedale breeding stock.
> 
> Given his goals, it makes sense to me that Don would handle his pups as little as possible. He's not trying to breed a biscuit eater, he's trying to breed a fierce beast that will hunt and hold some of the most formidable prey out there.
> 
> ...


_Don, I am curious about something...is there a great demand for your working dogs? Do you have a market for your dogs? Do you start them and sell young dogs? Do you allow a perspective buyer to select their own pup or do you pick? Do you cull or sell for pets those that do not make the cut? 
I am not trying to be a jerk, I am honestly just trying to understand your breeding program objectives. Wow,that is alot of chicken by the way, lol I don't think I would want your feed or vet bills :-&
._


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Kerry Foose said:


> _Don, I am curious about something...is there a great demand for your working dogs? Do you have a market for your dogs? Do you start them and sell young dogs? Do you allow a perspective buyer to select their own pup or do you pick? Do you cull or sell for pets those that do not make the cut?
> I am not trying to be a jerk, I am honestly just trying to understand your breeding program objectives. Wow,that is alot of chicken by the way, lol I don't think I would want your feed or vet bills :-&
> ._


There is more and more demand as time goes on Kerry. Many people want pets and approach me with "do you have any pet quality dogs?" I say "Why yes I do and they are the same price as the others." That ends the conversation many times because what they are really say is they don't want to pay the price for a good dog. I pick all of the working stock because I know what I am looking at more so than the buyer that have never seen the pups. I let pet folks pick their own many times but I do tell them certain ones are out simply because they are the worker and they are just to much dog. Take my dog BlackJack. I wanted a dog for the house and to ride with me since I have had either in years. I watched the pups and took the next to the last pick. It has worked out great. Had I wanted a real driven dog I would have taken Cowboy. There is a story that goes with Cowboy. A Koehler trainer called from MD and said he wanted a dog that was capable of posting perfect, or near perfect scores in obedience. I told him I had some two week old on the ground but wouldn't know if I had the right dog until they were four weeks olds. He called back at a later date and I told him I had the dog he is looking for. He flew out and picked him up. The dog is almost 15 mo and he said he can easily put a UD title on him by two but he is a duck hunter and the dog is going to be cold water retrieveing this winter and he will title him when hunting season is over. He also said the dog would drive most people nuts because he just didn't slow down.....but he loves that.

Mother nature does the culling in the first 4 weeks. and I haven't had a vet bill, outside of health certs for shipping in years. I keep them as far from the vet as possible. I wish you had my feed bill though. They get 300 lbs of chicken a mo....or 10 lbs a day.

My breeding objective are healthy dogs that get the job done against the odds and preserving the social dominance of the males. They are the coolest dogs to work with and are basically very predictable compared to other dogs. The dogs have to have all the natural instincts and desires to hunt fur game without training.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

_My breeding objective are healthy dogs that get the job done against the odds and preserving the social dominance of the males. They are the coolest dogs to work with and are basically very predictable compared to other dogs. The dogs have to have all the natural instincts and desires to hunt fur game without training._

Preserving the social dominance of the males ???

Don, why would you want to specifically do that in a pack hunting dog ? I don't get that, I've read a whole heap of your posts and I still don't get that. What precisely do you mean by that ? and,...getting a job done against the odds until the guy gets to them with the rifle ? I don't get that either.

Do you think it gives your dogs the edge...social dominance..for hunting?

I'm wondering if you are a fantasist and I am reading a myth in the creation, it's not the first time I've wondered that.

By the way, I thought Kerry asked you about your 'working' dogs so why did you respond about pet quality dogs?

I apologise for my abrupt manner....but I'm thinking you're full of nonsense sometimes.


----------



## Kerry Foose (Feb 20, 2010)

That is good to know that there are still folks out there who seek good quality because they need the dog to perform in a real way. Kudos to you in your dedication to your breed. I am not in the hunting world so I was just curious how much demand there was for field dogs over trial/sport/pet prospects. 
I am finding there seems to be a lack of need in working dogs. Not too many folks out there like myself are looking for good stock dogs to do a real job.
I have similar future goals with my dogs. I have Pembroke Welsh corgis and I actually use my dogs every day and don't know what I would do without such good help. I would like to provide good quality corgi stock dogs to those who need them. Right now you can pick up a pet or show/sport corgi anywhere, but not many that are specifically bred to work stock anymore. 
I appreciate a good dog, with a sound temperament, good structure and the heart to instinctively want to do their job. So I get what you mean about most that wouldn't want a dog like Cowboy. He too would have been my dream in selecting a working dog. How many dogs like Cowboy do you place yearly versus pets?
And by the way, you can keep your feed bill lol! Why do you think I keep the short leggers haha:wink:
....But then again I too have a sarplaninac LGD who eats like a pig and she is only one!


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

maggie fraser said:


> _My breeding objective are healthy dogs that get the job done against the odds and preserving the social dominance of the males. They are the coolest dogs to work with and are basically very predictable compared to other dogs. The dogs have to have all the natural instincts and desires to hunt fur game without training._
> 
> Preserving the social dominance of the males ???
> 
> ...


I kinda think you *do* owe him an apology.

What's nonsensical in his post? He likes to breed males that have strong domineering personalities. He believes that it helps to keep the peace in his kennel because he's seen evidence that a strong dominant male is the key to a stable group of bitches.

He wants super tough independent dogs that will hold and work dangerous quarry until he can get to them. (Hogs are hunted in brush and over rough ground with the hunter following along on horseback and if need be on foot). 

He's talking about pet quality dogs because if he doesn't want to cull he has to sell to pet owners. I'm guessing that there isn't a huge market for badass working airedales.

In other words to my way of thinking he's describing the methods of a guy who wants to breed working dogs from a breed that has been pretty much turned into a bunch of useless biscuit eaters by the fancy.

Kerry is asking the questions that "nice" dog people like to ask to embarrass breeders who don't necessarily breed and keep their dogs in what she thinks the politically correct fashion.Here's your clues: "market" "pets" and most damning of all "cull." That's why she's all "I don't mean to be a jerk," because that's exactly what she is being.

If you gals don't want to breed hog dog Airedales I don't blame you. There's not many who have the scratch to do so, but it seems to me that the least you can do for someone who actually does have what it takes and who is willing to do the work and make the tough decisions, is to show some respect.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Margaret Wheeler said:


> So, Don is trying to breed a good working Airedale by selecting for a very primitive dog while holding on to as many traits as he can from modern airedale breeding stock.
> 
> He manages his groups by trying to mimic conditions in wild canine packs while trying to keep these landsharks securely. His approach is very similar to the traditional methods of terriermen in the UK. It's only here in North America that working terriers are managed in individual runs and crates.
> 
> ...


Interesting. Margaret, please explain the following:

1. How is he selecting for a very primitive dog and what is a very primitive dog.
2. What wild canine pack conditions is he mimicing?
3. What feral qualities in a working border collies are useful in livestock managment.

This was never about how Don keeps his dogs but the conclusions he draws regarding learned vs. instinctual behaviors and social and communication behaviors that are similar to wolves. He assembles groups that get along. He kept at it until he found the key to what keeps peace. That's no different than anyone else with a group of dogs. 
As for the handling, that's been proven with the likes of Pfaffenberger and Scott and Fuller. Recall the period of socialization. If they are sound handling at 4 weeks is within that period for having dogs that can human bond. But we have another variable suggesting that the pups that he keeps that he called feral have learned fear in terms of how he personally manages them so as Jeff said, none of it matters. Again, this isn't about how he keeps his dogs. That's personal and based on individual lifestyle and convenience.

As for pursuing dogs of good quality for a specific purpose. I think that's it in a nutshell. Don has a very specific purpose bred dog. I select specifically for a couple of purposes. How well the dog fulfills the purpose determines the quality and thats a case by case basis per each individual.

Terrasita

Terrasita


----------



## Kerry Foose (Feb 20, 2010)

Margaret Wheeler said:


> I kinda think you *do* owe him an apology.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


HOW DARE YOU Margaret!!!! :-xI ask a real question to the poster and expect a real answer. 
Who the hell do you think you are to speak for me and my intended questions? [-X
I wish there were more ways to communicate inflection of voice etc..on this and other forums because perception is so broad. :-#
But in NO WAY was this my intent. :^o
*So you can keep your stupid and WRONG comments to yourself next time you feel presumptuous to speak for me you ass*.=;


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Interesting. Margaret, please explain the following:
> 
> 1. How is he selecting for a very primitive dog and what is a very primitive dog.
> 2. What wild canine pack conditions is he mimicing?
> ...


Regarding your questions:

primitive: just employ a little inferential reasoning... I know you can do it if you try!

if you want to know about border collies and the primitive qualities that make them the best and in my view the only real herding dog, buy a super well bred pup, raise it and train it with a top trainer, immerse yourself in sheepdog culture. iow if you have to ask, nothing short of an intervention will allow you to understand.

conditions question: that's easy... the answer lies in Don's posts and pics. Read them, really read them with the intention of understanding them rather than skimming with the intention of developing your next talking point.

---------------
As for what this discussion is REALLY about: I hate to break it to you but you've apparently failed to understand that Don is asking practical questions and sharing hard earned knowledge. This is not an academic exercise for him, it's blood sweat and tears. All it takes is the tiniest drop of humility and a dash of intelligence to see that.

If you had actually read his posts and seriously thought about them, or if you actually tried to wrap your head around the fact that he is breeding and keeping fierce hunting dogs and is probably one of the few working airedale breeders in North America if not the world, you wouldn't be messing with his peace of mind like you have been for the last four or five of your overlong, off the point, monotonous posts.

I'm glad you brought up multi-purpose dogs though, I've been meaning to offer some advice to the folks on here who are interested in herding.


> *Iif you wan't a sheepdog or a stockdog, buy a border collie or a kelpie. If you want a follow dog that will more often than not abuse the stock use your GSD or a doberman or a rott. If you want to pretend that your multi-purpose dog is a herding dog and if you want pay somebody to enlarge your fantasy, go to one of the many folks around who will take your $$$ to let you abuse their livestock for an hour*.


Peace out!


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

Kerry Foose said:


> HOW DARE YOU Margaret!!!! :-xI ask a real question to the poster and expect a real answer.
> Who the hell do you think you are to speak for me and my intended questions? [-X
> I wish there were more ways to communicate inflection of voice etc..on this and other forums because perception is so broad. :-#
> But in NO WAY was this my intent. :^o
> *So you can keep your stupid and WRONG comments to yourself next time you feel presumptuous to speak for me you ass*.=;


 
Ha Ha! See that's how it feels when someone gives you shit! Remember that next time you think about "not being a jerk."


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Margaret Wheeler said:


> Regarding your questions:
> 
> primitive: just employ a little inferential reasoning... I know you can do it if you try!
> 
> ...


Peace out is right. Don should hire you for advertising. You seem to have some hellified passion for the hunting airedale and Don and that trumps all. As for the herding advice. . .more bias. How many GSDs have you developed to call them "follow" dogs. New term. Humility and intelligence. Is that what you are employing here??? Hahahhah, even Don wouldn't say I was messing with his peace of mind. You really have gone off the deep end. I thought my brother drove women to madness. Don forget dogs, I think you have that cult like appeal. Obviously, you have become the dominant male in Margaret's world. I think its time for thread over since her peace of mind has been so obviously affected. 

T


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Peace out is right. Don should hire you for advertising. You seem to have some hellified passion for the hunting airedale and Don and that trumps all. As for the herding advice. . .more bias. How many GSDs have you developed to call them "follow" dogs. New term. Humility and intelligence. Is that what you are employing here??? Hahahhah, even Don wouldn't say I was messing with his peace of mind. You really have gone off the deep end. I thought my brother drove women to madness. Don forget dogs, I think you have that cult like appeal. Obviously, you have become the dominant male in Margaret's world. I think its time for thread over since her peace of mind has been so obviously affected.
> 
> T


Yeah it's pretty crazy to find a person who admires and supports and actually praises a working dog breeder on The Working Dog Forum!!! IMO Don is too nice to see whats up with you and even if he does he's too much of a gentleman to give you some of your own back.

If Don bred working GSDs or Mals the big dogs here would have straightened you out way back, but because he breeds a working dog that most of the people here aren't particularly knowledgable of or interested in teh job fell to a cur bitch like me.

Pass the koolaid plox.


----------



## Kerry Foose (Feb 20, 2010)

Margaret Wheeler said:


> Ha Ha! See that's how it feels when someone gives you shit! Remember that next time you think about "not being a jerk."



Margaret Sweetheart...maybe one day you will grow up and learn from this utter disrespect and utter nonsense that you are spewing right now. 
For me I think I am pretty well done with this forum. I thought I would come here to learn from others and to view others ideas etc.. . how silly of me.
But I don't need the silliness and in some cases outright verbal abuse that this forum allows.
Enjoy your little click world, I don't need it. I'll stick to learning from the dogs, they teach more honestly than any person on this board especially with out all the human crap-ola that comes with it. 
Best of luck to you all on this fake cyber world you have created, I think I'll just stick to the real world myself.

as you say...
peace out.


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

Kerry Foose said:


> or me I think I am pretty well done with this forum. I thought I would come here to learn from others and to view others ideas etc.. . how silly of me.
> But I don't need the silliness and in some cases outright verbal abuse that this forum allows.
> .


Hey Kerry,

Don't let the door hit you in the toosh!


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I leave for a few hours and....
Now I am sitting here thinking, "Is this learned behavior, or is it an inherited behavior resurfacing from our Neandrothal roots???" If dog behaviors are from the wolves, ours are from the caveman.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

You could be a little more equalizing. Do the girlz fight when the males are off hunting.:twisted:


T


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You could be a little more equalizing. Do the girlz fight when the males are off hunting.:twisted:
> 
> 
> T


Ha Ha!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I leave for a few hours and....
> Now I am sitting here thinking, "Is this learned behavior, or is it an inherited behavior resurfacing from our Neandrothal roots???" If dog behaviors are from the wolves, ours are from the caveman.


I just saw a program on human genetics about a week ago.
Between 1 and 4% of the population carries some Neandrothal gene. The rest carry 100% **** Sapiens.:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:wink:
Couldn't resist that Don! :-D


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

maggie fraser said:


> _My breeding objective are healthy dogs that get the job done against the odds and preserving the social dominance of the males. They are the coolest dogs to work with and are basically very predictable compared to other dogs. The dogs have to have all the natural instincts and desires to hunt fur game without training._
> 
> Preserving the social dominance of the males ???
> 
> Don, why would you want to specifically do that in a pack hunting dog ? I don't get that, I've read a whole heap of your posts and I still don't get that. What precisely do you mean by that ? and,...getting a job done against the odds until the guy gets to them with the rifle ? I don't get that either.


You don't hunt so you really don't have to get it. The social dominanant dogs are the most confident. It iosn't just hunting although that is what I breed them for. It makes them better to cope with most anything. Using them in multiples with my personal dogs creates a few problems. It cause no problems when others use them with hound and other hunting breeds because there won't start fights with mine and mine don't pick on lesser dogs. Outside of hunting, it is why they have done so well at most everything they have been asked to do. It is confidence.



maggie fraser said:


> Do you think it gives your dogs the edge...social dominance..for hunting?
> 
> I'm wondering if you are a fantasist and I am reading a myth in the creation, it's not the first time I've wondered that.


So. Think what you want.



maggie fraser said:


> By the way, I thought Kerry asked you about your 'working' dogs so why did you respond about pet quality dogs?


She asked about culling or selling to pet homes



maggie fraser said:


> I apologise for my abrupt manner....but I'm thinking you're full of nonsense sometimes.


Abrupt manner??? It is better than your usual one liner babble. Don't worry about it. Like I said, think what you like. Now, that is what one may call an ABRUPT MANNER.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Well this discussion certainly livened up some, and Don, I do think what I like.... no reinforcement required there thanks ;-).

And just for the record...it's Neanderthal folks.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

maggie fraser said:


> And just for the record...it's Neanderthal folks.


Feel better Maggie. LOL 


You have to admit Maggie. Margarets posts were quite refreshing after T's and your's. From my perspective anyway. LOL


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> You don't hunt so you really don't have to get it. The social dominanant dogs are the most confident. It iosn't just hunting although that is what I breed them for. It makes them better to cope with most anything. Using them in multiples with my personal dogs creates a few problems. It cause no problems when others use them with hound and other hunting breeds because there won't start fights with mine and mine don't pick on lesser dogs. Outside of hunting, it is why they have done so well at most everything they have been asked to do. It is confidence..


That makes sense. Thanks for explaining that in detail. Maybe in my next lifetime I'll be a person who is organized and brave enough to breed working terriers again, and I can put some of the useful information you've shared to use.

If my husband and I get out your way sometime, we'd really like to stop by for a visit and see your dogs.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Feel better Maggie. LOL
> 
> 
> You have to admit Maggie. Margarets posts were quite refreshing after T's and your's. From my perspective anyway. LOL


 
Actually, no I don't have to submit I mean admit that Don. Margaret actually sounded like she'd been guzzling the juice to me and was on the rampage :grin:, I particularly liked the post where she thought an apology was due, and then the other one where your piece of mind was being tormented. I'm still LMAO :lol:. So yeah, I guess they were kind of 'refreshing' after all .


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

This is just like reading the PDB. AWESOME.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> This is just like reading the PDB. AWESOME.


Yeh, I find that at this point, just trying to be nice is more effort than it is worth. I have been doing way more deleting of what I have written than it is worth. Just to time consuming considering all I am trying to do is spare a couple of womens feelngs that really do need some shooting down.. May as well shut this one down for real.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Imagine that, know it all women. LOL


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2010)

WTF I don't see what the problem is with Don experimenting to find a system that works for him and his dogs and actually getting some results. I think that is pretty cool. No dogs are not wolves and I think that particular discussion is ridiculous, and no the domesticated dog does not generally live in packs but dogs are also pretty adaptable to the environment and as such, may live in packs according to specific needs at a specific point in time. That is why Don's system works and there is no arguing with it if it really works. That's just the way it is for Don and his dogs. The same might not be true of different dogs living in a slightly different situation, or dogs living in the same situation with a different person. There are countless factors at play here. blAHBLAHBLAH.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

blAHBLAHBLAH.


And your point is ?? I don't think anyone sees a problem with Don experimenting with his management...he sounds like he has it all sorted, I don't think it was a point of contention on this thread at all.

You just read the first page, didn't you ?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

What I find the most fun is that most of the arguements are all based on that bs research into pack behavior.

When your arguement is based on bs, it is like listening to Chris smith blab about defense training being "needed".


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2010)

maggie fraser said:


> And your point is ?? I don't think anyone sees a problem with Don experimenting with his management...he sounds like he has it all sorted, I don't think it was a point of contention on this thread at all.
> 
> You just read the first page, didn't you ?


I almost made it that far 

I saw the word "pack" and I knew there was going to be some ridiculousness thrown around about wolves and coyotes and cavemen with choke chains and such. Discussions like this always lead to that. Did I see some crap about lions and hyenas up in this piece? Its like some blindfolded people from Deluth on vacation in NYC trying to tell some other blindfolded people from Lebanon how to walk to Tribeca from the East Village when they are all really in Brooklyn. :-k

My point is this is a whole lot of chatter about whawhawha, like the teacher on charlie brown. whawhawha.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Vin Chiu said:


> I almost made it that far
> 
> I saw the word "pack" and I knew there was going to be some ridiculousness thrown around about wolves and coyotes and cavemen with choke chains and such. Discussions like this always lead to that. Did I see some crap about lions and hyenas up in this piece? Its like some blindfolded people from Deluth on vacation in NYC trying to tell some other blindfolded people from Lebanon how to walk to Tribeca from the East Village when they are all really in Brooklyn. :-k
> 
> My point is this is a whole lot of chatter about whawhawha, like the teacher on charlie brown. whawhawha.


Give the thread some credit Vin. I gotta ask....isn't this a heck of a lot more in interesting that talking about "building drives" in a dog that just doesn't cut the mustard. If he doesn't have the drive genetically, the best you can hope for is, with a lot of work, a person may build the dog up to look so so but he is always going to be a crapper in the world of dogs.
And, it is more interesting than talking about "what kind of kibble do you feed your dog?" 

Of course most of it is pretty hoaky but people are forever seeing traits from wolves in their dogs.


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Give the thread some credit Vin. I gotta ask....isn't this a heck of a lot more in interesting that talking about "building drives" in a dog that just doesn't cut the mustard. If he doesn't have the drive genetically, the best you can hope for is, with a lot of work, a person may build the dog up to look so so but he is always going to be a crapper in the world of dogs.
> And, it is more interesting than talking about "what kind of kibble do you feed your dog?"
> 
> Of course most of it is pretty hoaky but people are forever seeing traits from wolves in their dogs.


I don't think Vin is down on the parts of the thread that supported your interests and concerns. He's referring to the armchair behaviorists who have been blowing smoke...

Maggie, I've been sober since 1980. I am *so* bloody old!:|

p.s.

As for reading the whole thread, the only posts I read carefully were Don's, Chris's and a few of Gillians. I seriously don't know how Don managed to read it all. My eyes would be bleeding.

pps. Went to a Patricia McConnell lecture today. Tomorrow ring club in the A.M. and listening to the last half of a Ken Ramirez in the afternoon. I need a bigger, much younger brain for all this larning!


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

So when did you say you will be out this way Margaret?

I am not giving Vin a bad time at all. Just mentioning topics I feel the same way about.


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

Lol Mr. Vin "Big Brain" Chiu is too darned smart and he knows it. I was afraid you thought he was criticizing you. I'm not sure why I feel protective of a man who hunts wild boar with land sharks, haha.

Well one of these days when I get just a general understanding of french ring, I want to get out there and take Michael Ellis' course, but atm it would be wasted on me. IOW not soon. 

If I ever do get out there though, We'd really like to stop by and see your dogs and your setup. Your dogs look super nice.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Give the thread some credit Vin. I gotta ask....isn't this a heck of a lot more in interesting that talking about "building drives" in a dog that just doesn't cut the mustard. If he doesn't have the drive genetically, the best you can hope for is, with a lot of work, a person may build the dog up to look so so but he is always going to be a crapper in the world of dogs.
> And, it is more interesting than talking about "what kind of kibble do you feed your dog?"
> 
> Of course most of it is pretty hoaky but people are forever seeing traits from wolves in their dogs.



True enough Don!


----------

