Dogs Being "pack" Animals

[christinepi]

Of course wolf packs are in truth units with all members related.In other words they are families. Somehow we don't like to apply that term to non humans. Generally they are parent wolves and junior offspring. So not like dog packs at all really. I think there are a variety of "pack" types from family units to a more casual group of unrelated animals of the same species. In one way or another though, dogs prefer to live in a multiunit group rather than by themselves.

 

 

I also think that when discussing pack theories, it is a more complex subject than simply a bunch of dogs turning on another dog.

 

I agree.

 

Words are powerful; after all this (in my opinion detrimental) "alpha/dominance/pack" etc lingo maybe we should start over, using different terms altogether. "Pack", in this case, is indeed a too imprecise and loaded kind of term, and "group" or "substitute family", for domestic dogs, more appropriate.

[philospher77]

Of course wolf packs are in truth units with all members related.In other words they are families. Somehow we don't like to apply that term to non humans. Generally they are parent wolves and junior offspring. So not like dog packs at all really. I think there are a variety of "pack" types from family units to a more casual group of unrelated animals of the same species. In one way or another though, dogs prefer to live in a multiunit group rather than by themselves.

 

 

I also think that when discussing pack theories, it is a more complex subject than simply a bunch of dogs turning on another dog.

 

The only issue with that is that, according the Donaldson article, feral dogs don't actually seem to prefer living in a multiunit group. As it states, "Their associations with one another are brief and casual: a couple of dogs may hang out together temporarily and then part company. Dogs are often drawn together by a scarce resource like a food source or estrous female but once this magnet is gone, they go their separate ways." The research seems to support that feral dogs only really stay together when there is a scarce resource to draw them together, not because they like the company of other dogs. Very counter-intuitive, which is often what happens when you start looking at real life with no pre-conceived notions.

[christinepi]

Of course wolf packs are in truth units with all members related.In other words they are families. Somehow we don't like to apply that term to non humans. Generally they are parent wolves and junior offspring. So not like dog packs at all really. I think there are a variety of "pack" types from family units to a more casual group of unrelated animals of the same species. In one way or another though, dogs prefer to live in a multiunit group rather than by themselves.

 

 

I also think that when discussing pack theories, it is a more complex subject than simply a bunch of dogs turning on another dog.

 

The only issue with that is that, according the Donaldson article, feral dogs don't actually seem to prefer living in a multiunit group. As it states, "Their associations with one another are brief and casual: a couple of dogs may hang out together temporarily and then part company. Dogs are often drawn together by a scarce resource like a food source or estrous female but once this magnet is gone, they go their separate ways." The research seems to support that feral dogs only really stay together when there is a scarce resource to draw them together, not because they like the company of other dogs. Very counter-intuitive, which is often what happens when you start looking at real life with no pre-conceived notions.

 

Right. What I find interesting is that even though feral dogs apparently are mostly fine one their own, they still are hardwired to easily and happily form strong attachments to human beings and other dogs, given the right circumstances. How did that come about? Maybe dogs have just developed into extremely flexible creatures over the millenia.

[Jackandgrey]

Of course wolf packs are in truth units with all members related.In other words they are families. Somehow we don't like to apply that term to non humans. Generally they are parent wolves and junior offspring. So not like dog packs at all really. I think there are a variety of "pack" types from family units to a more casual group of unrelated animals of the same species. In one way or another though, dogs prefer to live in a multiunit group rather than by themselves.

 

 

I also think that when discussing pack theories, it is a more complex subject than simply a bunch of dogs turning on another dog.

 

The only issue with that is that, according the Donaldson article, feral dogs don't actually seem to prefer living in a multiunit group. As it states, "Their associations with one another are brief and casual: a couple of dogs may hang out together temporarily and then part company. Dogs are often drawn together by a scarce resource like a food source or estrous female but once this magnet is gone, they go their separate ways." The research seems to support that feral dogs only really stay together when there is a scarce resource to draw them together, not because they like the company of other dogs. Very counter-intuitive, which is often what happens when you start looking at real life with no pre-conceived notions.

 

As I said 'pack" must be defined in a variety of ways. Dogs in northern Canada communites almost always when left to fend for themselves group together and roam in "packs". Again in no way do they resemble wolf "packs" and yes the group may be very flexible members joining and leaving for a variety of reasons. But in actuality rarely do they live in isolation from another being.

[JJNg]

How to answer the original question depends a lot on how you define "pack." From a Google search on the definition of "pack", you'll find variations of, "a group of animals living and hunting together." But if you look up "pack theory" you'll get a lot of references to concepts related to alpha, dominance, and hierarchy.

 

If you're referring more to the first defintion, then pretty much any animal that lives in a group could qualify. If you're referring more to pack theory, then I don't think dogs are pack animals as I really don't believe dominance and hierarchy are necessarily inherent to dogs' interactions with each other in a group. Nor do I believe dominance theory is the explanation all undesirable dog behavior.

 

There have been a number of responses that state incidents of group attacks on a dog screaming or having a seizure as evidence that dogs are pack animals. I'm not sure this is true. The fact that one or two dogs might lead the attack and the others join in is very similar mob behavior in human group psychology. I also don't think that dogs (or wolves) necessarily turn on and kill the weak or injured members of the pack. There are reported instances of injured wolves being assisted by other pack members, or more often, the weak/injured individual is unable to keep up and is simply left behind.

 

I actually think that the instinct to jump on and attack a screaming/seizuring dog may just be related to prey drive. These group attacks are almost always triggered by loud, high-pitched screaming or sudden, fast movement. A dog that is sick or injured but does not start screaming or thrashing around is usually not attacked.

 

I tend to think of dogs more as social animals than pack animals. They are very flexible, and most well-adjusted dogs can communicate with and get along with groups and meeting new individuals. But they are also ok on their own and don't always need to rely on a group.

 

I find social behavior and interactions between dogs to be very interesting. A site with some interesting concepts about dogs is Nonlinear Dogs on the works of Alexandra Semyonova. If you're interested in considering an alternative to dominance theory, her paper "The Social Organization of the Domestic Dog" proposes an alternate theory to explain dog social behavior. Will have to warn you that it's a rather long article that is somewhat dry and academic in parts, but raises some interesting ideas.

[Guest Giselle]

Of course wolf packs are in truth units with all members related.In other words they are families. Somehow we don't like to apply that term to non humans. Generally they are parent wolves and junior offspring. So not like dog packs at all really. I think there are a variety of "pack" types from family units to a more casual group of unrelated animals of the same species. In one way or another though, dogs prefer to live in a multiunit group rather than by themselves.

 

 

I also think that when discussing pack theories, it is a more complex subject than simply a bunch of dogs turning on another dog.

 

The only issue with that is that, according the Donaldson article, feral dogs don't actually seem to prefer living in a multiunit group. As it states, "Their associations with one another are brief and casual: a couple of dogs may hang out together temporarily and then part company. Dogs are often drawn together by a scarce resource like a food source or estrous female but once this magnet is gone, they go their separate ways." The research seems to support that feral dogs only really stay together when there is a scarce resource to draw them together, not because they like the company of other dogs. Very counter-intuitive, which is often what happens when you start looking at real life with no pre-conceived notions.

 

Right. What I find interesting is that even though feral dogs apparently are mostly fine one their own, they still are hardwired to easily and happily form strong attachments to human beings and other dogs, given the right circumstances. How did that come about? Maybe dogs have just developed into extremely flexible creatures over the millenia.

Ding ding ding!!!! What we choose to believe in has no bearing on reality. I can choose to believe in gravity or not, but it sure is holding me in place! But I do base my actions on what I know and understand to the best of my ability. And, as far as I'm concerned, the natural tendency of dogs is to *not* form a pack as per the "pack theory".

 

For the remainder of my post, I'm going to assume that "pack theory", as it has been posited in this thread, refers specifically to the theory that dogs naturally coexist in non-related, social groups with distinct "alpha" leaders. I am NOT referring to family units (even though that's what wild wolf packs are ).

 

TRULY, what is the "natural" dog social structure? I, like Jean Donaldson, believe that our best models for natural dog social groups are 'feral' dogs themselves. If we do not focus on feral dogs, we run into the very real issue of human-interactions affecting how a dog behaves and our observations, then, are necessarily biased. So, if you have ever spent any time watching feral dog populations, as I did in Thailand, you will immediately notice that they are mostly solitary animals scavenging by themselves. The dogs preferred to sleep alone and spent the majority of their day scavenging. I never saw hunting. Displays of aggression were rare, mostly because the dogs didn't often interact with one another, and aggression always occurred over food. Now, if we believe the idea that dogs are "pack animals" and that they have an alpha hierarchy (if I recall correctly, cohesive groups of animals necessarily evolve specific hierarchies/social constructs), there should have been no skirmishes over food in these feral dogs. But there were fights, and the fights were severe. I believe this is because "dominance" (defined as a social construct meant to decrease aggressive displays such that the dominant animal has priority to resources) in feral dogs does not exist. Because they do not congregate in cohesive, social groups, domestic dogs do not need to have a strict dominance hierarchy. Domestic dogs have become expert scavengers, expert solitary animals, and expert human companions. They now possess more evolved ability to "read" and be social with people than they do with other dogs. So, are they "pack animals", as the "pack theory" suggests? With this question, as with all behavior questions, the answer is much more nuanced than the American public likes to admit. I don't think we have enough ethological evidence or studies to describe, definitively, the "natural" dog social structure. And, unfortunately, until we DO get funding for these types of studies, all you're going to hear is conjecture and anecdotes. That's ethology for ya!

Edited January 10, 2012 by Giselle

[Guest verthib]

Do these incidents (one group descending on a victim) happen only with groups that already know each other (so they already have established a group mentality)? Or could this also happen with dogs who have just met as a group for the first time? In other words, is familiarity a condition?

 

I don't mean to start a separate thread--I'm just trying to learn from others exactly what goes on in dogs' minds when in groups, since I'm a beginner dog owner and don't have much experience.

 

It happens in established packs as well with new dogs. I've experienced both.

[Guest verthib]

I heard with there own breed they can form a pack, but as for a house full of mixed breeds I also read that they do not have the pack idea. I also read a lot about the whole pack idea and with domestic dogs it's been so far bred out that's its very rare. I although could see it with the same breed dogs in a house.

 

I would do more research and try to get more informed. Present day dogs are definitely pack animals, whether they are all the same breed or if there are a mixture of breeds.

Edited January 10, 2012 by verthib

[Guest Giselle]

Verthib, if you mean "research" as in actual published studies and not Google or popular TV shows, this is what actual ethological studies have shown:

The social organization during non-breeding periods was characterized by a majority of solitary individuals. The relatively few groups observed rarely contained more than two individuals.

- Daniels, T. The social organization of free-ranging urban dogs. I. Non-estrous social behavior. Applied Animal Ethology.

 

Most free-ranging dogs were solitary and social groupings occurred only randomly.

- Berman, M. and Dunbar, I. The social behaviour of free-ranging suburban dogs. Applied Animal Ethology.

 

Village dogs around the world all appear to share similar characteristics: they live mostly unrestrained; they may or may not have owners; their adult sex ratio is usually skewed towards males; many are solitary (except during oestrous gatherings or around food sources) but pairs or trios are not uncommon

- Ortolani, A. et al. Ethiopian village dogs: Behavioural responses to a stranger's approach. Journal of Applied Animal Behaviour Science.

 

Social animals are not necessarily pack animals. That is all

[christinepi]

When saying "I would do more research and try to get more informed" I think Verthib was commenting on OT's comment.

 

But I agree with your saying "social animals aren't necessarily pack animals". As smart as we human beings are, and seemingly superior to animals because we have language, we're often times insufficiently specific with how we use words, not to mention unscientific. As good examples: "pack", "dominance", "alpha" etc.

Edited January 10, 2012 by christinepi

[Guest verthib]

When saying "I would do more research and try to get more informed" I think Verthib was commenting on OT's comment.

 

But I agree with your saying "social animals aren't necessarily pack animals". As smart as we human beings are, and seemingly superior to animals because we have language, we're often times insufficiently specific with how we use words, not to mention unscientific. As good examples: "pack", "dominance", "alpha" etc.

 

Thank you - yes I was referring to the OP's comment(s). Not sure why I was targeted however, as the majority on this thread seem to feel/agree that for the most part, dogs ARE pack animals. And while they can be solitary at times, they can still easily revert back to the pack mentality.

[christinepi]

But that's exactly where the trouble lies:

 

Saying dogs "revert back" to pack mentality implies that they ultimately ARE pack animals, the very thing that the most current studies disprove. They are, by nature, mostly solitary, not just "at times". Somehow I don't think we're in disagreement in this thread over actual dog behavior, but more about the proper use of terms.

 

I'm not trying to target you or anybody, I hope I'm not leaving that impression--I just find this whole thread very interesting and I'm also a stickler for scientific precision...

[philospher77]

Got any thoughts why feral dog populations skew towards males? That seems... counter-intuitive to what would make sense biologically, since one male could service many females, but the opposite doesn't seem to have as much survival benefit for the species.

[Guest verthib]

I'm done.

[christinepi]

Got any thoughts why feral dog populations skew towards males? That seems... counter-intuitive to what would make sense biologically, since one male could service many females, but the opposite doesn't seem to have as much survival benefit for the species.

 

Wonder whether that imbalance is already there when a litter is born?

[Guest verthib]

But that's exactly where the trouble lies:

 

Saying dogs "revert back" to pack mentality implies that they ultimately ARE pack animals, the very thing that the most current studies disprove. They are, by nature, mostly solitary, not just "at times". Somehow I don't think we're in disagreement in this thread over actual dog behavior, but more about the proper use of terms.

 

I'm not trying to target you or anybody, I hope I'm not leaving that impression--I just find this whole thread very interesting and I'm also a stickler for scientific precision...

 

I believe they are. We are all entitled to our own views.

[Guest Giselle]

The OP presented a question that, at the core of it, does not hinge on what any of us "believes". What we "believe" has no bearing on reality. The question is interesting and touches on very philosophical themes, but it basically has a clear answer if you read the ethological studies.

 

Verthib, I apologize if you felt singled out. However, I chose to respond to your comment because the idea of "research" has been so usurped that people often equate "research" to Google or TV shows. This hits me personally because I study and research animal behavior and I adore ethology because it is a rigorous science. So, when you made the notion that "research" would show that dogs are pack animals, I got frustrated because that's not what ethological research shows. I could very well have misinterpreted your comment, but that's how I perceived it and that is why I formed my response.

 

The evidence is fairly black-and-white, and it's a pretty accepted piece of fact: Dogs are social creatures, but they're not pack animals according to the Western idea of "pack theory". Food for thought: If you asked a person from rural Asia or Latin America (or wherever there are free-roaming dogs) whether or not dogs are pack animals, I bet the answers would be very different than from this thread.

 

Re: Male imbalance. I'm a little afraid to post too much of the papers up due to copyright and database issues, so here's a snippet:

Likewise, the paucity of females was probably due to two main factors.

First, the sex ratio reflected a selection of male dogs as pets (Beck, 1973 and

persona! observation)...Second, more than 60% of all dogs captured in Newark by dog

catchers and euthanized, were females (T. Dunn, personal communication,

1978)... Greater natural mortality of females remains a possibility, but no data

are available.

Thomas J. Daniels, The social organization of free-ranging urban dogs. I. Non-estrous social behavior, Applied Animal Ethology, Volume 10, Issue 4, July 1983, Pages 341-363.

[christinepi]

Giselle, I'm still wondering about the dogs' motivation during so many of the frightening incidents quoted in this thread. Would you agree with this paragraph in jjng's post:

 

"There have been a number of responses that state incidents of group attacks on a dog screaming or having a seizure as evidence that dogs are pack animals. I'm not sure this is true. The fact that one or two dogs might lead the attack and the others join in is very similar mob behavior in human group psychology. I also don't think that dogs (or wolves) necessarily turn on and kill the weak or injured members of the pack. There are reported instances of injured wolves being assisted by other pack members, or more often, the weak/injured individual is unable to keep up and is simply left behind. I actually think that the instinct to jump on and attack a screaming/seizuring dog may just be related to prey drive. These group attacks are almost always triggered by loud, high-pitched screaming or sudden, fast movement. A dog that is sick or injured but does not start screaming or thrashing around is usually not attacked."

 

It sounds reasonable to me, but I'm a lay person.

Edited January 11, 2012 by christinepi

[Guest Geostar]

Well, all dogs are 'pack' animals as they all have descended from wolves. Now, before anyone gets going here on that topic, the wolf pack is made up of one male and female which are "alpha", the others are aunts and uncles and are below the alpha pair, but, they ALL serve together and act as a whole. Each wolf 'knows' her/his own place within this 'pack'. If dogs weren't pack animals, there would be no bonding to us. Why, they would be like cats..which aren't pack animals, although, some cats do work in a group. Why do you suppose that our other dogs of different breeds bark to warn us of danger or that an intruder is coming? They are warning the 'pack'..their alpha human members and others. The wolf's social state is very complex and there are people who have been studying them for years. Wolf packs generally don't allow other wolves to come into their 'group' unless they have been 'approved.' Otherwise, they are killed. Yes, our greys ARE pack animals, too..

[christinepi]

Well, all dogs are 'pack' animals as they all have descended from wolves. Now, before anyone gets going here on that topic, the wolf pack is made up of one male and female which are "alpha", the others are aunts and uncles and are below the alpha pair, but, they ALL serve together and act as a whole. Each wolf 'knows' her/his own place within this 'pack'. If dogs weren't pack animals, there would be no bonding to us. Why, they would be like cats..which aren't pack animals, although, some cats do work in a group. Why do you suppose that our other dogs of different breeds bark to warn us of danger or that an intruder is coming? They are warning the 'pack'..their alpha human members and others. The wolf's social state is very complex and there are people who have been studying them for years. Wolf packs generally don't allow other wolves to come into their 'group' unless they have been 'approved.' Otherwise, they are killed. Yes, our greys ARE pack animals, too..

 

Research has shown that dogs didn't descend from wolves. Dogs descended from a dog-like ancestor who split off from wolves about 130,000 years ago. Dogs and wolves are related to each other the same way we are related to our sixth cousin, and in the same way we are all related to some other types of primates (monkeys and apes). Also, it was found that feral dogs live in semi-solitary ways, and not in packs.

[philospher77]

Why, they would be like cats..which aren't pack animals, although, some cats do work in a group.

 

It actually sounds, from the ethologists, that feral dogs may have a social structure similar to feral/barn cats, with loose associations for mutual benefit (communal litter rearing being the primary one that I can think of). Which may be based, once again, on the fact that feral cats are solitary hunters, and feral dogs tend to be scavengers.

 

What would be interesting, and highly unethical, in my opinion, would be to take some of those feral dogs, dump them on an island with no people and larger game animals, and see if the need to hunt would drive packs to form and favor development of a wolf-pack type social structure. It would devastate the local ecology, which is why this wouldn't be ethical (in my opinion), but I could see it happening, as those dogs who had stronger social bonds would be more likely to get food, and their pups would be more likely to survive and reproduce. Or, they could all die out.

 

There is a statement attributed to Ian Dunbar (but I can't find anything where he actually states it): "Most dogs don't form packs, but they can make awesome pack animals." In other words, it depends on the environment whether they live in packs, and dogs are highly adaptable.

[Guest Geostar]

There are different opinionns.. however, I stand my ground.. Some dogs are feral, but, when they do find a pack, they'll settle in on it.

[gazehund]

This has been a most interesting discussion with lots of different ideas to think about. Thank you all! I have

( and will continue) to learn a lot from it.

[christinepi]

There are different opinionns.. however, I stand my ground.. Some dogs are feral, but, when they do find a pack, they'll settle in on it.

 

This makes me think of Giselle's response to verthib a few days ago. It isn't really a matter of opinion (in my opinion...). This is research based on careful examination and research, whether it concerns the ancestry of dogs and their relationship with wolves, or present day observation of feral packs. We human beings are deeply irrational, and I include myself very much in this, in that we let ourselves be guided what we want to see subjectively rather than look at what's there objectively. Science isn't perfect, but evidence in the dog department is pretty overwhelming. Apart from that, that then brings up the next question: is science only "right" when it fits into our world view, and when it doesn't fit, it must be wrong (and an opinion)?

 

That's why I agree with gazehund that this thread is a very interesting one, because it touches on layers in ourselves--well, I should only speak for myself--where I have to step back and actually examine my own assumptions. It's sometimes hard to talk about dogs objectively, I find, because we're so emotionally involved with them.

[philospher77]

What I find so fascinating is human's sometimes sloppy use of terminology, and ability to allow pre-conceived notions blind us to things that are perfectly visible. There was a show, Meerkat Manor, that followed a gang of meerkats and their daily lives. This group had been extensively taped and followed for 10 years or so. The announcer solemnly informed us that the gang was led by an alpha female, and her mate, the alpha male. And that the alphas, as in most pack animals, controlled access to the resources, and "reserved breeding rights for themselves". But what we saw, time and time again, was that they didn't control breeding. When the young males reached sexual maturity, they would go roving to seduce lower-rank females in the neighboring gangs, and those males would come and have trysts with the younger females in the gang being studied. This tended to be one of the sources of tension in the group, because the alpha female DID control which pups would get raised, by the rather brutal methods of either driving out the pregnant females, killing the rival pups when they were born (and eating them), or just moving the group, thus forcing the mother to either abandon her pups to stay with the group (her best bet for surviving) or try to raise them on her own (in which case the likelihood was that they all die). And, the alpha female was not above mating with a bold rover from another group when the alpha male got a bit lazy about guarding her and driving off the interlopers. But if you listened to the discussions, or read about it on the website, it was a black-and-white "only the alphas mate and have pups".

 

Same thing happened when people started actually studying horse behavior. The established belief was that there was a herd stallion, with a harem of females, and that he jealously guarded these females from other males so that only his offspring would be in the herd. It was often documented that the mares would disappear for a while, but they always came back. One (female) scientist observing this decided to actually find out what the mares did during those disappearances. Turns out, they are mating with other stallions, and then returning to the safety of the herd. Something like a third of the foals in a herd are actually sired during these trysts, not by the herd stallion, as confirmed by genetic sampling. All of which was behavior that was seen by many observers, but never followed up on, because "everyone knew" that of course all the foals were sired by the herd stallion, or why else would he be putting all that effort into guarding the herd? This was also when researchers discounted female involvement in mate selection... a male gathered up females, and once they were in season, of course they would mate with the big brawny male that was there.