I was at the zoo last month and I spent about half an hour just staring at the African hunting dogs. They are amazing. I loved them. They are so much taller than I thought they would be and their heads are HUGE.
Thanks Brad; The african hunting dogs are really cool --- love their big eyes, and their big ears! Amazing how fast they can run... that one dog was almost catching the Impala--- I have always heard they are super fast!
Thanks for the video, they are very stratigetic! Awesome hunters.
Ya know, once I get my Exotic Feline Conservation going, I think I'd like to get a few African Hunting dogs. I wanted to go mainly felines (with the exception of my domestic dogs), but what's a few wild canines for flavor? -smirks-
I remember seeing them at the zoo in Munich, Germany. They weird and yet totally neat looking.
I've had a crush on these buggers for 20 years or so. They're the perfect hunters, it's very impressive what cooperation can achieve. We call them Mabecos.
Wow, thanks for sharing Brad. That was really impressive. They look like purpose built hunters. Their long legs, slender build, HUGE ears. I agree with Jen too, seeing them share the kill is really interesting. It didn't look like there was any competition at all.
Yea, I noticed that about sharing the kill too.. very interesting, and makes you think a bit. <- Like maybe we should share our food with the dogs on the floor? [totally joking!]
Really tho, that video really interested me, so cool to see the teamwork. also the patterns of their fur, really cool stuff!
love these guys! A zoo in miami has them, wish I had time to go get some snapshots
I wish a domestic dog would have their coat patterns, absolutely stunning
[ sidenote; just a thought but, the narrator [ forget his name ] said that the pack will usually kill about once a day. Perhaps that's why there's so little competition, because food is plentiful? ]~
Osy, on the point of food being plentiful...that's an interesting theory. Its supported by discovery channel (I know, not the greatest source of information :-/) show I watched called "Mountains of the Wolf" or something like that. One of the segments was about a large wolf pack in which the "alpha" would not allow some of the lower status wolves to eat a kill. The show stated this behavior is common when packs become unmanageably large. The goal is that eventually the weaker, lower status, pack members will either become too weak to keep up with the back or some will break off and try to find/start a new pack. This is a direct result of scarcity of food. Granted its not a scientific source, but interesting anyway.
I think you guys are on to something there - the same rule would probably apply to why dogs will not argue over toys/bones if there are a lot of toys/bones around. Ours rarely bitch at each other over toys, because all they have to do is walk a few feet the other direction to find another toy/bone to play with.
Actually, it's funny as my thoughts were drawn from both those positions lol
Dave, I saw the Mountains of the Wolf [ that it was a pretty well-directed documentary ] and remembered hearing about the part where lower-ranking members were not allowed to eat in the hopes of dieing off, or, being forced away from the pack.
Likewise, Brad, I remember reading you say that pack structure is different with domestic dogs as they have all their resources available to them & hence don't have to fight / challenge each other for it as much.
So I put those two things together...glad to see my brain is still working! ~
What if food is plentiful because there is little competition? They seem to always put the welfare of the pack in front of the individual. They act as a unit, very specific roles are attributed and executed with amazing accuracy. The group that made the kill could very well have eaten the impala on their own, but they called the others until they came to feast together. It wasn't just a matter of "if they come, we will share", they insisted on sharing.
They have a success rate that is much higher (80%) than any other canine (wolves can have a success rate as low as 20%. their prey is generally larger though, although AWD have been known to kill wilderbeats and eland), so there must be something in their "gears" that is smoother that the others'. And I think it's safe to say that a big part of that success is due to the high cooperation they show.
Which brings up this theory - when behaviorists and canine theorists write their wonder-novels on behavior and ancestral correlations, should they be basing the domestic dog's behaviors more on wolf pack rules or wild dog (awds, dingos) pack rules (because they seem very different)? or neither?
WARNING: There's a bit of a math lesson below. My apologies in advance.
My naive answer to that would be neither. There have been more than enough generations of domestic canine for many pack instincts to change significantly. Darwinism tells us the pack instinct takes hold because over time the dogs that functioned well in a back survived the best.
In the field of machine learning, there is a common problem known as "randomized optimization". In short, the problem is given an arbitrary mathematical function, find the maximum (or minimum) value it can take on in a given interval. So, if the function is y = 5x+2 and the interval is [0, 10] the solution to the optimization problem would be 52 because when x=10, y has the highest value it can take. One of the algorithm techniques sometimes used to solve optimization problems is known as a genetic algorithm and the design is inspired by Darwinian natural selection. Very cool stuff, but a bit of an aside. The point is, with a simple function like y=5x+2, there is a clear maximum choice. When the function becomes "bumpy" then there can be many "local maxima" which are ranges of the function for which the output y(x) is greater than the output for other x's in the neighborhood (i.e. ..., y(x-2), y(x-1), y(x+1), y(x+2), ...). A "global maximum" is a local maximum that has the property that no other local maximum is greater than it. Not all local maximum are global maximum, and often times when doing randomized optimization (even with genetic algorithms) the solution found is a local maximum, not the global maximum.
So, to bring this full circle, the pack dynamics and hunting techniques of the wolf may be a local maximum in the "survival function optimization problem" whereas the AWD pack dynamics and hunting techniques are probably a higher local maximum if not the global one.
And, to bring it all back to my first point, I think domestic dogs are optimizing a different survival function all together since they don't have to hunt to survive. We've selected for physical characteristics like cuteness and behavioral characteristics that we can use for our purposes (e.g. herding or being a lap dog or things we can easy anthropomorphize). It is not a far stretch to think we have significantly changed the pack instincts in these dogs by selecting for other things. So I don't think basing our theories of domestic dog behavior on wolves or wild dogs is necessarily informative at all.
"So I don't think basing our theories of domestic dog behavior on wolves or wild dogs is necessarily informative at all." I agree. And I think a lot of mainstream behavioral professionals are giving the modern dog owner an even more confusing analysis on their dog's behavior because applying ancestral patterns is so inaccurate.
What about instincts? Do you think the modern domestic dogs have even less instinct in any/all areas, especially hunting?
A lot of times, we'll get strays at our shelter that are practically feral for about a few days or a week, they seem to forget what hands touching them and food in a bowl is all about. I had a foster border collie get away from me a few years ago and she just ran and ran, it took like 2 days to capture her because she was acting like a wild dog even though she knew me and wasn't scared of people, she would hide from us and was very skittish in 'the wild' of our little Scranton suburb. Could domestic dogs adapt to life in the wild on their own? Or would they eventually die if they didn't have a pack?
I think certain breeds of domestic dog could probably adapt to life in the wild. Particularly those with more "primitive" behavior and structure. I don't see a chihuahua lasting long in the wilderness, although they could probably do just fine scavenging in big cities. On the other hand, I suspect a Shikoku would be better suited to living in the wild than scavenging around a big city.
A while back I saw a show where they compared the problem solving approaches a wold takes and a domestic dog takes (I think they used a GSD, but I don't recall exactly). They placed some meat inside a closed crate that was attached to a small plank sticking out of the crate. The wolf spent a LONG time manipulating the crate and the plank until the meat became available. The domestic dog tried for a few seconds, then gave up, sat down, looked at the human, and cried. I think that's a perfect example of how our selective breeding practices have changed behavior patters in domestic dogs. If we have evidence of such changes, how can we possibly think that other aspects of their behavior remain unchanged?
That is an interesting thought, Dave - and an interesting topic, Jen.
I agree 100% that studying wild dogs or wolves is not the best approach to learning how a domestic pack/dog lives and works.
The instinct I think Jen is referring to is "flight or fight", all animals have 2 thresholds: The flight threshold, and the fight threshold. A tame animal, like the domestic dog, has a very low [when compared to wild dogs] fight and flight threshold - this is what allows them to live so closely with humans. I think that is an example of instinct that obviously has been altered significantly through the domestication of dogs. The change in "tameness" [fight/flight threshold(s)] would, IMHO, significantly effect the "survival function optimization problem".
Add to that the different functions that are "programmed" into specific breeds and you start to see, while there is a significant (social) draw to live in a family [of dogs or humans], domesticated dogs don't exhibit very many "pack" tendencies when compared to wild dogs.
From watching my dogs, the only thing I see them do together is protect our property. Even the least "protective" of our dogs (Loa/Maui) will, at least, go to support the other dogs when warning off an "intruder". They also clean each other and have some loose rules that help to defines M.O. and manners within the family but nothing really more than that. The only thing they really do as a group is lay around and occasionally play.
Take, for example, a herding dog, a hunting dog, and an LGD. If something exciting happened, like a dog visits the other side of their fence, the herding dog will get excited and start herding, the hunting dog will give chase, and the LGD will stand it's ground and "warn" the intruder.
How could these dogs possibly work together when they are "programmed" to do totally different things? Now if it was a group of hunting dogs, they would all hunt and a group of herding dogs would heard, etc... To me, this points out why it is so incorrect to study wild dogs in order to gain knowledge of domesticated dogs.
Exactly. You said that much better than I did Brad. :-)
Although, I don't think its useless to study wild dogs. I think a lot can be learned by studying things that are related, but not identical to something you're interested in; however, basing a theory of domestic dogs off of observations of wild dogs would have be inaccurate. The benefit in studying wild dogs is to identify differences with domestic dogs that help to point out important behaviors. At least that's my naive opinion.
Yeah, it's amazing how domestic dogs have become so dependent on people. Although, it's not their fault, their humans teach them this, even subconsiously. We don't allow them to do anything for themselves it seems. We do everything for them. A lot of times they are unable to learn on their own because we are afraid that they might get "hurt". So we "protect" them, when in actuality we are holding them back, preventing them from thinking for themselves.
A prime example of this would be a puppy. Puppy climbed up on table, playing around and then falls off table. It is natural human behavior to want prevent that puppy from falling. When really, we should just allow that puppy to fall. A lesson would be learned. So the next time that puppy is on the table, it's less likely to fall because now s/he knows the result of going over the edge. The puppy is taught to fear this, but this is a good life lesson. Maybe as an adult, instead of a table it might be some kind of cliff.
Corina - I see what you mean, and I agree to an extent. The only thing I would add is that there are mos def some breeds of dogs that are more capable of thinking on their own than others. Like compare a BC or GSD to any of the LGD breeds - GSDs and BCs are "designed" to preform a job that is directed by the human [herding and PP/Service work], while LGD breeds were left on their own to guard sheep and could go days without human interaction.
As for your puppy example, Jen and I have noticed a similar thing... a lot of came with just transitioning from "city" life to where we live now. We had to become less "control freaks" since we had more space and the dogs have more freedom. They still learn their lessons, but they come from experience instead of us correcting them.
Hmm... Have any of you ever read the book "Earth Abides" by George Stewart? It is a book about post apocalyptic America. In it, the author describes what happens to a lot of different species, including domestic dogs, once the majority of humans no longer exist. It is a really interesting read, and even though it is fiction, has some really interesting points about how many animals (including rats, most dogs, and sheep) have become so domesticated, that it is impossible for them to survive without man. However, some of the dogs survive. These being more independent dogs that were not over-bred.
Brad - Oh good, I got that across clearly. Sometimes it is hard to put certain things into words. Of course, it would be under "non-life threatening" circumstances (tis' implied).
I like a dog that can both take direction (from a human) but at the same time "think" or "do" things on their own.
Casey - Sounds interesting, I have a lot of books that I need to read!
Comments
Ya know, once I get my Exotic Feline Conservation going, I think I'd like to get a few African Hunting dogs. I wanted to go mainly felines (with the exception of my domestic dogs), but what's a few wild canines for flavor? -smirks-
I remember seeing them at the zoo in Munich, Germany. They weird and yet totally neat looking.
We call them Mabecos.
Really tho, that video really interested me, so cool to see the teamwork. also the patterns of their fur, really cool stuff!
----
I wish a domestic dog would have their coat patterns, absolutely stunning
[ sidenote; just a thought but, the narrator [ forget his name ] said that the pack will usually kill about once a day. Perhaps that's why there's so little competition, because food is plentiful? ]~
Good points!
----
Dave, I saw the Mountains of the Wolf [ that it was a pretty well-directed documentary ] and remembered hearing about the part where lower-ranking members were not allowed to eat in the hopes of dieing off, or, being forced away from the pack.
Likewise, Brad, I remember reading you say that pack structure is different with domestic dogs as they have all their resources available to them & hence don't have to fight / challenge each other for it as much.
So I put those two things together...glad to see my brain is still working!
They seem to always put the welfare of the pack in front of the individual. They act as a unit, very specific roles are attributed and executed with amazing accuracy.
The group that made the kill could very well have eaten the impala on their own, but they called the others until they came to feast together. It wasn't just a matter of "if they come, we will share", they insisted on sharing.
They have a success rate that is much higher (80%) than any other canine (wolves can have a success rate as low as 20%. their prey is generally larger though, although AWD have been known to kill wilderbeats and eland), so there must be something in their "gears" that is smoother that the others'. And I think it's safe to say that a big part of that success is due to the high cooperation they show.
My naive answer to that would be neither. There have been more than enough generations of domestic canine for many pack instincts to change significantly. Darwinism tells us the pack instinct takes hold because over time the dogs that functioned well in a back survived the best.
In the field of machine learning, there is a common problem known as "randomized optimization". In short, the problem is given an arbitrary mathematical function, find the maximum (or minimum) value it can take on in a given interval. So, if the function is y = 5x+2 and the interval is [0, 10] the solution to the optimization problem would be 52 because when x=10, y has the highest value it can take. One of the algorithm techniques sometimes used to solve optimization problems is known as a genetic algorithm and the design is inspired by Darwinian natural selection. Very cool stuff, but a bit of an aside. The point is, with a simple function like y=5x+2, there is a clear maximum choice. When the function becomes "bumpy" then there can be many "local maxima" which are ranges of the function for which the output y(x) is greater than the output for other x's in the neighborhood (i.e. ..., y(x-2), y(x-1), y(x+1), y(x+2), ...). A "global maximum" is a local maximum that has the property that no other local maximum is greater than it. Not all local maximum are global maximum, and often times when doing randomized optimization (even with genetic algorithms) the solution found is a local maximum, not the global maximum.
So, to bring this full circle, the pack dynamics and hunting techniques of the wolf may be a local maximum in the "survival function optimization problem" whereas the AWD pack dynamics and hunting techniques are probably a higher local maximum if not the global one.
And, to bring it all back to my first point, I think domestic dogs are optimizing a different survival function all together since they don't have to hunt to survive. We've selected for physical characteristics like cuteness and behavioral characteristics that we can use for our purposes (e.g. herding or being a lap dog or things we can easy anthropomorphize). It is not a far stretch to think we have significantly changed the pack instincts in these dogs by selecting for other things. So I don't think basing our theories of domestic dog behavior on wolves or wild dogs is necessarily informative at all.
"So I don't think basing our theories of domestic dog behavior on wolves or wild dogs is necessarily informative at all."
I agree. And I think a lot of mainstream behavioral professionals are giving the modern dog owner an even more confusing analysis on their dog's behavior because applying ancestral patterns is so inaccurate.
What about instincts? Do you think the modern domestic dogs have even less instinct in any/all areas, especially hunting?
A lot of times, we'll get strays at our shelter that are practically feral for about a few days or a week, they seem to forget what hands touching them and food in a bowl is all about. I had a foster border collie get away from me a few years ago and she just ran and ran, it took like 2 days to capture her because she was acting like a wild dog even though she knew me and wasn't scared of people, she would hide from us and was very skittish in 'the wild' of our little Scranton suburb.
Could domestic dogs adapt to life in the wild on their own? Or would they eventually die if they didn't have a pack?
^was that a hijack? if so, sorry!
A while back I saw a show where they compared the problem solving approaches a wold takes and a domestic dog takes (I think they used a GSD, but I don't recall exactly). They placed some meat inside a closed crate that was attached to a small plank sticking out of the crate. The wolf spent a LONG time manipulating the crate and the plank until the meat became available. The domestic dog tried for a few seconds, then gave up, sat down, looked at the human, and cried. I think that's a perfect example of how our selective breeding practices have changed behavior patters in domestic dogs. If we have evidence of such changes, how can we possibly think that other aspects of their behavior remain unchanged?
I agree 100% that studying wild dogs or wolves is not the best approach to learning how a domestic pack/dog lives and works.
The instinct I think Jen is referring to is "flight or fight", all animals have 2 thresholds: The flight threshold, and the fight threshold. A tame animal, like the domestic dog, has a very low [when compared to wild dogs] fight and flight threshold - this is what allows them to live so closely with humans. I think that is an example of instinct that obviously has been altered significantly through the domestication of dogs. The change in "tameness" [fight/flight threshold(s)] would, IMHO, significantly effect the "survival function optimization problem".
Add to that the different functions that are "programmed" into specific breeds and you start to see, while there is a significant (social) draw to live in a family [of dogs or humans], domesticated dogs don't exhibit very many "pack" tendencies when compared to wild dogs.
From watching my dogs, the only thing I see them do together is protect our property. Even the least "protective" of our dogs (Loa/Maui) will, at least, go to support the other dogs when warning off an "intruder". They also clean each other and have some loose rules that help to defines M.O. and manners within the family but nothing really more than that. The only thing they really do as a group is lay around and occasionally play.
Take, for example, a herding dog, a hunting dog, and an LGD. If something exciting happened, like a dog visits the other side of their fence, the herding dog will get excited and start herding, the hunting dog will give chase, and the LGD will stand it's ground and "warn" the intruder.
How could these dogs possibly work together when they are "programmed" to do totally different things? Now if it was a group of hunting dogs, they would all hunt and a group of herding dogs would heard, etc... To me, this points out why it is so incorrect to study wild dogs in order to gain knowledge of domesticated dogs.
----
Although, I don't think its useless to study wild dogs. I think a lot can be learned by studying things that are related, but not identical to something you're interested in; however, basing a theory of domestic dogs off of observations of wild dogs would have be inaccurate. The benefit in studying wild dogs is to identify differences with domestic dogs that help to point out important behaviors. At least that's my naive opinion.
A prime example of this would be a puppy. Puppy climbed up on table, playing around and then falls off table. It is natural human behavior to want prevent that puppy from falling. When really, we should just allow that puppy to fall. A lesson would be learned. So the next time that puppy is on the table, it's less likely to fall because now s/he knows the result of going over the edge. The puppy is taught to fear this, but this is a good life lesson. Maybe as an adult, instead of a table it might be some kind of cliff.
As for your puppy example, Jen and I have noticed a similar thing... a lot of came with just transitioning from "city" life to where we live now. We had to become less "control freaks" since we had more space and the dogs have more freedom. They still learn their lessons, but they come from experience instead of us correcting them.
----
I like a dog that can both take direction (from a human) but at the same time "think" or "do" things on their own.
Casey - Sounds interesting, I have a lot of books that I need to read!