Evolution, domestication, and selective breeding have made dogs biddable pets. Image by jade
It’s a fact that dogs (Canis familiaris) and grey wolves (C. lupus) are closely related – in fact, there is some debate about whether they should even be considered separate species, which is why it is not uncommon to see dogs referred to as Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of the grey wolf.
Barry Eaton, in the book Dominance in Dogs: Fact or Fiction points out that C. lupus and C. familiaris have virtually identical DNA, the same number of chromosomes and teeth, and are able to interbreed and produce viable hybrid offspring, yet domestication and selective breeding have led to the two becoming very different animals.
Genetic Factors
Dmitry Belyaev’s silver fox experiment, which has seen selective breeding of Vulpes vulpes for both aggressive and tameness traits, has led strength to the theory that the domestication process leads to tangible genetic differences, both in terms of temperament and appearance.
As, generation by generation, the foxes became tamer and more trusting of humans, morphological and physical changes also occurred, as discussed by Svetlana Gogoleva et al. in a 2009 study. These included changes in vocalisations, and the development of dog-like floppy ears and piebald colourings, similar to those of border collies.
This provides an insight into how similar genetic differences between dogs and wolves could have evolved and influenced their ability to interact with humans. What’s more, these changes in the foxes have taken place in a staggeringly short space of time – only 50 years.
Imagine the range of changes that could occur in the 15-20,000 years since dogs first began to become domesticated and distinguished from their wild wolf ancestors.
Dogs have evolved to be highly trainable and easily socialised. Image by SusanUtley
Trainability and Socialisation
Raymond and Lorna Coppinger’s Dogs: A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behaviours, and Evolution documents the vast differences between dogs and wolves when it comes to the ease in which we can train and socialise them to humans.
Trainers at Wolf Park are able to elicit basic behaviours from resident wolves (for example, tolerating being walked on a leash), but even tame wolves seem unable to learn the basic commands such as ‘sit’ which are commonly taught to pet dogs.
Furthermore, the socialisation periods of C. familiaris pups has evolved to be far more accommodating of potential relationships with humans than that of their C. lupus ancestors. Dogs can easily become socialised (and with any other species, not just humans) until around 12-16 weeks of age, whereas there is little hope of a human-wolf relationship unless the pup is removed from the den before 2-3 weeks of age and painstakingly hand-reared.
Hunting and Predatory Behaviour
Another key difference between dogs and wolves is that, despite what many modern-day dog owners still unassumingly believe, dogs are not hunters or predators.
Wolves, living wild, seeking and catching their own food are natural predators and possess what we may term a ‘killer instinct.’
The very thing that caused certain groups wolves to evolve into domesticated early dogs in the first place, however, is their feeding from human leftovers, following human settlers and raiding the dumps they left behind, evolving into increasingly tame animals who were able to tolerate humans at close proximity.
As Alexandra Semyonova explains in The 100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs, this eliminated the need for dogs to hunt, and they have lost that ability over the years. As evidenced by John Paul Scott and John L. Fuller in Genetics and the Social Behaviour of the Dog, even the largest breeds of dogs have smaller jaws and fewer rows of teeth than wolves, and have lost the drive to hunt and kill prey.
Myths of Pack Mentality
Studies of captive wolves have given a false impression of wild-living wolf hierarchies. Image by Frances_Marie
It is unfortunate that many of the everyday dog owner’s understandings of wolf behaviour stem from early research studies involving captive wolves. As Jean Donaldson explains, attempting to study wolf families in captivity is equivalent to making assumptions about human behaviour based on observing the inhabitants of a refugee camp: We cannot expect the behaviour we observe to be representative of that exhibited in a ‘normal’ environment – which, for wolves, is the wild.
When caught and kept in captivity for research purposes, wolves do make aggressive challenges in order to maintain or heighten their status within the group.
When living free, wolves, as Barry Eaton explains, live in relatively peaceful and co-operative family units. Studies by Raymond and Linda Coppinger have shown that wolves don’t even always ‘pack.’ It is a survival strategy that they adopt when necessary – and, for domesticated modern-day dogs, survival in the wild is not an issue.
To further dispel the misconceptions of dogs as pack animals, keen to dominate us and become our leader, Coppinger and Coppinger also conducted extensive studies of feral dogs, noting that even these do not form set packs but, rather, are equally as happy to roam alone or with a casual group of acquaintances, which may change frequently, evidencing a far looser social structure and a willingness to ‘slot in’ to various social situations without the need to assert authority.
Dominating Pet Dogs: Unnecessary?
Every dog owner will have heard or read, at some point in their dog-rearing careers, advice along the lines of ‘don’t let your dog eat before you’, ‘always walk through a doorway before your dog’, or ‘never allow your dog’s head to be at a level higher than your own.’
These ideas were all dreamed up during times when the first captive wolf studies led to the widespread belief that dogs were out to assert themselves as leaders and we must show them who’s really boss. In his book, In Defence of Dogs, John Bradshaw counteracts this outdated way of thinking, pointing out that dogs don’t appear to follow any sort of hierarchy. He condemns any method of training which uses positive punishments or aversives as a way of displaying ‘dominance’ over the family dog as potentially damaging to both the psychology of the dog involved and the relationship between dog and owner.
Along with denouncing the idea of an integral desire in our pet dogs to dominate us, Barry Eaton also points out the obvious – making your dog wait until the family has finished eating, or forbidding it from crossing a threshold before you pass is not only likely to make life with a dog complicated, impractical, and confusing for all concerned, but is also entirely unnecessary.
© Copyright 2015 Sian John, All rights Reserved. Written For: Decoded Science
There are some important points to be aware of here. Yes there is still prey drive (at varying levels for different breeds, and within purebred dogs in different countries) in a number of situations but it is much less of a motivating factor for many breeds. Interestingly, R McCartin counts beagles as not used for hunting. They are still used for this in the US and their prey drive can be very intense. I would not like to be a rabbit in beagle hunting territory:)
The message of this article is that dominance training, based on misinformation from captive wolf studies, has had its day. It is not how wolves function in the wild. Given the space to act naturally wolves have a more fluid relationship with each other (does anyone see a parallel with human interactions?)
Most importantly, the author’s message is that there is no need to intimidate your dog to get it to do the things that matter to you. Rather, finding ways to work with your dog that achieve what you want and result in a happier, more well-adjusted pet should be your goal.
This is just simply not true. If you stop feeding your dog and let it outside, it will go kill and eat anything it can catch.
Great article. It fits in perfectly with my article “8 Reasons Why Dogs are not pack animals”.
My dog is a Lab and so far she has killed 2 birds and some kind of ground creature we have here that looks like a cross between a gopher and a mole. She chases ducks every chance she gets and I have no doubt that if she ever caught one, she would kill it. She chases anything that moves. She has a very high prey and play drive. As for not letting the dog near the table while eating, I think it’s very important to teach a dog boundaries. Many dogs would not hesitate to jump on the table to get to the food. Teaching them to wait outside a boundary while the family eats in peace is simply good manners. And I don’t believe that every dog is trying to take over leadership, but I do believe that they have a “be the leader or follow a leader” mentality. I’ve seen what trouble dogs can cause if the owner doesn’t take control and train their dog. Why do you think there are so many dogs in animal shelters.
Hi, thanks for your comment :)
Yes, some dogs will chase and kill – I used to work with a lab who delighted in going after cignets (much to his owner’s dismay) and killed one once, but my reply to a previous comment below on predatory hunting sequences explains a little about why this is different to the hunting for survival that we see in wolves. Basically, chasing and killing doesn’t necessarily lead to eating, and chasing, although it may involve the dissection and eventual death of the animal that has been caught, often is not motivated by a desire to kill what is being caught.
I agree, there is nothing wrong with teaching good manners or implementing restrictions for safety (I think that was mentioned in a previous comment – hopefully I can cover both comments here!) – it’s just important that we realise that dogs aren’t trying to dominate us, though, and are training for the right reasons and in the right way (kindly, without force). Unfortunately, lots of trainers still think it is necessary to physically dominate dogs to assert leadership, which can be harmful to our relationships with our beloved dogs, and is the unfortunate by-product of the wolf philosophy.
The books in the reference list of this article are all great reads which explain the issues covered in much more details – Raymond and Lynda Coppinger cover most of the topics in a lot of detail with some ery interesting supporting research. I appreciate that an article can be a little brief, and doesn’t give the opportunity to delve into all of the issues being raised! :)
yes, agree with all you said, same with my “pack”.
Every dog I have ever encountered has a prey drive, some stronger than others, some breeds stronger than others, but they all have it. To say that association with humans removed the need to hunt flies in the face of logic. Dogs picked off human scraps during a time in history when humans couldn’t afford to leave many scraps, of course dogs had to supplement what they could scavenge from humans by hunting. Also, training dogs to exit doorways only on command serves some very practical purposes, safety being one of them.
Hi, thank you for your comment :)
I hope my comment above may explain a little more about hunting and prey drives. Yes, you are of course absolutely right about training for safety – it’s important that we are training for the right reasons though (that is one of them!) and that it’s done in a kind, humane way, with the correct understanding of the dog’s motivation and learning.
Sighthounds definitely have a a strong prey drive and WILL hunt, terriers also tend to have a stronger prey drive. Dogs in groups also display a loose hierarchy and dominance behavior, usually centered around resources like food or sleeping locations. Perhaps the author should work with something other than a golden retriever
Hi, thanks for your comment :)
The issue of prey drive and hunting is explained quite well by Barry Eaton:
In a wolf, we would see the predatory motor sequence of orient, eye-stalk, chase, grab-bite, kill-bite, dissect, eat.
Today’s dogs do not possess all of the ‘steps’ necessary for a successful, hunting-for-survival predatory sequence. For example, many will not have the ‘kill-bite’ as they have been bred to retrieve prey with a soft mouth – others may have a high prey drive but do not possess any of the stages beyond ‘chase’ – think of those who have been bred to flush out prey for their human counterparts. The hunting sequences we see in domestic dogs today are a result of human selection – hunting for humans requires a more limited repertoire than hunting to survive.
I hope that explains a little more. The books listed in the reference list are all excellent resources if you want to read a bit more about it :)
I’m sorry but you are still wrong. DOgs are so differentiated that yes, some of the pet dogs you see today may not know how to eat what they chase and kill, but then again, even the inexperienced young of wild canids need introductions to killed prey, etc. And lots of people’s dogs have and do eat what they kill.
Even if the steps are somewhat altered, it IS a domesticated predator. It’s domesticated, it’s a predator, it’s a domesticated predator.
It would have been more accurate to say that domestication may have altered some of the steps involved. Terriers, foxhounds, Laikas, to say nothing of strays that do occasionally form feral groups and run down deer, etc.
For that matter, a number of dogs do retain many of the wolf inclinations such as eye and stalk.
Your comments are extraordinarily generalist. It suggests you have a very urban and looking too hard at some very coddled and dumbed down animals, but there are all sorts out there. Dogs are so varied that this simply cannot be applied.
Also, Coppinger is hardly the only PhD or behaviorist out there, and a lot of people tend to disagree with him on a number of issues.
Sighthounds can and do hunt, so the authors need to differentiate between the more primitive breeds who still are used for hunting in many parts of the world and ‘normal’ breeds such as beagles or shih tzu.