Dogs, humans and hierarchies.

The other gaping hole that bothers me is meeting strange dogs out in the street. When a strange dog comes towards us, ears up and forwards, tail up, hackles up, eyes hard.... the dog invariably directs that look at one of the dogs. It's never directed at a human. In fact, the dog pretty much ignores all humans unless they step in and deliberately interact with it in some way. My question is, why have I seen that aggressive approach countless times on the street, but never directed at me or another human? If dogs saw people as high ranking members of the doggy hierarchy, why wouldn't they challenge a human on the streets as often as they challenge other dogs?

This makes me think about this French animation - "Fantastic Planet", where aliens keep humans as pets. Aliens don't understand humans' language and vise versa; they dress them up in crazy clothes, take them out to play and fight other human 'pets' for entertainment sake. (Btw,I highly recommend this cartoon, it's my favorite.)
The reason why a dog would concentrate on another dog and not a human is, first, because he just met someone of the same species in this 'alien' environment. For any dog these encounters can't be ignored - first, because there is this genetic need to defend your territory (be on alert). Then, the need to communicate with one of your own kind - one who understands you better than anyone else in this "planet", one who has the same basic needs and instincts, one who is in the same boat as you are - tied up with a leash. There is this: "You know what I know, you feel what I feel..." It's an emotional encounter. For an unstable, unsocialized dog this would bring up the worst in him.
Dogs also have learned that those prolonged creatures walking on the streets (us []) mind their own business... Even wolves avoid humans at all cost when we meet them in their natural habitat - they won't want to attack us as might attack a lone wolf. There is no context of who would want to claim their territory, resources, etc. That's what comes with socialization.
The context is also important. My granny lives in Russia, and there are TONS of stray dogs. A lot of them live in packs right downtown, in villages, etc. They mostly snoop around train stations, farmers markets, etc... When I see them in packs, there is an obvious alpha. I often see those packs running around in an organized circle around a potential "treat" - like, when farmers throw out some of the unsold stuff, or when they intentionally throw out a chunk of meat to feed the dogs. These packs are usually made out of 3-7 dogs. I haven't seen any larger than that. When dogs live with homeless there are usually 1-2 dogs and a human. I haven't seen homeless folks with a pack of 7.
Now, back to what I was saying about the contexts. When I am out in the middle of the day in Russia (visiting my gran), dogs never pay any attention to humans. But, when we hike, and accidently stumble upon a pack of strays in a quiet place, they often behave protective, keeping an eye on us. It really depends on whether or not the dog perceives you might want to share any of the resources with him. If you walk up to their den, you are gonna get bitten! On the other hand, I've also been stalked by a friendly dog who, I figured, wanted to get together
So, it's the intense experience of meeting one of your own kind, socialization, context, whether or not the dog sees you as a competition, the amount of resources available, and of course dogs' breed.
(Of topic, but in America you don't get "pure mutts" - in Russia you do []. There is often two or three breeds that make up a mutt in the US - Beagle/Pug, Cocker/Poodle, etc. In Russia, mutts breed and breed and breed - you can't even tell what's in the dog. I've noticed most mutts look the same, kind of wolf-like, the size of a Springer Spaniel - to - Golden).

Here's the thing: I've pretty much decided that domestic dogs, canis familiaris, are not pack animals. They are social animals.

I believe that whether or not dogs will form packs depends on the resources that are around, and on their ability to get by in the environment that they live in. I've seen 1-2 strays stick to a group of construction workers or homeless folks in Russia, and follow them around the village... I've also observed larger packs of dogs living with no human companionship - relaying just in their own scavenging ability, and who knows what. I don't agree with the statement that they are not pack animals - that seed is IN them genetically, whether or not they will resort to it depends on the environment...

Hmm, interesting points, Tina. And I've seen Fantastic Planet; an excellent cartoon. []

I still see packing tendencies in our three. Pyry is still the one that gets what he wants and is willing to take it by force sometimes. Penny was away from the pack while Pyry and Jill were organising themselves socially, and when she came back in she spent a lot of time picking on Jill. Eventually, Jill had enough of it and put a stop to it with a short display of strength. Penny is now most definitely the bottom dog. She can get overly confident during play, and she gets fed first because she's stupid about food, but the other dogs don't care and she takes a lot of crap nowadays that she never would have when she was in a higher ranking position. I can still explain this away to a large extent with the golden rule of he who wants it most gets it. Penny is older, more mellow, and more relaxed about being a lower ranking dog these days. Back when she was younger, she often refused to give in, even when it looked like she'd lost the latest round. But this time, she gave in pretty graciously and now figures that it's not worth getting in fights about things anymore. If I look at this from the perspective of classic fight theory, (which I learnt from a lovely lady who works on fiddler crabs), when Penny was younger and refused to give in, she was in a war of attrition, and that's why it so often escalated and there was a lot of aggression and bullying involved. She was roughly the same size as her opponent, the same sex, and she wanted things every bit as badly as her opponent did. She was definitely insecure, which didn't help matters, because an insecure animal just fights harder to keep what it's got. That can apply to anything dogs in the same pack might have as well as position itself, if it exists. But now, perhaps as she's grown older and found that it doesn't matter so much to have these things she wants, and it's not worth fighting a dog that's bigger than her over it, she gives in and allows Jill to set the terms in many of their interactions. That doesn't mean she won't growl at Jill for standing on her, just that she won't fly off the handle because it's not worth it to her.

Similarly, Pyry is at the top because it matters to him a lot to get what he wants and he's willing to fight pretty hard for it. I do see him pick on Jill when he would ignore Penny, and this makes me wonder. Does he pick on her because she's the closest to him in rank? Does he pick on her because she's bigger than him and he's trying to keep her cowed so she won't think to force him to fight a battle he might lose? Maybe he picks on her because he finds her position threatening, or maybe he picks on her simply because he's nagging. It's possible that frequent nagging over little things can prevent serious battles from breaking out. Nagging happens nearly everywhere in nature and it baffles people, but it's thought to help little indivduals hold onto territories that butt onto those of big individuals.

So, there are other possible explanations for seeing something like a pack structure that is actually not a pack structure. I'm not sure yet if there is one or not, because it's a pretty huge thing for me to leave behind, but I'm interested in exploring other possibilities.

As for the dogs in the street.... around here, we get loose dogs that have a home where they are fed by people, but are otherwise allowed to roam free. They're generally well socialised dogs because they roam free, and they're also dependent on humans. Maybe they go straight for their own kind because they understand them, but why not turn that confident look on a person once in a while? They have their own human family somewhere that feeds them at least, and usually provides them with shelter, so why wouldn't they be in the least bit interested in telling a person that they're confident and strong when they're hellbent on telling a dog that? I do agree to a large extent about forming packs when it suits, and I believe Cressida was saying much the same thing.

Surely he would have done that if he saw humans in the same social framework as he was.

To answer that, there are human aggressive dogs. Or the example of feral packs presented by Tina K. Wherein, though they don't directly challenge, they do guard against humans ranging to close to their den. And, in so doing, do highly resemble a wolf pack.

A work friend of mine once said that dogs have a sense about people. As proof of his point, Shadow will come right up to him with nothing but love. A high school mate of mine can come over and Shadow maintains his distance while issuing guarding barks. The school mate has 3 horses, 3 mules, and 4 dogs and these smells may be triggering the guard reflex. Our other friend, from who's tree I plucked Jade, our white north american shorthair tabby, and her daughter, are immediately dog folk. Her daughter can walk right up to Shadow and pet him (they used to have a dog, one of his girlfriends and the one true offer to have him breed but we didn't for all the right reasons.) Other children in town, who've had dogs can come barreling up to him and it frightens him into a guarding response.

Shadow is a good dog but he behaves like a dog.

Mmmm. I'm not really arguing that dogs and humans don't get each other, or that dogs aren't wonderful at social interactions with any animal, just that they treat us differently than they do other dogs and that makes me wonder if they really see us in the light that we're told they see us.

Nor am I arguing that there is no such thing as a dog pack. I'm just suggesting that there are other explanations for what we see that looks like a dog pack. I mean, look at people. We can be as much loners as we can socialites. Frequently, we come together in groups for social or work reasons. Each time we come together, there is usually a little jostle for 'dominance' in the group. The one (or ones) that end up leading are the ones that are the most confident, knowledgeable and sometimes, the pushiest and most aggressive. Group dynamics are always interesting and rarely follow the same formula. Often, there is more than one 'leader'. Sometimes, there is a leader that won't tolerate anyone else making suggestions or trying to 'take control'. Perhaps this is all we see in dog packs, making them less a pack and more a social group. Perhaps that is why we see so much fluidity and why dogs are so relaxed about meeting strange dogs and can often even make friends with them.

Perhaps when we see human aggressive dogs, it's just the same thing and they are treating humans like they would a dog. Perhaps what we're seeing is the socially retarded individuals that reside in any population of social animals. What gets me, though, is that we see far fewer human aggressive dogs than dog aggressive dogs. I know that there are human aggressive dogs, but why, outside of territoriality, do we see so few human aggressive dogs? Why have I seen plenty of dogs outside of their territory come up and have a tense meeting with another dog outside it's territory, but never seen dogs outside their territory having a tense meeting with a human? If we just forget fearful aggression for the moment, because that's a totally different kind of behaviour, and forget territoriality for the same reasons, we've taken away most of the human aggressive dogs in the world, haven't we? Correct me if I'm wrong because I haven't even met a single human aggressive dog that wasn't afraid or territorial. Those I've seen on television are that way because they learnt it got them what they wanted. Is applying something you've learnt works every time the same as being dominant?

Is applying something you've learnt works every time the same as being dominant?

 
I don't have the advanced education in animal behavior that you do so I hope you can bear with my layman's approach.
 
Dogs can read humans in a doggy way as I yet again, for about the 3rd or 4th time, mention the thread about the pregnant woman who's dogs were defensively guarding by barking and challenging other humans that want to present her with affection. Spiritdogs herself said that the dogs were looking upon her as an important member of the pack that they would defend.
 
Dogs sometimes mount humans, not because they want to sire a litter with your leg but because they want to achieve a dominant position. Siberian Huskies are notable for pushing boundaries. If you are not leader, they will take the job. Other breeds are not quite as independent. Do they think we are dogs? Maybe not, but they read us in a doggy way and much of what humans do is canid. Living in groups, having leaders, struggling for the leader position. It's what made it possible for humans to hunt large animals, as wolves do. As for a human overstepping their bounds, yes dogs will retaliate. Not always and because it is not always does not negate the fact that a dog can challenge a human as it would another dog.
 
So, I'm not sure what the point is, unless it is to get someone to say that dogs don't see humans in a doggy way and do not act to humans as they would another dog (even though they do) so that the groundwork can be laid to say that CM is wrong when he says a dog is trying to achieve dominance with a certain behavior. A canid will receive training in a pack as to who is boss and who will follow whom, etc. It is inescapable. Likewise, we must lead them and set boundaries. If not, they will set the boundaries. The dog will then decide if someone else can get on the couch or not. Even if you use nothing but clicker and treats, you are training for a behavior that you expect to be offered at your whim. "Off the couch. I'm sitting down." You are still leading and must do so and the dog will follow, because they either follow or lead. And they are willing to follow humans as they would a lead dog.

Sometimes, there is a leader that won't tolerate anyone else making suggestions or trying to 'take control'. Perhaps this is all we see in dog packs, making them less a pack and more a social group

Corvus, what's the difference between a 'pack' and a 'social group' to you?

[8|]

What gets me, though, is that we see far fewer human aggressive dogs than dog aggressive dogs. I know that there are human aggressive dogs, but why, outside of territoriality, do we see so few human aggressive dogs?

Maybe they go straight for their own kind because they understand them, but why not turn that confident look on a person once in a while? They have their own human family somewhere that feeds them at least, and usually provides them with shelter, so why wouldn't they be in the least bit interested in telling a person that they're confident and strong when they're hellbent on telling a dog that?

First, we have to understand why dogs even bother turning these confident looks ON towards other dogs, then, we can look at why they don't do it to people. What's the purpose? Why waste energy?
The bottom line is that dogs know that we, humans, don't present a threat in evolutionary terms... We won't compete with them in terms of passing ones genes... We won't try to breed with an alpha dog... Isn't that what's its all about - passing on genes and eating?[8|][] This might sound simplistic, but the reason one wouldn't feel defensive is because he feels no threat. As soon as the dog starts feeliing competition: "Who is picking up that bit of steak?" "Who is going to breed with this healthy female" "Who is approaching my den", I bet any dog would treat you appropriately... as an equal: "Arghh... grrrr"

ORIGINAL: ron2

Is applying something you've learnt works every time the same as being dominant?

I don't have the advanced education in animal behavior that you do so I hope you can bear with my layman's approach.

Dogs can read humans in a doggy way as I yet again, for about the 3rd or 4th time, mention the thread about the pregnant woman who's dogs were defensively guarding by barking and challenging other humans that want to present her with affection. Spiritdogs herself said that the dogs were looking upon her as an important member of the pack that they would defend.

Dogs sometimes mount humans, not because they want to sire a litter with your leg but because they want to achieve a dominant position. Siberian Huskies are notable for pushing boundaries. If you are not leader, they will take the job. Other breeds are not quite as independent. Do they think we are dogs? Maybe not, but they read us in a doggy way and much of what humans do is canid. Living in groups, having leaders, struggling for the leader position. It's what made it possible for humans to hunt large animals, as wolves do. As for a human overstepping their bounds, yes dogs will retaliate. Not always and because it is not always does not negate the fact that a dog can challenge a human as it would another dog.

So, I'm not sure what the point is, unless it is to get someone to say that dogs don't see humans in a doggy way and do not act to humans as they would another dog (even though they do) so that the groundwork can be laid to say that CM is wrong when he says a dog is trying to achieve dominance with a certain behavior. A canid will receive training in a pack as to who is boss and who will follow whom, etc. It is inescapable. Likewise, we must lead them and set boundaries. If not, they will set the boundaries. The dog will then decide if someone else can get on the couch or not. Even if you use nothing but clicker and treats, you are training for a behavior that you expect to be offered at your whim. "Off the couch. I'm sitting down." You are still leading and must do so and the dog will follow, because they either follow or lead. And they are willing to follow humans as they would a lead dog.

 
[sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif][sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif][sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]

ORIGINAL: TinaK

Sometimes, there is a leader that won't tolerate anyone else making suggestions or trying to 'take control'. Perhaps this is all we see in dog packs, making them less a pack and more a social group

Corvus, what's the difference between a 'pack' and a 'social group' to you?

[8|]

Sorry Tina, I'm not deliberately being confusing. I'm just trying to work this out in my own mind. I don't really have a stance or definitions at the moment beyond wondering whether or not dogs include people in their social hierarchies. The way I see it, a pack is something fairly strictly structured in a ladder-like way. A social group is more fluid and less structured. I know you know way more about wolf packs than I do, so if you can set me straight on that, please do so. [] Your explanation about confident looks never being directed to people is a workable one and I'm going to think it through some more.

So, I'm not sure what the point is, unless it is to get someone to say that dogs don't see humans in a doggy way and do not act to humans as they would another dog (even though they do) so that the groundwork can be laid to say that CM is wrong when he says a dog is trying to achieve dominance with a certain behavior. A canid will receive training in a pack as to who is boss and who will follow whom, etc. It is inescapable. Likewise, we must lead them and set boundaries. If not, they will set the boundaries. The dog will then decide if someone else can get on the couch or not. Even if you use nothing but clicker and treats, you are training for a behavior that you expect to be offered at your whim. "Off the couch. I'm sitting down." You are still leading and must do so and the dog will follow, because they either follow or lead. And they are willing to follow humans as they would a lead dog.

Ron, when did I become some kind of CM hater? If I wanted to pick a fight about CM, I'd take it to the CM part of the forum. It's specifically because I don't want to fight about this, just share some ideas, that I came to this part of the forum. Really and truly, I just want to explore ideas and possible alternate explanations. If you look for a pack structure, chances are you're going to find one. Isn't it a worthwhile exercise to look for alternate explanations and then compare and contrast them and reassess what you think you know? I thought I knew there was a pack structure, and now I'm questioning that. I don't need everyone else to question that along with me if they don't want to, I would just love to hear people's thoughts on why they believe what they do about the issue.

I guess what I'm questioning is whether there is a difference between a pack and a social group in the first place, and if dogs were social rather than pack animals (see Cressida's post back on page 1), does this change how we should deal with them? For a while now I've thought that there's no such thing as a dominant dog, but rather, we see confident dogs. If that were true, would it have any implications in how we treated such dogs? I still believe wholeheartedly in NILIF and setting boundaries and displaying leadership. We expect the same thing in our children and workmates and anyone else we encounter in a group situation as we should expect in our dogs. But I'm wondering if it's as hard as it's been made out to be. To me, the world seems to be full of happy-go-lucky dogs that never really step up to run a household even when the opportunity is there, but rather manipulate their world to suit themselves. Is there a difference between stepping up and setting the boundaries and just trying to get what you want when you want it?

Houndlove, I too read the book "Dogs" by the coppinger's....excellent book.  I think they explained wonderfully that dogs are semi-solitary animals that do not normally pack (depending on the resources or food available) they will form groups tho...why pack when your a scavenger? which is how dogs evolved naturally... as scavengers, man just took advantage of an animal that domesticated itself.  Wolves pack cooperatively during hunting in order to kill large prey.  Packing for a wolf is a survival strategy often composed of family members.  Research indicates that packing behavior is a developmental response to a specific habitat. Wolves don't always pack, some populations never pack.  coyotes, which aren't thought of as a packing species, often do pack.  Packing behavior is not genetic...it's epigenetic-above the genes.

Those who have not had a hard or alpha-type dog just don't see it. But if you get to be around a team of Huskies, one will be alpha in the group. And a smart musher knows which dogs to not pair together on the gangline, lest they fight.

Quote by ron2

This is taken from the book dogs by a professional musher who has been racing Huskies for many many years...it contradicts what ron2 says.   

With sled dogs the running together as a "team" is a social event, a system of togetherness.   On a twelve- or sixteen dog team the leaders are usually paired.  The leaders can be paired as males or females.  What does that do to the theory of the alpha dog? two female alpha dogs? a dog team with good depth has many leaders.  It has alternatives that the driver can substitute up front to replace animals too tired to keep a winning paces.  Dogs are not wolves.  Dogs are not running as a pack.  A pack is about chasing something.  Sled dogs are running because other dogs are running.  They are motivated by somethign the animal behaviorists call social facilitation. 

 
People often use northern dogs as an example of packing behavior when they are probably the best dogs to form a group.  Many mushers do not have time for dominace hierachies in their group of huskies, they learn to eat together often from the same dish.  They are running as a team.[]

The wild domestic dogs studied in the Coppinger book had their certain feeding areas and would protect their feeding areas from other dogs.  Dogs bark as warning etc.   They don't view the humans as competition for food actually they look at humans as the food provider from fishing boats to the owners of the compost.  But, it's dogs nature to bark alarms...it's explained better in the book Dogs.  

As for pack status in a household, I find the people that have the most problems with dogs are the ones who use Alpha, and Alpha bitch and they try to treat their dogs like wolves that are trying to over throw a dynasty.[]   We have some clients at the grooming shop who cannot groom their own dogs, their dogs bite them, growl at them and they use that old alpha training and try to make their dogs surrender which in turn makes the situation worse.  The dogs start getting confused and are more defensive in the future as they don't trust their owner.  The secret is, teaching your dog to trust you by desensitizing...also when a dog learns that all it has to do is growl and the owner backs off they have learned a new behavior...I don't want to be brushed so I'll growl...next time I might have to bite..owner gets frustrated and resort to dominant training techniques which most times makes the situation worse...I've seen that happen way too many times...when all the dog really needed was rules, a happy unconfusing household..you do this you get this, you do that and you don't get this...

Also solid, consistant rules in the household are a must for any dog or children...don't confuse them. A household that is unpredictable will make a dog unpredictable...dogs get confused in a household where the owners have inconsistant rules etc.

What I find neat as well are those who just have a natural way with dogs.  There are those who  have to work at it and those it just comes natural to earn a dogs trust.  My Sister and my family is like this, we've always had a multi dog household and have never had any dog fights, food guarding etc.  They lived in a calm steady household where they never felt confused about anything.  We even took in a neighbors Husky and their huge Shepherd for a period of time with our 3 other dogs...these dogs in their own home would growl at their owners, snap etc.  The owners had the dogs so confused, the dog would stay at our house and be perfect and fit right in as we had a happy calm steady way around our dogs...no surprises.

Even with our current 5 dogs, they all live wonderfully together, no food resource aggression although Dilon did have terrible food aggression when we first got him as he was brought up in a kennel environment and learned to eat fast and guard your dish or another dog would get it.  It took patience and time to desensitize him and now he's great.  Our dogs are not thrown off even when we take my brothers little Alaskan husky for a few weeks or months or for a weekend.  The dogs do not have any confusion in their lives from us the dog owners so they are better able to deal with new dogs...even my dog aggressive Rottie when in a group of dogs she knows it the most patient and sweet dog with Chance....even though Athena would be "considered" a very dominant aggressive alpha female, she is currently so relaxed and laid back that nothing seems to throw her off...at one time with the type of training I was doing with her (dominance type training with the theory of dogs trying to be alpha etc) she was confused and was really bossy and mean spirited towards my Sister's dogs.  Since I learned about positive training and having a carefree laid back style of training with happy positive rewards she is an entirely different dog...because she is no longer confused and can deal with anything.

Those are just things I've seen with my dogs and adding to the ponderings of others.[]         Please excuse my rambling. 

just some random observations from my own dog pack-- being "alpha" only means you get first dibs on the resources. Nothing else. Example: we come back from a hard run, doggies are tired. There are assorted places to sleep around the house. The dogs all hesitate for a millisecond and let the alpha bitch choose a sleeping spot first. It's barely noticable to humans. However, if she doesn't take her most common sleeping place (end of the couch), doesn't mean the other dogs will necessarily take it-- for example, Baxter's favorite place to sleep is in the middle of the dog-mattress, and he would never choose the couch even if it is available.  Once a dog is in possession of a sleeping spot, that's it, they own it, and no other dog will ever attempt to FORCE them out of it (trick them into moving, that's another story).

I don't really have a stance or definitions at the moment beyond wondering whether or not dogs include people in their social hierarchies. The way I see it, a pack is something fairly strictly structured in a ladder-like way. A social group is more fluid and less structured.

OK. By a simple definition, a pack is just a group of wolves that hunt together. But, knowing a little bit about the wolf pack structure, in my mind, a pack is a fluid social group, members of which relay on each other to survive cooperatively combining forces... There has to be a coalition of forces and shared resources. So to me, a group does not need to "attack" its pray in order to be called a pack. (Scavenging dogs don't cooperatively kill large pray... they do go for small animals all the time - they just don't need much help in that front.)

As for pack status in a household, I find the people that have the most problems with dogs are the ones who use Alpha, and Alpha bitch and they try to treat their dogs like wolves that are trying to over throw a dynasty. We have some clients at the grooming shop who cannot groom their own dogs, their dogs bite them, growl at them and they use that old alpha training and try to make their dogs surrender which in turn makes the situation worse. The dogs start getting confused and are more defensive in the future as they don't trust their owner. The secret is, teaching your dog to trust you by desensitizing...also when a dog learns that all it has to do is growl and the owner backs off they have learned a new behavior...I

If the secret is to desensitize dogs (which I 100% agree with). What is it that we are desensitizing them form? If we come to admit that desensitization is needed, then we admit that dogs' mind operates on the basis of a structured hierarchy... And yes, our role is to teach dogs that hierarchy is not important when living with humans, not to say that it's not there.

That said, past applications of the dominance theory, have put a lot of people in the position to resent it... But, instead of resenting it, why not refine it? We can look for another label, and that's fine... In the end, as long as we agree on what we mean by it, who cares what the label is. If I was a scientist, I wouldn't never have patience and energy to fight over correct definitions. []I would be more of an observer... I don't mind things staying "abstract" in my head.

Also, from what I've read... I think wolf packs are more fluid than packs of dogs we live with. That's because nature creates more "tests" for pack members, and failing these tests creates opportunities for one push to a higher position... There are more injuries from hunts, territorial encounters, etc. (also, about 40% of pups die). Somebody has to take over temporarily and that happens often. There are not so many tests presented to our dogs at home - nice cozy bed, free food, etc.

You could look at it from the other way though....

Packing brings benefits only when resources are very scarce and all the animals in the group have to basically form a military unit to get the job done. There's a reason why in the military you don't question your superiors and you just do what you're told--in extreme circumstances, that is what it takes to stay alive.

In our houses? Not so much. And one theory the Coppingers give for the dogs they observed not packing is because they were all leading a pretty easy life. The humans, while not "dog lovers" did accept the presence of the dogs on the island and did toss them scraps when they felt like it, and the island is populated enough by humans that scavenging was easy and didn't require any packing behavior. In situations where the climate is harsher or the food scarcer, packing could be seen as a solution to the scarcity problem. But when food appears twice a day in a bowl and the climate is controlled year-round, perhaps packing is not so much a survival imperative. If packing is simply an adaptive behavior and not a genetic surity, this would make sense, no?