Should We Ignore or Celebrate the "Wolfiness" in Our Dogs?

 I dunno',  'Should You Ignore or Celebrate the Challenges to Your Incessant Spam'?

Everyonr (and I mean EVERYONE) knows where your blog is located.  *removed by moderator - rude*

Better yet, start helping out Kevin *removed by moderator* by explain to him ALL the things about his theory that you now disavow.  

I didn't catch it before but I caught it this time. Your statement that NDT is based on how working dogs learn. There is a difference between some working dogs and pets. Pets are not expected or desired to bite. K-9s are, tracking dogs, especially retrievers are. The K-9 holds onto a suspect, the retriever brings back the targeting shuttle or in hunting, jumps in the lake and retrieves the duck downed by the hunter. In either case, it is a controlled bite and that takes specific training. With K-9, it is controlled intensity that is under complete command. In retrievers, it is a genetically bred effect called "soft mouth." Soft flappy lips and pressure sensitive jaws that allow the retriever to carry an object without piercing it, if at all possible. With a sled dog, it is the desire to run fast and pull hard in the worst conditions on Earth on very little food. And to be smart enough to ignore the musher and not pull the whole team into water through thin ice when the average winter temp is - 70 F. Falling into water then is not just inconvenient, it's fatal. These aspects that make for a great working dog are often anti-thetical to what you need in a pet.

Granted, there are the urges to bite (it's one of the primary tactile senses to the world, along with smell.) But, to me, biting is a basic function, as is walking. It would be like saying that the key to a kid understanding differential calculus is gained through walking on hind legs.

Be that as it may, there are working dogs who retire and get to live with families and they undergo positive training to learn those skills. When a working dog, such as a K-9 was rewarded with bite play (tug on a rolled towel) how do you want to ensure that he won't reward himself on your child? By having an equally desirable reward to not bite. Especially helpful is that the bite, itself, was placed on cue and that was done, almost all the time, with rewards. It's the same reason I put jumping on people on cue. Once on cue, it is less likely to happen unless cued. But it also requires the family learning what they may or may not due in the presence of this working dog to not accidently cue a bite.

The bite is a mechanical function in both work and play. I'm not so sure it evokes evidence of direct descendence of dogs from wolves, but it is a canid thing. It's a human thing, too. Ask any parent what an infant or toddler does. They put everything in their mouths, often stuff you don't want in their mouths. Many a lawsuit is based on what a child could get in his or her mouth. So, I may have to temper my earlier statement. Biting may not be only a canid thing, it could be a mammal thing. Or "anything above the level of amoeba" thing and I may have to alter that more if I had more knowledge of amoeba.

Eventually the child learns not to mouth everything, sometimes through both punishment and reward. Same for the dog. Even wolves learn when to repress the bite, through training by, nominally, a beta wolf. He revokes the "puppy" license sometime before 6 months.

Are dogs wolfy? Ok. So are jackals, coyotes, dingos, NGSD's, and the Maned Wolf of South America, which eats up to 50 percent of it's diet in vegetation during summer. So much, in fact, it's favorite plant bears it's name. Fruta Lobo, Wolf's Fruit. Technically, it's not the same as a gray wolf, but has many similar behaviors and is friendlier to humans than are wolves.

Also, could I ask for the citation or reference that shows that wolves that live near dumps don't form "packs"? I say that because a real wolf pack is a family, momma, poppa, cubs, regardless of where they are. Disparate wolves don't ordinarily form packs, even away from food dumps. At least according to L. David Mech.

 I have to agree with Burl on the point of you using this forum as a repository for shameless self promotion.

Ya know Lee,

I would also agree with Burl if you didn't actually discuss and participate here as much as you do. I've been reading your thoughts since encountering you on the very first dog forum I ever joined over five years ago...and I'll just leave my personal comments at that unless someone pokes them with a stick. But, as only an occassional member here, I have to say I'm enjoying reading what everyone has to say regarding the topics you're posting. I like discussions and debate. I like hearing people's stories about what makes sense to them and what has worked for them.

I think different perspectives add to the greater picture. When things become too personal, well... 

ETA: On topic...why not not just examine "it" for what "it is" or "may be"? Bits and pieces of a larger puzzle. Yet, not to be totally embraced or discarded in the extreme.

Angelique,

No stick poking here.  I agree with you that debate is good, but coming to a forum to do so while blatantly refusing to address counterpoints and criticisms of your ideas that are raised by one or more of its members is not proper conduct.

 One must admit that he is wrong, or be willing to argue why he is not.  To get personal and point out one's character or tone of debate can be tolerated if it substantiates points raised.

What is not acceptable is for a person to feign undeserved treatment, adopting a persona of indignation, all the while ignoring that he adopts the same style of discussion.
 
*REMOVED BY MODERATOR* Board wars are not allowed

So please, Lee, *removed by moderator* respond to all questions directly as we do.

The only misgiving I have with this thread is the title. It applies the assumption that dogs descended from wolves. For I think that is an assumption. It would have been more accurate, though more general, to say that dogs and wolves have similar canid characteristics. However, even if dogs descended from wolves (skeletal evolution would disagree with that, btw) they are still different species, though having similar characteristics. Now, what is odd about canids is that they can interbreed, creating "hybrids." Humans, who are closer to chimps than dogs are to wolves, cannot interbreed. What a difference a small difference in genetics makes. One might say how chimp-like we are but it is more accurate to say that we are both primate or simian in appearance and behavior.

Burl

I agree with you that debate is good, but coming to a forum to do so while blatantly refusing to address counterpoints and criticisms of your ideas that are raised by one or more of its members is not proper conduct.

 What is a board war?

I should probably amend my earlier statement. Simian, I think, refers more to hominid primates. In which, we only share ape or primate characteristics with chimps, and not simian characteristics. I got too general and got some paint on the window, so to speak.

ron2

I didn't catch it before but I caught it this time. Your statement that NDT is based on how working dogs learn. ... When a working dog, such as a K-9 was rewarded with bite play (tug on a rolled towel) how do you want to ensure that he won't reward himself on your child? By having an equally desirable reward to not bite. Especially helpful is that the bite, itself, was placed on cue and that was done, almost all the time, with rewards. It's the same reason I put jumping on people on cue. Once on cue, it is less likely to happen unless cued. But it also requires the family learning what they may or may not due in the presence of this working dog to not accidently cue a bite.

You make some very good points, Ron. 

My philosophy is that the harder a dog can bite in play, the less need he'll have to bite because of fear or aggression. I've noticed in my training practice that one of the hardest things I encounter is convincing an aggressive dog to bite a tug toy. He just doesn't want to do it. He'll try to bite every dog or person he sees on the street, but he won't bite a tug toy. But then, once I do get him to play tug with me, all his aggression disappears.

So if aggression is based on fear (and/or stress), then, according to one of my 5 points, when you get an aggressive dog to play tug, and the dog's aggression dissipates as a result, that would suggest that biting is the ultimate release of tension and stress for canines.

ron2

Also, could I ask for the citation or reference that shows that wolves that live near dumps don't form "packs"? I say that because a real wolf pack is a family, momma, poppa, cubs, regardless of where they are. Disparate wolves don't ordinarily form packs, even away from food dumps. At least according to L. David Mech.

It was something Ray Coppinger said to me online during a discussion following the Dogs and More Dogs special on PBS.It was hosted by the Washington Post, and may still be available online, I don't know. Fortunately, I kept a transcript on my hard drive. Here's a transcript of our part of the discussion (with the relevant portion emphasized):

New York, N.Y.: I'm a dog trainer and mystery novelist. And I enjoyed the show very much. What do you think of the idea that the pack is a bottom-up, self-emergent system rather than a top-down hierarchy? Personally, I think emergence explains some of the inherent fallacies in the alpha theory.

Ray Coppinger: I agree. I think that packing behavior has been very over-rated in that people think that wolves pack and therefore one has to dominate their dog in order to train it. The logic there is just poor. First of all, not all wolves do pack and packing behavior seems to be a social construct depending on other variables, like prey size. So, in areas where prey might be garbage in the dump, you find wolves in very loose social arrangements. They have them, but they're not a pack.

I also have heard the statement that wolves pack and coyotes don't, and that's false. There are many papers out there on coyote packing behavior. The coyotes in Yellowstone used to pack before the reintroduction of wolves and suddenly their packing strategies changed because of that.

So I don't think packing behavior is genetic, there aren't genes for packing. So dogs don't get that from wolves. So when we enter into a social relationship with our dogs its because dogs can make social relationships and a huge number of them. We just add the word pack to them. Pack is a sloppy word and it is seldom seen in dogs in the way you think of it in wolves.

New York, N.Y.: I think it's valuable for people to know that most dogs weren't bred to be pets. One of the problems I deal with as a trainer, and this was brought out in what you said on the show, is that often a dog's instincts are out of synch with his environment. This creates "problem behaviors", which are just manifestations of the dog's frustration at not having an "acceptable" outlet for his drives.

Ray Coppinger: Right. I thought that we covered that in the program and I agree 100 percent. Often I get calls from vets who say they've got a dog with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and treating him with valium, but it isn't working. So I ask what the obsession is and often it's the retrievers or border collies and they're behaviors we spent years trying to breed into these dogs and many of those behaviors act like epilepsy in a pet dog and I've seen vets treat them as such. It's like a puppy chasing a tail. If they don't stop it becomes a disorder now and again that's the dog in the wrong environment. If it happens in a developmental period it persists into adulthood and is very hard to train out.

Thanks too, to Angelique for your kind comments.

SpiritDogs: I'm sorry it seems to you as if I'm spamming. My understanding of spam is that it's unasked for commercial content, downloaded with the intent of making money. My purpose in providing links to my articles is to spark a lively debate, at least partially in the hopes that I'll learn something new from some of the people here. I find that most of the people here, yourself included, are very intelligent and highly knowledgeable about dogs, so for me, posting here is a way for me to stay on my toes, intellectually speaking.

So, are my posts "unasked for?" Possibly. Are they spam? I don't think so.

And mucho gracias to Paige!

Anyway, that's how I see it,

LCK

Lee Charles Kelley

My philosophy is that the harder a dog can bite in play, the less need he'll have to bite because of fear or aggression. I've noticed in my training practice that one of the hardest things I encounter is convincing an aggressive dog to bite a tug toy. He just doesn't want to do it. He'll try to bite every dog or person he sees on the street, but he won't bite a tug toy. But then, once I do get him to play tug with me, all his aggression disappears.

This doesn't hold up *at all* for those of us who are familiar with doing  actual bitework working with dogs involving defense drive/reactive aggression and fight drive/active aggression.  You've got it all backwards and upside down....

Try this "theory" on a working dog forum...

Actually, my take on the Coppingers is that they study dog in it's natural environment, which is around humans. As opposed to L. David Mech, who studies wolves in their natural environment, which is usually far from humans and "civilization." Coyotes can pack and that is verified by field researchers, such as the one I read from, who followed coyotes through the Adirondacks. But they don't hold packs for very often. In fact, I think, dogs are more likely to pack, especially as it involves non-canids in the group. Just this morning, our cat, Jade, was licking and grooming Shadow's ears and he just lays there and lets her do it. Is that something a "pack" member does or allows? I've been refuted before that a dog can have a "pack" that is not just other dogs but that doesn't make me pack leader.

I was hoping the Coppingers had a study or field report that would support the notion of wolves hanging around dumps and not packing. Because, as I have said many times before, possibly to no avail, according to L. David Mech, a wolf pack is usually a family. Sometimes, an extended family, but the members are usually related by close sanguinity. Wolves, in the wild, as a rule, do not form large groups of strangers and also tend to stay away from human centers. As it is, it sounds like a statement that was primarily meant to dispel the notion that a wolf "alpha" establishes himself to decide feeding rights and it becomes unnecessary in the presence of a cornucopia at a dump. Dispelling the notion is fine, but actual "alpha" in a real wolf pack is alpha male (daddy) and alpha female (mommy) and the training wolf is beta (usually uncle).

Which is another reason to note the differences between dogs and wolves. Dogs can form groups with stranger dogs, humans, cats, assorted other creatures outside of their species and immediate blood family. Wolves do not do that.

I'm sure, at times, wolves can come close, maybe even scavenge a little bit. But, as you might note, wolves are built for the hunt and that is primarily what they do. Especially wolves are not as much into consuming vegetable matter as dogs are. The contents of the dump may not be as filling as a fresh kill. But, sometimes, you've got to eat what is available.

But thank you for reporting the source of that statement.

Coyotes do pack but it is very fluid and transitory. I didn't mean to imply that they don't pack, ever. One might also question the nature of a coyote pack as to how similar or relevant it is to a wolf pack or a dog pack. Coyotes have been known to pack long enough to lure a family pet away to kill and eat it. That is what happened to Shadow's friend, Duke, a Jack Russell Terrier he grew up with.

Lee Charles Kelley

 "Unified Dog Theory IV: Celebrating the Wolfiness in Dogs."

LCK

Liesje

Lee Charles Kelley

My philosophy is that the harder a dog can bite in play, the less need he'll have to bite because of fear or aggression. I've noticed in my training practice that one of the hardest things I encounter is convincing an aggressive dog to bite a tug toy. He just doesn't want to do it. He'll try to bite every dog or person he sees on the street, but he won't bite a tug toy. But then, once I do get him to play tug with me, all his aggression disappears.

 

This doesn't hold up *at all* for those of us who are familiar with doing  actual bitework working with dogs involving defense drive/reactive aggression and fight drive/active aggression.  You've got it all backwards and upside down....

Try this "theory" on a working dog forum...

Hi,

Thanks for your comments.

Believe me, I've been lambasted by some working dog trainers (not all, but some).

That said, Kevin Behan, who developed the theory I use, grew up in a working-dog kennel. His father was kind of the Cesar Millan of his day (late 1950s, early 60s). He had a weekly TV show and a multi-million dollar business, training dogs for protection all over the country. But Kevin felt that the philosophy behind what his father did (dominance) was missing a piece, so after college he studied with some old German schutzhund masters, and noticed they never used dominance, that it wasn't even part of their vocabulary (except at home, when the dog did something unexpected).

I have no trouble at all standing by my statements about how playing tug-of-war with aggressive dogs, where you always let the dog win, and praise him for winning, gradually reduces and then cures the dog's aggressive tendencies.

You say I've got it all upside down and backwards, but you haven't said how. Since I know from personal experience, over the last 18 years or so of using this philosophy, and have seen it work, every single time, with every single dog I've ever done it with, I'd need to hear more on why you think I'm wrong, not just a kind of blanket statement like that.

Thanks a lot!

LCK