Controlling the resources

I don't accept your explanation completely espencer, as for why dogs want to go after (not fight) cats.  I think dogs see in terms of fellow predator and prey in non-human interactions, unless taught otherwise. 
 
My dog wants to go after rabbits, and rabbits don't have upright tails.  He'd chase anything that looks fuzzy and moves rapidly.  Or has feathers, or scales, or a leaf, plastic bags on a line moving fast....  Oh well, you understand.
 
And that wouldn't explain why the dog and cat wrestle with each other all the time either.  Or why if we wander into a cat on a walk, he'll cautiously walk up and give the sniff, if the cat is remaining in one spot-even if the cat is all puffed up (with tail straight up!)
 

I have cats, spence and I know what tail position means. Though for the record neither of my cats has a functioning tail (one has no tail at all, the other's tail is paralyzed and always just kind of sticks out at a 45 degree angle stiffly) and the dogs react to them the same way they react to every other cat they ever met: if the cat is just sitting there, it's an interesting thing to sniff and explore, if it runs the prey drive is activated and it's time to chase (though we do not allow that in our house). We encounter cats out of doors on our walks all the time and if the cat is just sitting or standing there, they are curious, if it runs, they want to chase.

The point wasn't whether or not a cat with an erect tail position is offering a greeting (no dispute there) but its whether or not a canid gives a hoot about feline tail position or just reacts to them as they'd react to any small non-canid mammal.

ORIGINAL: espencer
then why they are leaders?

I already answered it in post #2, but here it is again for you[]

In a pack, it is the leader's responsibility to know where the resources are. Sometimes the streams dry up, the herds move on, or nature simply doesn't have enough to offer. The leader is the one that takes the pack to other locations where those resources exist.

Though elephants aren't dogs, the matriarch elephant will lead her troop across vast distances to a watering hole that maybe she hasn't visited in many years.

Something similar can be seen with wolves, they'll have different territories depending upon seasonal changes as well. The leaders will sometimes leave the pack for a few days to scout them out and then come back and the pack will move.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

I don't accept your explanation completely espencer, as for why dogs want to go after (not fight) cats.  I think dogs see in terms of fellow predator and prey in non-human interactions, unless taught otherwise. 

My dog wants to go after rabbits, and rabbits don't have upright tails.  He'd chase anything that looks fuzzy and moves rapidly.  Or has feathers, or scales, or a leaf, plastic bags on a line moving fast....  Oh well, you understand.

And that wouldn't explain why the dog and cat wrestle with each other all the time either.  Or why if we wander into a cat on a walk, he'll cautiously walk up and give the sniff, if the cat is remaining in one spot-even if the cat is all puffed up (with tail straight up!)

 
I never said dogs dont go after cats because they dont see them as pray
 
This particular example was to illustrate how dogs are NOT expecting someone else not to act like dogs if you belong to a different specie
 
As we know even between dogs, if one of them has the tail up that does not guaranteed that there is going to be a fight
 
Again, it is JUST to illustrate dogs expect us to act like one, they do not razionalize that because we dont look like dogs we might not act like one
 
[sm=backtotopic.gif]
 
Leaders dont control the resources, they might lead the pack to look for food but maybe another member was the one that saw the deer, or the fox or whatever, how the ack dont choose that member as the leader (because he was the one who found the pray) instead of the alpha?

How come the leader the leader does not need to hold any food so the members can see him as one?; they actually would rather to wait till the leader starts eating before they do, even when the food is right there in front of them

Why the leader is the leader if he does not control the resources?
 
 

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

In a pack, it is the leader's responsibility to know where the resources are. Sometimes the streams dry up, the herds move on, or nature simply doesn't have enough to offer. The leader is the one that takes the pack to other locations where those resources exist.

Though elephants aren't dogs, the matriarch elephant will lead her troop across vast distances to a watering hole that maybe she hasn't visited in many years.

Something similar can be seen with wolves, they'll have different territories depending upon seasonal changes as well. The leaders will sometimes leave the pack for a few days to scout them out and then come back and the pack will move.

 
I'm sorry but i dont believe the leader actually would leave the pack by itself
 
Yes elephants are not dogs so they dont live as much as an elephant do, which prevent them to actually "experience" as much territory as an elephant does

just an offshoot here -
 
there was something i saw on national geographic or discovery about wild african dogs and how they worked as sub-packs when they hunted. the pack would see a gazelle, for example, and during the attack, the pack would seperate into several sub-packs... one sub-pack (#1) chasing the gazelle and another sub-pack (#2) setting themselves up as an ambush.... the #1 sub-pack drove them towards the #2 abushing pack and it was all over for the gazelle.
 

African wild dogs are the most highly social of the wild canids and often form extremely large packs of upwards of 50 individuals, somtimes hundreds (which, for me, approaches not being a pack, but a herd!). They're really very fascinating. They've got a lot to compete with as far as other large predators in their same niche and have developed a lot of really complex ways of dealing with their environment. I love them, they're gorgeous too.

Dogs know that humans are humans and dogs are dogs. They don't confuse the two. They also know cats are an entirely different species.
 
Dogs hang out with humans because humans have resources dogs want. Food, play, affection, company, access to a comfortable sleeping spot. When humans don't provide resources for dogs, dogs don't try to lead the human. They just quit hanging around them any more. When humans provide unconditional resources for dogs, they don't have motivation to behave in ways that are inconsistent to dogs.
 
I agree with Mudpuppy that pretending to be a high status dog wouldn't accomplish the goals most humans desire. Cheese will attain a recall far better than barking. They may come a time or two when you bark because it's pretty interesting to see the human doing such novel behavior, but cheese is a consistent reward.

I'm sorry but i dont believe the leader actually would leave the pack by itself

Have you never watched any documentaries about wolves? 

The alphas will leave the pack territory for days, sometimes for weeks and then come back.

The alpha female will sometimes leave to whelp and then come back with pups.

Leaders leave all the time.  The pack doesn't stay within arms reach of each other at all times.

Either way, I think your point is well intentioned but I don't agree with it.  Pack leaders in the wild control access to the resources, they know where the resources lie.  Pack leaders are the last to join the hunt so that they'll be in for the kill-leading from behind.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.[]

Would my dogs stick around if I didn't feed them and they got food elsewhere?  Yes.  WIthout a doubt they would.  In fact the neighbor's dog also stuck around with me despite the fact I never fed him and the neighbor always made sure to fill his bowl several times a day.  However all the neighbor did was feed him.  He never provided companionship.  The dog preferred to sleep outside my window in a hole dug in a snow bank at -10F without food for 3 days than go home despite the fact he had a warm dog house with plenty of blankets, a full bowl of food, and a heated water dish.  I don't think food motivates alot of dogs as much as people tend to think.  My akita and rottie sure wouldn't care one bit who provides them food but more who goes with them on walks, plays with them, and lays down the rules. 

That's one reason why I find controlling all resources all the time a rather silly philosophy.  Sure controlling some resources when it matters is very important.  If I'm eating a hot dog I tell the dog whether and when it can have some but I really don't care when they eat the food in their bowls.  It's not an important resource to me.  I see it with horses the most.  The ones that are the boss are not the ones that rule with an iron fist and control all the resources.  It's the ones that are first off the most confident and 2nd don't allow themselves to be pushed out from a resource they want.  If they don't make a bid for a resource or they walk off from it then it's not important to them and does not reflect badly on their leadership if someone else takes it.  If they do make a move toward some food, water, toy, certain space, etc... then all animals lower than them must move.  Any that don't are considered higher and will lower the rank of the animal who made the move for the resource.  Kinda like I don't care to control my dog's bed and when she lays in it because honestly I don't want to lay on a blanket on the wood floor.  I do control my bed cause it's important to me.  It's where I sleep.  But at the same time if I decided to sleep on the blanket on the floor and control it then the blanket would become the more important resource simply because I have proven myself leader.  In fact the bed probably wouldn't even be used.  She only gets on it because the cat does and she doesn't want to be seen as lower than the cat.

If I don't want a resource it's just being tyranical to control it.  Animals don't respond any better to that than a weak leader.  If you stopped giving the resources then yes they would leave because they don't really want to be around a leader like that.  The horses that try to rule the herd by taking everything they can and making every horse wait for permission even for things the "leader" doesn't want don't end up leading the herd.  They end up standing off by themselves while all the horses go form a seperate herd around their chosen leader.  That leader is the one who picks and chooses what resources are important to them and leaves the rest for the lesser animals to fight over all they want.  Generally the best leaders I've seen in any group of animals never picked a resource as important just because the other animals wanted it.  They were confident enough to give up anything they didn't find important irregardless of it's effect on their standing.  That confidence is the reason their standing doesn't go down despite giving up what others might view as a valuable resource.  The leader of my horse herd is the one that is the most indifferent to the others and their arguments over food or space.  She doesn't try to get the best spot by the hay unless she's actually hungry.  She doesn't try to control the water unless she's actually thirsty.  She doesn't stop any arguments or protect anyone.  She does what she wants to do.  When she's thirsty she walks in from the back pasture to get a drink irregardless of who is following her or not.  The others being less confident decide to follow her because obviously since she's leaving the group to do her own thing and not fighting over resources she's more confident than they are.  Within a week she could walk up to the water trough and everyone would just move.  She only ever kicked 1 horse out of 10  to make it move out of her way.  Just the amount the others look up to her as leader is enough to make them let her drink first or have whatever spot she wants in the shade or around the hay.  She doesn't lead them by control.  She leads them by choice.  I grew up spending nearly all the time I wasn't in school out with the horse herd.  I've seen lots of leaders and that is the type of leader i want to copy.  Not the ones that try to control everything and punish everyone in order to get what they want.  The one that commands simply because they are so confident and intelligent that everyone wants them to lead and they do not have to lower themselves by trying to control resources that are really of no importance to them.

Leaders dont control the resources, they might lead the pack to look for food but maybe another member was the one that saw the deer, or the fox or whatever, how the pack dont choose that member as the leader (because he was the one who found the pray) instead of the alpha?

How come the leader the leader does not need to hold any food so the members can see him as one?; they actually would rather to wait till the leader starts eating before they do, even when the food is right there in front of them

Why the leader is the leader if he does not control the resources?

 
There are two ways to answer this.
 
If dogs are like wolves, hence the "alpha wolf" model of training and behaviorism, alphas do control resources. Not just in leading the hunt but in who gets to eat and when. Alpha gets first choice. Betas get to pick what's next. Omegas eat last. And I have seen this in more than one wolf documentary. Such an event cannot be wished away no matter how many semantic hoops we jump through.
 
If dogs are not like wolves and, as you wish to say, the alpha does not control the resources, then why can't humans be the leaders by controlling the resources. Because, in fact, we do. Whether we can physically open the fridge or not. Our earning power gets the food that we provide the dogs. If dogs are not wolves, then basing our training and behavioral strategy on wolf models is innacurate. Therefore, we can be leaders by controlling the resources.
 
Or, to put it another way, leaders control the resources. Even if dogs and wolves are separate species.
 
And, many times, dogs or wolves in a pack will defer to one as nominally, the leader. In a wolf pack, if a wolf wishes to challenge the alpha, there may be a fight. The option is to abdicate and accept the lower rank, or move on and start another pack. Or, as is usually the case in most packs, which are actually families, the young ones grow up and leave on their own to start packs, never having challenged the alpha. And what did the alpha do? Brought food when they were too young to hunt. When they were old enough, brought them along on the hunt and they ate whatever the alpha was not eating.
 
Since we are not going to fight our dogs, we lead them with resources.
 

one sub-pack (#1) chasing the gazelle and another sub-pack (#2) setting themselves up as an ambush.... the #1 sub

 
Let me off-shoot your off-shoot. If the sub-packs are not controlled by one alpha, then, at least in this example of canid behavior, pack behavior is dynamic and "alpha" is contextual.
 

Mod's note:

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. []

Thank you for the reminder for everyone. And, yes, that's much better than spinning circles in which posts can begin to taunt, tease, bug, or get off-topic! []

Carry on!

ORIGINAL: Sham85

Would my dogs stick around if I didn't feed them and they got food elsewhere?  Yes.  WIthout a doubt they would.  In fact the neighbor's dog also stuck around with me despite the fact I never fed him and the neighbor always made sure to fill his bowl several times a day.  However all the neighbor did was feed him.  He never provided companionship.  The dog preferred to sleep outside my window in a hole dug in a snow bank at -10F without food for 3 days than go home despite the fact he had a warm dog house with plenty of blankets, a full bowl of food, and a heated water dish.  I don't think food motivates alot of dogs as much as people tend to think.  My akita and rottie sure wouldn't care one bit who provides them food but more who goes with them on walks, plays with them, and lays down the rules. 

That's one reason why I find controlling all resources all the time a rather silly philosophy.  Sure controlling some resources when it matters is very important.  If I'm eating a hot dog I tell the dog whether and when it can have some but I really don't care when they eat the food in their bowls.  It's not an important resource to me.  I see it with horses the most.  The ones that are the boss are not the ones that rule with an iron fist and control all the resources.  It's the ones that are first off the most confident and 2nd don't allow themselves to be pushed out from a resource they want.  If they don't make a bid for a resource or they walk off from it then it's not important to them and does not reflect badly on their leadership if someone else takes it.  If they do make a move toward some food, water, toy, certain space, etc... then all animals lower than them must move.  Any that don't are considered higher and will lower the rank of the animal who made the move for the resource.  Kinda like I don't care to control my dog's bed and when she lays in it because honestly I don't want to lay on a blanket on the wood floor.  I do control my bed cause it's important to me.  It's where I sleep.  But at the same time if I decided to sleep on the blanket on the floor and control it then the blanket would become the more important resource simply because I have proven myself leader.  In fact the bed probably wouldn't even be used.  She only gets on it because the cat does and she doesn't want to be seen as lower than the cat.

If I don't want a resource it's just being tyranical to control it.  Animals don't respond any better to that than a weak leader.  If you stopped giving the resources then yes they would leave because they don't really want to be around a leader like that.  The horses that try to rule the herd by taking everything they can and making every horse wait for permission even for things the "leader" doesn't want don't end up leading the herd.  They end up standing off by themselves while all the horses go form a seperate herd around their chosen leader.  That leader is the one who picks and chooses what resources are important to them and leaves the rest for the lesser animals to fight over all they want.  Generally the best leaders I've seen in any group of animals never picked a resource as important just because the other animals wanted it.  They were confident enough to give up anything they didn't find important irregardless of it's effect on their standing.  That confidence is the reason their standing doesn't go down despite giving up what others might view as a valuable resource.  The leader of my horse herd is the one that is the most indifferent to the others and their arguments over food or space.  She doesn't try to get the best spot by the hay unless she's actually hungry.  She doesn't try to control the water unless she's actually thirsty.  She doesn't stop any arguments or protect anyone.  She does what she wants to do.  When she's thirsty she walks in from the back pasture to get a drink irregardless of who is following her or not.  The others being less confident decide to follow her because obviously since she's leaving the group to do her own thing and not fighting over resources she's more confident than they are.  Within a week she could walk up to the water trough and everyone would just move.  She only ever kicked 1 horse out of 10  to make it move out of her way.  Just the amount the others look up to her as leader is enough to make them let her drink first or have whatever spot she wants in the shade or around the hay.  She doesn't lead them by control.  She leads them by choice.  I grew up spending nearly all the time I wasn't in school out with the horse herd.  I've seen lots of leaders and that is the type of leader i want to copy.  Not the ones that try to control everything and punish everyone in order to get what they want.  The one that commands simply because they are so confident and intelligent that everyone wants them to lead and they do not have to lower themselves by trying to control resources that are really of no importance to them.

Those are really good examples of what i'm talking aboout, specially the part of  "She doesn't lead them by control.  She leads them by choice"

ORIGINAL: houndlove

African wild dogs are the most highly social of the wild canids and often form extremely large packs of upwards of 50 individuals, somtimes hundreds (which, for me, approaches not being a pack, but a herd!). They're really very fascinating. They've got a lot to compete with as far as other large predators in their same niche and have developed a lot of really complex ways of dealing with their environment. I love them, they're gorgeous too.

AND they have a 95% success rate in hunts! Clearly something's working for them. Of course, they're also highly endangered, so not everything is working for them. Still, most predators have a success rate lower than 40%. Big cats are usually down around below 30%.