Lupomorphizing

Harmful.
 
I say that because although dogs and wolves share some inherent canid traits, all of the characteristics which make wolves bad human companions have, by the very nature of domestication, been bred out.  Dogs are now expected not only to NOT act like wolves, but to perfom certain behaviours that are diametric opposites to what a wolf would naturally do.  We naturally assume, when getting a dog, that we will at times separate it from its pack (family), train out the urge to hunt, obey humans, eat a diet of processed food and prevent it from guarding its territory to the death.  All of those things are possible and even desirable for both person and animal, but we are only able to do those things because dogs have been domesticated.
 
I think its unfair to everyone involved for someone to view a dog as a dog when it's convenient, but a wolf when it's "fashionable".
 
Kate

I have to agree, Kate.  I don't consider Max, or any other dog, wolflike any more than I consider myself or my friends apelike. Well - maybe some of them. []
 
Joyce

Well, from an evolutionary biology point of view, it's reasonable to draw on knowledge of wolf behaviour to help understand dogs. Mostly, I'm thinking of body language. I've found that a lot of animals have things in common when it comes to body language. I'm yet to meet an animal with prominent ears that doesn't stick them right up, facing forwards when it's very curious. Nonetheless, some things are uniquely canine. When I see photos of wolves with the body language explained, I find that I would interpret it much the same way in a dog.

Additionally, it's frequently helpful to look at close relatives when finding reasons for behaviour. I was taught in school that you should always consider the behaviour in a phylogenetic context, most especially if you find it difficult to explain. Often behaviours persist from an ancestral state, even when they aren't useful anymore. If they aren't detrimental to an individual's survival, then the behaviour will likely hang around long after selection pressure for that behaviour has been removed.

Frankly, I consider humans to be very apelike. Watching bonobos closely, it's like seeing what we could have been if we hadn't veered off not so long ago and followed a different path. Many of the things we do and the way we do them come directly from our ape ancestry. And again, the body language is eerily similar. That's why the chimps are always so popular at zoos; because people find it easy to relate to them and interpret what they're doing.

I do think people tend to oversimplify when it comes to drawing similarities between dogs and wolves, but I also think wolves can provide us with some interesting insights into why our dogs might be the way they are.

And the reason to draw on knowledge should be carefully weighed against devaluing the species.  I think people are fascinated by chimps at zoos because of similar human features and their intelligent level in relation to other less intelligent species.  I think people are repulsed when primitive behavior is presented with the direct links to define current human behavior.  I know I was when it was published that chimps kill chimps for reasons other than survival and carrying on the line.  Care must be taken least we find our dogs in the extinction situation of wolves and apes.

ORIGINAL: corvus

Well, from an evolutionary biology point of view, it's reasonable to draw on knowledge of wolf behaviour to help understand dogs. Mostly, I'm thinking of body language. I've found that a lot of animals have things in common when it comes to body language. I'm yet to meet an animal with prominent ears that doesn't stick them right up, facing forwards when it's very curious. Nonetheless, some things are uniquely canine. When I see photos of wolves with the body language explained, I find that I would interpret it much the same way in a dog.

Additionally, it's frequently helpful to look at close relatives when finding reasons for behaviour. I was taught in school that you should always consider the behaviour in a phylogenetic context, most especially if you find it difficult to explain. Often behaviours persist from an ancestral state, even when they aren't useful anymore. If they aren't detrimental to an individual's survival, then the behaviour will likely hang around long after selection pressure for that behaviour has been removed.

Frankly, I consider humans to be very apelike. Watching bonobos closely, it's like seeing what we could have been if we hadn't veered off not so long ago and followed a different path. Many of the things we do and the way we do them come directly from our ape ancestry. And again, the body language is eerily similar. That's why the chimps are always so popular at zoos; because people find it easy to relate to them and interpret what they're doing.

I do think people tend to oversimplify when it comes to drawing similarities between dogs and wolves, but I also think wolves can provide us with some interesting insights into why our dogs might be the way they are.

 
Yes. []
 
It's one area on "study list" when you work with an individual dog. Wolf studies give us a portion of knowledge in understanding their closest relative, the dog. But it is only a portion of the whole picture.
 
I think a study of dingos, feral, and ariah dogs living in the wild (or loosely around humans) would give you a closer comparison to the family pet.
 
Wolves will give you a look into a more primal animal which seems to have a much more intense way of socially interacting, at least in the human captivity studies. The wolves which are studied in their wild state, are less stressed because they do not live in close contact with man as the captive wild studied wolves. Hmmm, it's that pesky old human factor again! []
 
There is a common ancestry and about 98% shared DNA (depending on what study you read). Recent genome work has been done which I heaven't read up on lately.
 
One thing I've thought about is wolves in the wild tend to stay away from man, where as wild dogs tend to congregate in human populated areas more like coyotes, yet a coyote is even further removed genetically from a dog, than a wolf is.
 
Fox breeding experiments were done in russia some years back which produced a very domesticated animal with altered appearences and more docile temperments in a very short period of time, and foxes are even further removed, yet. It's interesting studying the entire group of canids, not just wolves and dogs.
 
It does get to a point where the final study is about just dogs, the breeds, and individual being standing in front of you. []
 
 
 
There are a lot of similarities, especially in body language and communication.
 

All great points.  I think that we need to keep these all in perspective whenever we use some wolf behaviors to explain dog behavior, which as Kate so aptly points out, has largely been bred out.  And, we need to remember the behaviors that might surface from time to time, as corvus says.  It is, perhaps, best to remain circumspect, and, as Angelique points out, not forget that there is often an individual dog standing before us, who maybe has not read the studies LOL.
This is the kind of discussion that resembles brainstorming, rather than just storming.  Nice job everyone - you renew my faith in idog. []

But wait! I'm just getting started (oh no!). []

One of the most fascinating areas where I pay attention is body language and communication each canid uses. It's hard to study all of them, but if you watch a good piece of documentary footage on a particular species, you pick up on things.

I've notice Painted Wolves (Wild Dogs, Cape Hunting Dogs, etc.) use a more exagerated submissive display than the stoic wolves. And PW are even further removed from dogs than wolves, jackals, and coyotes.

Coyotes and jackals put their tails down and fluff up at each other (almost like cats) in some dominant displays and interactions, where wolves and dogs will raise and stiffen their tails or one will clearly send a lowered tail, submissive signal.

Dogs are easiest to study, because there they are! Right in front of you. So, you get to study them, their interactions with each other, and their interactions with humans. Field (kinda) study of an animal, right in your living room, at mom's, at the park, in the streets...they're everywhere. []

Well, from an evolutionary biology point of view, it's reasonable to draw on knowledge of wolf behaviour to help understand dogs. Mostly, I'm thinking of body language. I've found that a lot of animals have things in common when it comes to body language. I'm yet to meet an animal with prominent ears that doesn't stick them right up, facing forwards when it's very curious. Nonetheless, some things are uniquely canine. When I see photos of wolves with the body language explained, I find that I would interpret it much the same way in a dog.

 
Indeed.  This is a better explanation of what I meant by "inherent canid traits".  Body language between wolves and dogs IS similar - probably for the incredibly simple reason that it WORKS.  However, body language isn't one of the characteristics that would make a wolf a bad pet, so it was never a necessity to alter that in the domestification of dogs.  I do think that this is where most of the comparison is rooted: We can read the body language of both dogs and wolves, they are very similar, ergo dogs and wolves must be similar.  That is somewhat flawed logic, but I can see where it stems from.
 
Studying parallel evolution (dogs and wolves, humans and apes) does of course provide many useful insights, and I don't think those should be discounted.  My objection is against the idea that wolves and dogs are similar in all respects.  They are not, and they aren't because humans have engineered it to be that way.  Calling a dog a wolf, or vice versa, doesn't change the nature of each creature, and those natures are different. 
 
I'm not sure evolution works anyway.  If I looked strictly at inhereted traits, my dog would be FAR more likely to be a direct descendant of a goat.  []
 
Kate
 

I think we tend to bring wolf examples because thats the closest thing to a wild dog without owners, there is not a lot of streets dogs in USA, i cant come and say "hey have you seen street dogs and how they behave? thats how it is in the dog's world", no, the closest thing is the wolf documentaries on TV, thats the closest enviroment we can bring to the discussion to make the other person realize what are we talking about

Lets set free some dogs into the streets and we wont have to bring wolf examples ever again []

More thoughts...
 
There is also the issue of "Schroedinger's Cat" - that is, the theory that the very act of observation changes that which is being observed.  So while yes, we have a very good understanding of the behaviours of both dogs and wolves, we can never be absolutely sure that things would be the same were we not watching.  Our observations of wolf behaviour is simply that - OUR observations, humans watching a different species that speaks a language we do not.  That's true for dogs too, but we do at least have the advantage of close daily contact and more importantly interaction with dogs.  Under those circumstances, any comparisons between wolves and dogs would at the very least have the chance of being flawed.  As I've said before we DO have something to learn from wolves with regards to our pets, but those comparisons have limitations.
 
I wholeheartedly agree with evaluating the dog in front of us and working with its strengths and weaknesses - generalisations as a whole are, in my view, often damaging. 
 
Kate

ORIGINAL: Angelique

I think a study of dingos, feral, and ariah dogs living in the wild (or loosely around humans) would give you a closer comparison to the family pet.

Dingoes are weird in that I think the pack instinct is pretty vague. Australia can't support packs of dogs in most places because there isn't large enough game. Dingoes are entirely capable of teaming up to hunt, but are far more likely to be seen in pairs or alone than anything else. I've seen a lot of wild dingoes and never seen more than 2 together. In fact, I've only seen 2 once, and that was in the tropics where there is more game. I think their pack instinct is considerably less than a domestic dog's, but it's hard to say because it seems uncommon for them to form packs anyway.

Wolves will give you a look into a more primal animal which seems to have a much more intense way of socially interacting, at least in the human captivity studies. The wolves which are studied in their wild state, are less stressed because they do not live in close contact with man as the captive wild studied wolves. Hmmm, it's that pesky old human factor again! []

I agree wholeheartedly. Wolves, to me, seem a whole lot more intense than dogs. And I also think that huge drive they have to be the alpha has caused a lot of trouble for their doggy relatives. I tend to harp on this a lot, but I think it's worthwhile to always remind yourself that wolves only get to breed if they're at the top of the social pecking order. That is such a massive selection pressure, and one that has been swung around 180 degrees in domestic dogs. People certainly don't want dogs that want desperately to be at the top. Perhaps routine spay and neuter practices have had an effect on the expression of this trait as well.

ORIGINAL: corvus

ORIGINAL: Angelique

I think a study of dingos, feral, and ariah dogs living in the wild (or loosely around humans) would give you a closer comparison to the family pet.

Dingoes are weird in that I think the pack instinct is pretty vague. Australia can't support packs of dogs in most places because there isn't large enough game. Dingoes are entirely capable of teaming up to hunt, but are far more likely to be seen in pairs or alone than anything else. I've seen a lot of wild dingoes and never seen more than 2 together. In fact, I've only seen 2 once, and that was in the tropics where there is more game. I think their pack instinct is considerably less than a domestic dog's, but it's hard to say because it seems uncommon for them to form packs anyway.

 
I think pack size also has a lot to do with the size of prey which is being hunted.
 
I can look at the Coppinger studies of village dogs which congregate near humans and live mostly by scavenging, which have no real need to form packs for hunting or even breeding, and probably only form minimal territories for breeding rights and food sources.
 
I can also look at ainted Wolves and the wolves of Yellowstone National park, which need a large, combined force to bring down large prey.
 
And then, I can look at Farley Mowatt's chronicles in "Never Cry Wolf" where the wolves hunt mostly small game which requires little more than a fimily unit with a kindly uncle Albert to watch the kids as mom and dad scarf up tundra mice to bring home for dinner.
 
Dingos which prey on small marsupials and a few rabbits also have no great need to form extended packs as their game is small and a limited family group is all that is needed.

Well from certain behavior standpoints, I guess the comparisons don't really work.  However in my case, the Pharaoh Hound has traits that closely resemble the Wild Dogs of Africa.   Most primitive dogs do not fall into the "wolf" category.  I feel that their behavior falls into Wild Dog, Coyote or Jackal type categories.  However I can somewhat identify with the Wolf .

I don't think this applies to the majority of domestic dogs. To compare them to wolves and wolf behavior is not fair to them. 

Be that as it may, there really is no effective clinical to base behavior upon.  This is because each and every breed has different characteristics and different individual needs.  Couple that with the multiplicity of home dynamics and you can't find an acceptable behavioral .

I just had the most intriguing thought.  Humans often justify their treatment of dogs based on wolf behavior, but would any human in their right mind try to alpha roll a wolf?  It seems to me that the selection of certain characteristics in dogs makes them more vulnerable to solutions for so-called "problem behavior" that, instinctively, humans might perceive dangerous to try if they were still dealing with the dogs' progenitor.