Lupomorphizing

Why is it so necessary to look at the wild version of the species to be able to train and communicate with them effectively?  I know several average Joe type families who take not the slightest notice of research or studies of wild canids and their pets are well balanced and well behaved.  While the studies are fascinating and can give us wonderful insight, simply over-analyizing can be harmful IMO.  I should know, I am the worst culprit!  Sometimes, you have to take a step back, forget what you think you "know" and remember, sometimes a dog is just a dog......  Not pupil, not follower, not subject..... just a dog. 

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

Why is it so necessary to look at the wild version of the species to be able to train and communicate with them effectively? 

 
Because you can see them in their natural habitat, without anything that can affect the way they would live normally (like a human), like i said, i cant study human social behavior if i place the human in the middle of the jungle []

And the people who have got good pets because of common sense and kindness who haven't the foggiest what the dog would do "in the wild" are just lucky right? []

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

And the people who have got good pets because of common sense and kindness who haven't the foggiest what the dog would do "in the wild" are just lucky right? []

Actually yes, if you have a dog with a behavioral problem you need to know how they would correct it in their natural habitat sometimes, if you dont have any problem then you just have to remember "if is not broken there is no need to fix it"; what its "foggiest"?  []

Ah I forget, you don't have Fog in Mexico.... (just kidding[])  We have it in Abundance here in the UK! (unfortunately not kidding!)
You know, people who haven't got a clue about all this stuff we discuss here.... most pet owners aren't dog nerds like we are but still manage just fine.

any more than humans are still apes.

 
Actually, the last I read, humans are zoologically great apes. Other than that, this is a good thread.
 

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan

It is widely held in high esteme and embraced by those who want to use the studies to prove that dogs do not form packs, do not need a leader, and thus we do not need to be Pack Leaders, alphas, dominant beings, grand poo-bahs, or whatevers to our dogs.

Those who want to be alpha and Grand poo-bah, and alpha roll, scruff shake, and dominate their dogs

 
Whoopsie! Sorry if I hit a nerve!
 
Too bad there's an immediate jumping from one extreme to another and little acknowledgement of the middle ground through a balanced train of thought. 
 
As I've mentioned, scruff "shaking" is a misconception and inappropriate. As is aggressively rolling a dog, getting in their face, growling, and baring your teeth.
 
The terms "alpha", "dominant", and "pack" are only words assigned to many social animals by the scientists doing research in the field and are best used appropriately in a scientific context. []

ORIGINAL: Angelique

As I've mentioned, scruff "shaking" is a misconception and inappropriate.

I agree totally, who does that anyway? i have never seen anybody grab a dog by the scruff and shake it, i dont even think thats any kind of technique

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: Angelique

As I've mentioned, scruff "shaking" is a misconception and inappropriate.

I agree totally, who does that anyway? i have never seen anybody grab a dog by the scruff and shake it, i dont even think thats any kind of technique

I've heard of it here and there.

I believe the Monks of New Skete used scruff "shaking" (shakedown method), a "chin cuff", and the old style captive wolf study-alpha roll (alpha-wolf-roll-over) in their original edition of "How to be Your Dog's Best Friend".

They have since recanted and appologized for the old style roll. Don't know if they backed off on the "shakedown method" and "chin cuffing", though.

ETA: The monks "shakedown method" was not what some whould think of as a typical "scruff shake". It involved grabbing a dog by either sides of his neck, lifting his front end up slightly, making hard eye contact, and shaking from this position.

The monks "alpha wolf roll over" was done in a very dramatic fashion with the element of surprise added.

Interesting to look back on some of this stuff.

Some people bring the "dogs have evolved since living with humans" card but they forget that evolution takes millions of years to have an specie change something about it

 
Actually, no. The time it takes for a species to evolve can be quite short, it depends on many factors such as how often the species breeds, what trait is evolving, where that trait is on the chromosome, what it's attached to, etc etc etc..... a population of fruit flies evolves very quickly because they breed and mature so quickly, which is why they are used in biology labs so often.
 
You have to keep in mind, the evolution of the domesticated dog was not natural. Humans have picked the dogs with certain traits and bred them, removing the reproductive abilities of those possessing the undesired traits. Artificial selection of this type can be much faster than in nature.

ETA: The monks "shakedown method" was not what some whould think of as a typical "scruff shake". It involved grabbing a dog by either sides of his neck, lifting his front end up slightly, making hard eye contact, and shaking from this position.

 
That's exactly what our old trainer did in class to my dog - for barking at & chasing the other dogs during playtime - he was only 5 or 6 mo old at the time and I was completely horrified.

And you should have been.  A little redirection would have been all that was needed for puppies that young, just to keep the smaller or shyer ones safe.  But, that behavior is normal during play, and I can imagine that your pup was horrified, too.

ORIGINAL: Scout in Canada

Some people bring the "dogs have evolved since living with humans" card but they forget that evolution takes millions of years to have an specie change something about it

Actually, no. The time it takes for a species to evolve can be quite short, it depends on many factors such as how often the species breeds, what trait is evolving, where that trait is on the chromosome, what it's attached to, etc etc etc..... a population of fruit flies evolves very quickly because they breed and mature so quickly, which is why they are used in biology labs so often.

 

What, no fruit fly link? []

You guys are both technically right. There is the total long term evolution of a living being from where it originally began - often called "macro-evolution", adaptive evolution - often called "micro-evolution", which helps a species in the short term to cope with external changes such as food sources and the environment, and then there is the fuzzy area of when and where man started the actual hands-on manipulation of the dog.

Another interesting area to keep in mind is how dogs might adapt back to nature, if man was completely removed from the picture. I think many specific breeds would co-mingle, some would die out, and some may even breed with wild canids.

ORIGINAL: Scout in Canada

You have to keep in mind, the evolution of the domesticated dog was not natural. Humans have picked the dogs with certain traits and bred them, removing the reproductive abilities of those possessing the undesired traits. Artificial selection of this type can be much faster than in nature.

You're right. Although, noone is sure of the exact chain of events which brought man and dog together and the specific point at which we started manipulating them.

I believe the animal you trying to domesticate and/or breed for a specific purpose has within it a varying degree of "plyability", for successful manipulation. Canines show a greater variance and adaptability from felines, and canines are more social than felines...so that may have a hand in it too.

The entire canine group is fascinating and special, IMO. The fox breeding experiments contain a lot of the typical arguements all around, but it's fascinating and shows how quickly one species can be domesticated, adapted, and changed over a relitively "short" period of time.

Here's a link if anyone is interested:

[linkhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/807641/posts]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/807641/posts[/link]

I do believe that the "shake job" as my husband calls it was in the unrevised edition of How To Be Your Dogs Best Friend. I'm pretty sure that's where we got that idea. 

I know I was when it was published that chimps kill chimps for reasons other than survival and carrying on the line.

 
I have seen humans exhibit some primate behavior but I have seen them exhibit canine behavior and I have used canid psychology on someone and it worked.
 
Two years ago, I was in charge of a project and another guy was sent down to do just one section (1,000 sq ft) while I handled the other 64,000 sq ft and actually, he was to direct his material requests through me, etc. He proceed to "mark" everything in sight and start telling my crew what to do in sections of the building that he was not needed in. I put up with it for a day. The next morning, he started in on "his" plan. In mid-sentence, I barked, literally and loudly. I have a soft-spoken voice but I can create volume that will give you a headache. He flinched. I said, "This is my fire hydrant."
 
That fixed it. He stuck with what he was supposed to be doing and I never had another problem. But he's the type that if you don't show that you are alpha, he will take the job.
 
Other times, I see humans doing primate behavior, including killing and meat eating.