Kelpie-i

Lord Midol is correct... In very layman's terms, neutralisation is the process of creating a neutral value to various things ie dogs or humans etc. This means your dog has neither a negative nor a positive value association toward the object, animal or person. It has totally neutral feelings towards them therefore has no interest in interacting. The only thing your dog should have a positive value is with you. However due to your dog's age, it's too late to successfully neutralise your dog, so this process would be somewhat useless to you. But may be worth looking into for a future puppy. From what you describe, it sounds like your dog may be lacking in some social skills. Tail wagging doesn't necessarily mean your dog is friendly, this is merely an indication of arousal. I suggest some regular attendance at an obedience school or club which will help immensely with your dog's overall obedience and regular, controlled exposure around other dogs to assist in creating the relaxed dog you desire when out in public.

Absolutely agree Quickasyoucan, it's not like I am about to adopt everything he is saying, rather it has stirred my curiousity. Thanks LL, whenever you have time and can be bothered. Hey, to everyone who contributed to this thread....Have a Very Merry Christmas, and thanks for your thoughts on the topic.

LL, do share some of his comments when you've finished listening.

Hi Erny, the initial reason for this thread was about the evolution of the dog and, based on Ray's theories, how our domestic dogs today are most likely not the pack dwellers we like to think they are. Then it went off on a tangent with people saying that they see dogs hunting and pack hierarchy stuff.....etc...etc....etc. Since the theory is that our domestic dogs derived from the village dogs in early BC times, they too are most likely to scavenge to survive if left to their own devices rather than form a pack and hunt. Since attending Ray's seminar....and I only wish I had taken a voice recorder with me to record what he said throughout the 3 days, it has got me thinking about whether everything I always knew about dogs and the "pack instincts" and "hierarchy" was actually correct. Many people have given their views which has provided some very good argument, but I still cannot help but think that somehow we might be somewhat incorrect in our thinking of what our domestic dog actually is and what it may become if push came to shove. Anyway, I think I will wait until he comes to Oz next year and ask him all the questions I didn't think to ask then. tmc, I totally agree. Nothing nicer than watching the dogs working in harmony. Jen, yes I concur. It's always been the case of "because it is written, then it must be". For so long we've had books from Scott and Fuller, Skinner, Lorenz and all those other scientists telling us the way it is. Then along comes another scientist who reckons that some of it may be wrong. Lorenz was the first to admit that he was wrong, this must surely say something. No LL, he did not. But he did recommend going to Yellowstone National Park to see the wild wolf packs there. Apparently they are absolutely amazing to watch. Why are you getting bored with this one??? Perhaps someone else can start it and add their views first up.....I'd have to go and buy a new flame suit!!! Never heard of this case, what are the details.

Tony, we don't have wolves in Australia and we don't have wild dogs (other canids) either, albeit the Dingo which is a scavenger and does not hunt in packs, rather they live in a loose community. Therefore I am really hard pressed to recognise the "wild dog" you speak of. Feral dogs are a niusance but they do not form tight packs and hunt for food in packs in the sense you speak ie. like the wolf. Wolves are not dogs and vice versa. The dog is a very different animal which has evolved over thousands of years and to compare it to the wolf would be unfair to both species. I have never seen footage, nor heard of any domestic (feral) dog "packs" hunting and bringing down a kangaroo as a team for the purpose of survival.

Again my point. When I said"evolving" I did not mean by the human hand, rather by the genetic nature of the animal. The original scavenging dogs did not scavenge because humans were there to offer food, rather they saw the opportunity to eat "for free" and they did. They took the easy way out. Very true...but do they hunt in packs as naturally wild (non evolved) canids do in order for the survival of their pack and species, or are they feeding themselves for the sake of self preservation? The coyotes have never evolved, therefore we cannot compare them to the domestic dog.

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again....what "wild dogs" do you keep referring to? Other naturally wild canids, which are not domestic dogs and have not evolved like the domestic dog has, or domestic dogs turned "wild" who are more likely to revert back to their scavenging ways rather than hunt to survive ie, stalk, chase, kill, consume, in packs?? If the latter, please provide proof that such "wild domestic" dogs exist and where...I will not accept feral dogs out for a good time with the neighbours sheep as an answer to this.

My point exactly Nekhbet. Dogs are there for themselves and themselves only. They don't do things for the good of the "pack", they only do things for the good of themselves. Do they need a hierarchy to achieve this or do they only need to know their boundaries based on who is controlling what for that particular moment and wait their opportunistic turn? But again we try to complicate the dog by saying that what we (humans) see, and the way we interpret the things dogs do, is anthropomophism. Surely it can't be that simple can it because they are dogs and therefore it must be more complicated than that? Isn't saying "dog A is higher in rank than dog B because dog A controls the food bowl", anthropomophism..?? Perhaps we do see a form of hierarchy, but I am really questioning the "alpha pack leader" theory and if true hierarchy and pack organisation actually exists within our dogs innate existence. Please someone, turn my thoughts pure again

Great point...you could see this is as a mutual understanding and agreement between two distinct personalities for the purpose of calm co-existence or you could see this as hierarchy. Depending on your belief and depending on the relative purpose of the existence.

Nekhbet, the purpose of the chart, as I mentioned to you in my email, was merely for information purposes due to someone questioning whether dogs derived other forms of canids ie. coyotes rather than wolves. It had nothing to do with the actual subject of the thread. Sorry if that was not clarified properly. Okay so most of you are very doubtful of Ray's theories, and that is absolutely fine, it's extremely healthy questioning and interesting debate (well some of you are debating, others are getting "narky")...anyway. I think Cosmolo posed a good question earlier in the thread..."is it social hierarchy- or just dogs working to get what they want? " How do you define hierarchy? " Isn't "dominance" situational specific? Ie, that toy is valuable to me therefore I want it...it is mine (until I grow sick of it). What is valuable for one dog is not for the other. Perhaps your "alpha" dogs are actually control freaks by nature. They wish to control everyone's moves and who gets what. But if/when that dog no longer wants the resource don't the other dogs come up for the taking....and then proceeds to possess/protect it? So who's in charge now? I live with 4 dogs and I see this "controlling" of resources swtiching and changing with each and every different item or situation that is presented. There is absolutely no clear, definitive structure as to who gets what, EVERY TIME!. If anything, I am the one who controls them and their resources. However when I am not involved, I see situations switching each day, each minute. They simply co-exist in a group with a set of rules regarding the resources. Example: If dog A wants the toy/food, then dog B will not and shall not attempt to take it. However whenever dog A finishes with the toy/food, then dog B may take it. If dog B has the toy/food, then dogs A and C will not and shall not attempt to take it......etc. (You can replace toy/food with pats, play and any other resource...including YOU). This is not social hierarchy, this is possessive control of resources....situational specific dominating of resources and situations, getting what they want. If only one dog gets to come out with me, the others don't fret because a member of the "pack" is missing, rather they fret because they weren't invited along for the ride. Do we allow dogs to form ranks because is it something we believe in? Do we accept that just because one dog gave the other dog a good snogging then that dog MUST be top dog so we will just continue to allow him/her to do that...to control the other dogs? Just thinking out loud here..... This could be the same control freak who has learned that intimidation goes a long way. If you submit then we can be friends, if not then I will make sure you do. Do we look into our dog's behaviour too deeply? Analysing each move and adding some mystical and magical motive for every action and behaviour. Dogs are very simple animals, not as complicated as we like to think they are. They do things because they can, simply because they learn from their experiences and consequences. Simple. What sort of wild packs are you referring to here? Rogue dogs who go on a livestock killing spree just for the fun and thrill? I am unaware of any domestic dog "packs" that hunt for the purpose of food and survival. I'd be interested to know if there were any. I cannot expand on the cross breeding thing since these are not my theories and I don't know enough about breeding to provide any valid points or arguments.

I think if you're going to offer guarantees, then there should be clauses attached. I believe BB have guarantees on their training come with clauses stating something like...provide all training is effected as per their instructions etc etc. How could you prove you did and how could you prove you didn't?

He's coming in November 09 as the AVA are bringing out for a seminar. I asked him if he was willing to conduct a seminar for dog enthusiasts whilst in Oz and he said yes. Since I organise these sorts of seminars for Kepala, I will be making contact with Ray to organise something. Fingers crossed!

Good question...why don't you ask Ray himself when he comes to Australia next year... I would highly recommend reading his book as it makes much mention about LGDs and how they came about. I think you might just find it very interesting reading.

Quickasyoucan he did state his views on pure breeds and the problems with limiting gene pools. From what I gathered during his seminar, he encourges cross-breeding mainly because he believes it strengthens genes and removes much of the health problems associated with pure breeds these days. Ray believes we are breeding our dogs to "death". By this I believe he means that most breeders limit gene pools and do not allow cross breeding. Cross breeding introduces stronger genes and produces dogs who are almost rid of many of their genetic health and breed problems. He most certainly has very strong feelings about dog breeds today and the mess we humans are creating. He believes that AKC breed standards are so far removed from the original purpose of the dog and I really don't think he is alone in his thinking here. I found his insight into kennel clubs very interesting as well as humorous! He did also mention about the service dogs, but not in the way he did in his book. Rather about the training that is involved and how it can be improved. He consults for many of the service dog agencies in America so it surprises me that he would make such a statement. :rolleyes: It is interesting to read all the other comments and views from the others on his thread on Ray's theories of evolution and pack existence. Whilst many are dissecting the theory, I believe it is these theories....the ones that are so far fetched from what is, and has always been the "norm" in our minds and lives for many years, that create some thought processes in people. When it was hypothesised that the world might just be round instead of flat, everyone was incredulous and called the theory absurd. This to me is exactly what is happening here with everybody clinging on to pack theories and hierarchy's and not entirely comfortable with exploring a different view.

Yes I agree Nekhbet, it would probably be a case of re-evolution and accommodative change all over again.

Body shape, size, head size, teeth size, brain size etc. Exactly what you see in a dog today...various breed specific looks etc. BTW, thanks for putting those images up for me!!

Hey Nekhbet, you may have missed my correction on one of the previous pages re this statement. I should read: "In short, except in rare instances, if all dogs were to die, human life would not be threatened, whereas if all humans died, the domestic dog could not surivive in its present form" A tkay, motor patterns (drive sequences and/or hunting behaviour) are intrinsic behaviours in a dog. The predatory (motor pattern) sequence is only seen in its complete state by wild hunting canids. What we humans have done is selected dogs that display either some of most of these sequence patterns to create various breeds, dependant on the type of work we wanted accomplished. The motor pattern sequence is a behaviour RULE and is hard wired, although which aspects of the sequence a particular breed will display is dependant on what I just explained. Nekhbet will be putting up an image for me (thanks Nekhbet ) which will show the artificially selected (by humans) motor patterns sequences for various breeds of dog.

Yes, Ray's powerpoint is on PDF so I "print screened" that page onto a word document. There are about 3 pages of the DNA stuff I wish to put up.

OT: does any know how I can attach a word document to this forum? Or if anyone has an alternative program for uploading images rather than Fobotbucket which isn't working for me at the mo.?? I have some DNA results stuff that I wish to put up for you guys.

What sort of wild dogs are you referring to Tonymc? I mean from where and how are they wild...do you mean strays?...just curious!

Erny, merely coincidence....just a term I used to reflect that we don't have to "dominate" our dogs (as in a bully boss) in order to be leader.

Hey Erny There was some belief that dogs derived from either Coyotes or Jackals (this was mentioned in the seminar), however from memory the DNA of both was quite removed from the dog's. It is the wolf DNA which is indistinguishable from the that of the dogs, which holds strong argument that the wolf IS the ancient ancestor of the dog.

Always keep an open mind I say! The answers you seek aren't always in the places you look. What has leadership got to do with pack and rank? I can be a good leader but I am not necessarily a dominating boss.

Hi LL, yes it was 3 days with Ray, but we did get to spend 2 x 1 hour sessions in with the wolf pack during the seminar. There were 6 wolves and they were all absolutely beautiful.....and very big! One of them decided that my sleeve was a tug toy and proceeded to tug at it. Then he took my hand in his mouth, albeit gently. Now when this happens you have to put your other hand in.. .(go figure), turn your hands around and "tickle" the inside of their mouths to annoy them. Well needless to say that this did not work as Renki (the wolf) thought this was a hoot and continued playing with my hands. I must admit that I was a little worried but tried not to show it. One of the keepers lured him off with some treats but he came back for a nice pat and lick later. On one of the nights they had a "howl" night, where you stood and howled with the wolves. This was awesome as well as eerie. The Coyotes are a hoot, they shrill rather than howl. I've got heaps of video footage as well as about 200 photos of the whole experience....I also have Ray Coppinger's Ppt presentation on CD. I was trying to upload some pics but for some reason Fotobucket wouldn't play....but I will keep trying. It was the best experience ever and I would highly recommend it to anybody with an interest in dogs and wolves.

hi chris.p.day, this is correct, it is Darwin's theory of wolf/dog domestication that is inconclusive, not entirely his theory of evolution. We, today, do refer to "packing" as the social interaction of dogs, but it is not the correct scientific terminology of the word. That is not to say that most of us won't use the words "dog pack" in our every day conversations to simply imply a group of dogs. I suppose it will depend on who you talk to. Social behaviours have and do evolve depending on the niche environment (as do physical characteristics), but to pack is merely a developmental process to a specific habitat. The early protodog did not pack as there was no reason for it to and was not beneficial to it's existence. This flowed on to our domestic dog today. As you said, they wait for food to come to them. Since "packing" is not genetic behaviour it would be unfair and incorrect to term our dogs as "pack animals" who display "pack behaviours". Therefore whilst various behaviours have evoled either to accommodate the environment or by way of artificial selection, I believe our dogs do not and will not show any form of true pack behaviour (altered or not) in their existence today. This would then be the subject of another thread