BBC4 Tonight A Horizon Guide to Dogs

Discodog

8.00 pm BBC4

No new insights here, but an entertaining look at how our theories about dogs have changed over the past 40 years. Dallas Campbell — almost as cute as some of the dogs on display, but probably not as messed about with — weaves together Horizons past and present, from scientists breeding wolves with poodles in the 1960s to the arguments between dominance- and rewards-based training.

baords dyslexic

If only they answered the question I wanted to ask WHY POODLES?

Chris_Heilong

baords dyslexic wrote: »

If only they answered the question I wanted to ask WHY POODLES?

trainablity I would guess

Wibbs

baords dyslexic wrote: »

If only they answered the question I wanted to ask WHY POODLES?

Good question. I suspect the answer involved the researchers and a case of decent claret and a what if question being put forward.

Hope they repeat this on Beeb 2 as sadly I don't have Beeb 4.

Discodog wrote:

No new insights here, but an entertaining look at how our theories about dogs have changed over the past 40 years.

Never mind 40 years D. Go back even further and it's even odder. Particularly concerning the wolf/dog connection and (European)wolves and how easy or hard it is to make them "domestic". Your late 19th/early 20th century types seemed to feel it was fairly easy and did so. The book by the originator of the German Shepherd notes this and also notes that a fellow dog nutter like him had two wild born wolves living as "pets" in his very proper German suburban house. I've some literature/links and I'll try to find them. They make for interesting reading. One fairly long term experiment and set of observations by another bunch showed some again interesting results. They found that if they put dogs in with wolves pretty soon the dogs learned to howl and all the other vocalisations of wolves. Where it got intriguing is that the opposite also happened. That captive wolves learned to bark like dogs which they rarely do in the wild. Neither were as "fluent" as the other, but they both plugged into it.

They also noted that wolves started to change body shape after just one generation in captivity. They got smaller, with shorter muzzles and bigger ears, less aggressive/passive even without human selection.

The previous Horizon programme I saw entitled (I think) the secret life of dogs posited an entirely different result. Where people were given wolf cubs and tried to treat them like dogs and it was a major failure. IMHO at least some of that failure may have been down to the training methods. I noticed the volunteers were a bit laissez faire with the cubs. They were more used to "house dogs" so from what I could see gave a helluva lot of leeway to the wolves. I had a pedigree GSD many moons ago. Lovely guy, but watching that segment reminded me of him. Right bollex he was if you gave him an inch. Maybe the "victorian" dog training methods were more conducive to training wild canids as their results were significantly different? That the more easy going reward focused training just wouldn't work in that case? It's certainly the case that while wolf parents (and extended family) have unreal levels of patience with the pups. Something many dog owners could learn from. Ive seen film of wolf cubs biting feck outa the "alpha" male. Pulling at him and jumping all over him and he'll lay there and take it. Then again said pups will get a fairly obvious and instant reminder in the form of nips and restraint if they go too far out of bounds.

The domestication of the dog is a deeply fascinating subject. For me anyway. It kinda defies logic in some ways. We actively sought to tame another apex predator. One that was bloody scary for our ancient relatives. And it's the only apex predator we've done this with successfully. Cats while supreme predators in their own right don't come close to a pack of wolves/dogs. Indeed humans and wolves are about the only predators who regularly take down prey much larger and stronger than themselves. Maybe it was simple enough, maybe it was our mutual "feck it, there's one of them and 10 of us, lets throw caution to the wind lads" daftness that has us both thinking "you know I reckon we could work with them feckers".

Wibbs

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

trainablity I would guess

I dunno CH, Poodles can be pretty intractable and forceful in mindset when they want to be. They were working hunting dogs at one time after all. I reckon they went for poodles for one simple reason. The poodle is very different in external features to a wolf. Before DNA testing and the like, it would be easier to see the manifestations of phenotype in the resulting crossed puppies. If they had gone with say a GSD or Huskie that would have been more difficult to spot. IE if they went even more extreme and picked say Pekinese they could look at the F1 offspring and see pretty quickly which phenotype genes were stronger.

Discodog

For me the best part of the program was the last few minutes & the wonderful Professor John Bradshaw dispelling the myths about dominance training & pack leaders. The military, who's lives can depend on the dog handler relationship, have abandoned dominance training & now only use reward based methods.

He also confirmed that, as many of already knew, the model of Wolf behaviour that was being used as a comparator to dogs, was totally wrong as all the studies had been done on captive Wolves.

The other thing that really struck me was how we had managed to get so much so wrong, in such a relatively short space of time & with a species that we should know better than any other. It really makes you wonder how much more we will discover about dogs.

Wibbs wrote: »

Hope they repeat this on Beeb 2 as sadly I don't have Beeb 4.

Off topic but are you sure - how do you get your TV ?
It will be on iPlayer but you made need to use a proxy to view it.

Wibbs

Discodog wrote: »

The military, who's lives can depend on the dog handler relationship, have abandoned dominance training & now only use reward based methods.

From what I could glean from the old literature, the 19th century researchers also used reward based training(food treats) with the captive wolves. You might imagine being "old fashioned" they'd be all choke chains and beatings, I certainly did, but they weren't. They were strict about boundaries and trained the pups on lead from a young age until they learned the ropes, but otherwise were very "modern" in this. Basically because it got good results.

He also confirmed that, as many of already knew, the model of Wolf behaviour that was being used as a comparator to dogs, was totally wrong as all the studies had been done on captive Wolves.

and often on unrelated captives of similar ages. Like comparing an average family with the mum, dad and kids, to a gang of adolescents. The usual selection bias comes into it to it seems. We tend to get the results we want to get. Add in cultural bias and it really muddies the water. The Victorian types seemed to be of the firm cultural belief that man was king and could tame the wild, that wolves were dogs and therefore trainable, so they were. Kinda. They describe them as like very energetic working sighthounds in general temperament though more easily distracted (and reference Afghan hounds a fair bit ). They also note how much more variable individuals were compared to specific dog breeds. Which makes sense in a non selected breeding species. That only some were trainable and they selected them. So in effect were likely doing what our ancestors did the first time around. Plus they weren't looking for "house/lap dogs" which makes a huge diff I reckon. You could imagine how an individual wolf with a tractable temperament and good training would work OK in say a traditional Inuit lifestyle, but would be as much use and just as dangerous as a nitro glycerine fire extinguisher in a suburban family home.

The other thing that really struck me was how we had managed to get so much so wrong, in such a relatively short space of time & with a species that we should know better than any other.

Again I reckon it's down to cultural perceptions and expectations D. In the last century the majority of dogs and breeds have gone from active outdoors working companion animals to house/lap dogs/furry kids. Look at the breeds today. Even many of the "toy" dogs and smaller guys. They were working dogs bred for a purpose. Look at something like a terrier. Bred to be fantastic and tenacious vermin killers. Where rats and mice are concerned they make the domestic cat look like a rank bloody amateur. In a more rural age those dogs would be around the farm doing their thing as part of the extended family. Now they're expected to hang around the family kitchen. Look at huskies. Designed to be outdoors in all weathers, long distance pack animals with an independent streak and high prey drive. Now they're expected to be laid back, hang out in front of the fire and be petted and never go after cats or head for he hills and the like. Huskies are a great example of this IMHO. How many people come to this forum going "I want a husky" and actual experienced Husky owners are straightaway in with "eh hang on Ted, do you know what you're letting yourself in for?".

IMH a lot of the confusion comes from our changing needs and how this is reflected in our dogs. You really see this when it comes to bad behaviours in dogs. Cats can scratch and bite if they get pissed off with a human pushing their luck(and fair enough). Horses can get real bitey and stampy if pushed. They can even seriously injure or even kill someone yet it's accepted that this can happen, their "wild" nature is respected and people are supposed to be sensible around them. Yet if a Jack Russell lashes out because someone is pushing their boundaries they're expected to take it and if they don't there are the usual clarion calls of "dangerous/killer dog" and instant euthanasia from the handwringers. Even though 99 times outa 100 the dog has given ample warning it's uncomfortable with the attention. TBH given they are a highly developed apex predator with pretty strict social boundaries I'm personally quite amazed they don't lash out more often.

Off topic but are you sure - how do you get your TV ?
It will be on iPlayer but you made need to use a proxy to view it.

Just the basic UPC. May check out the iplayer though

Discodog

But going back to those earliest days when the Human Wolf relationship started I wonder if it occurred because people reared Wolf pups. Many humans have an inbuilt compassion towards baby animals. Adult Wolves would of been killed & maybe some orphans were reared. Perhaps they understood that by having tame Wolves it would help to keep the wild ones away.

Early man would of been far more in touch with nature. They weren't tainted by religion & the idea that we were put here to have domain over the animals. North American Indians never saw the Wolf as a threat. The native peoples of the World don't view dangerous predators as threats. They understand the importance of the ecosystem far more that we have ever done.

The recent movie "The Grey" did the same for Wolves as Jaws did for Sharks. The animals were totally misrepresented & man was seen as the conqueror of the beast.

getz

lets not forget that wolves would follow around early man [camp followers ] picking up the scraps,so it doesent take much imagination to link them together,

Discodog

I think that it goes much deeper. The Wolf has been seen as a special creature that possess mythical powers in many cultures. The Norse god Odin had two faithful Wolves as pets. A Wolf "saved" Rome by mothering Romulus & Remus. The Chechens refer to the Wolf Mother of their nation. Some American Indian tribes thought that Wolves were once men & saw them as brothers.

It is not hard to imagine some communities feeding & nurturing Wolves. It might of been seen as bad karma to frighten a Wolf away. If legend depicts the Wolf as an animal that can be trusted to raise human babies then it would appear that the ancients had a better understanding then than we do now. Maybe some cultures would of seen the raising of orphan Wolves as a spiritual obligation.

A good recent example, but not with Wolves, was in the BBC Crocodile programs. A huge Saltwater Croc had been shot because it was seen as a risk yet an old Aborigine woman openly cried & mourned it's death.

Thanks to pioneers like Shaun Ellis we are just beginning to understand the real nature of Wolves in the way that our ancestors did. This can only be a good thing if it debunks all the old theories about dogs & may lead to more respect for them in the future.

Wibbs

Discodog wrote: »

But going back to those earliest days when the Human Wolf relationship started I wonder if it occurred because people reared Wolf pups. Many humans have an inbuilt compassion towards baby animals. Adult Wolves would of been killed & maybe some orphans were reared. Perhaps they understood that by having tame Wolves it would help to keep the wild ones away.

Probably one mechanism alright. You see south American Indians with pet monkeys and the like raised from babies. I suspect it was a couple of different mechanisms and it went back and forth over many many thousands of years. At the moment the earliest domestic dog recognisable as one is 40,000 years ago. I would strongly suspect myself that domestication happened a good bit before that. "Breeds" came later.

Early man would of been far more in touch with nature. They weren't tainted by religion & the idea that we were put here to have domain over the animals. North American Indians never saw the Wolf as a threat. The native peoples of the World don't view dangerous predators as threats. They understand the importance of the ecosystem far more that we have ever done.

Wellll yes and no. It depends on the predator and the culture. While they might respect a wolf they'd also see them as a threat. Plus for all the hippie tourist stuff, they still regularly hunted them and skinned them to wear as hats...

The recent movie "The Grey" did the same for Wolves as Jaws did for Sharks. The animals were totally misrepresented & man was seen as the conqueror of the beast.

No way? Is it that bad? FFS. :rolleyes: That said wolves will attack and kill people. The oft quoted "wolves have never killed a human in an unprovoked fashion" refers to American Grey wolves(and even there it's incorrect. A guy was killed in Alaska a couple of years ago while out walking). In Europe and Russia and India wolves have killed people even targeted them and recently too. A security man was killed in Siberia last year. We humans can tend to go to extremes about this kinda thing. Either all wolves are savage killers or the hippie dippie call of the wild types who think they're big cuddle bunnies For me I'd reckon, they're a very minor threat to people, even curious and playful with us at times, but don't take the piss. One good thing might come from this film though. With Jaws the interest in sharks went through the roof and more informative stuff came out, maybe that could happen again in a smaller way?

getz wrote: »

lets not forget that wolves would follow around early man [camp followers ] picking up the scraps,so it doesent take much imagination to link them together,

True, though this and especially the idea that they scavenged our kills doesn't ring true for me. Yea OK when we started to live more settled lives more recently, but human hunter gatherers are about the most efficient consumers of kills. They use pretty much everything and leave very very little for scavengers compared to other apex predators.

Discodog wrote: »

I think that it goes much deeper. The Wolf has been seen as a special creature that possess mythical powers in many cultures. The Norse god Odin had two faithful Wolves as pets. A Wolf "saved" Rome by mothering Romulus & Remus. The Chechens refer to the Wolf Mother of their nation. Some American Indian tribes thought that Wolves were once men & saw them as brothers.

It is not hard to imagine some communities feeding & nurturing Wolves. It might of been seen as bad karma to frighten a Wolf away. If legend depicts the Wolf as an animal that can be trusted to raise human babies then it would appear that the ancients had a better understanding then than we do now. Maybe some cultures would of seen the raising of orphan Wolves as a spiritual obligation.

Maybe. I read a memoir from a guy who lived with native Americans on the great plains back in the mid 19th century. His descriptions of the dogs and wolves and human relationships was interesting. For a start they didn't use dogs as part of the hunt, which is the usual idea. They instead used them as warning devices in case of danger and as pack animals when moving their camps. Before Europeans re introduced the horse they had little other choice, so maybe they were a special case? He described the dogs as belonging to no one in particular. They hung around the camp begging or stealing scraps and many were more wolf than dog in general appearance which suggested there was hybridisation. On that score wolves would form yet another ring around the camp at a much more respectful distance, rarely coming close but easily seen. They didn't scavenge from the camp itself as the dogs would see them off/warn the humans, though the dogs would interact with the wolves. Both the dogs and the wolves would see off bears and mountain lions and presumably the wolves got something from the arrangement(contrary to myth Native Americans could be quite wasteful hunters*. They often stampeded buffalo herds off cliffs etc, killing many but taking only a few. Meals on wheels for wolves). They also moved with the Indians when they did. A very complex interaction going on. Some of this can even be seen today in wild US wolves. Black phase wolves are black because of a gene mutation inherited from domestic dogs way back in time.

My personal theory is domestication events happened in many places and in many times in a few different ways and it went back and forth. Where it really took off IMHO is when human population densities and tribes became larger. That was the "killer app". I have always been puzzled why we find no evidence that Neandertals domesticated dogs/wolves. They were on a par with us in many many ways. Even more advanced in some. They themselves have been described as wolves with knives as their diet in much of their territory was so similar. My theory would be that they never did because their tribes never got much beyond family group size so that Killer app event never happened. The odd one may have tried it, maybe even succeeded, but it never spread and/or their groupings were too small and meagre of pickings the wolves wrote them off as a dead loss and/or more of a competitor.

Thanks to pioneers like Shaun Ellis we are just beginning to understand the real nature of Wolves in the way that our ancestors did.

I have a lot of time for him. Bloody interesting and brave and impressive man who has done a lot to heighten awareness. However I do sometimes feel his interactions are nearly as "artificial" as others attempts. His "pack" AFAIR are a group of related and age similar animals and he went in with the notion of "talking wolf". He has succeeded in such a big way, but I'm sure the wolves know he's not one of them and their behaviour will change accordingly(as well as their internal dynamics). There are other wild wolf sanctuaries where wolves interact with humans in very different ways. Funny in those cases it tends to be the ladies doing the interaction so maybe it's a male/female perception and mindset going in thing?

This can only be a good thing if it debunks all the old theories about dogs & may lead to more respect for them in the future.

+1








*also contrary to popular, Native Aussies were wasteful hunters themselves in their distant past. Many many species were wiped out by their hunting and hunting practices(burning large areas to drive animals out of hiding being one). The Aboriginal respect for nature is just as likely to be a response to massively dwindling resources that they helped in no small way to dwindle in the first place. No human grouping is "innocent" of this.

Discodog

Wibbs wrote: »

No way? Is it that bad? FFS. :rolleyes: That said wolves will attack and kill people. .

From the official website:

"Battling mortal injuries and merciless weather, the survivors have only a few days to escape the icy elements – and a vicious pack of rogue wolves on the hunt – before their time runs out."