Has anyone read Wendy van Kerkhov's article in the 2004 issue of the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, and the responses to it?

A Fresh Look at the Wolf-Pack Theory of Companion-Animal Dog Social Behavior

The Concept of Dominance and the Treatment of Aggression in Multidog Homes: A Comment on van Kerkhove's Commentary

Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, Volume 7, Number 4, 2004

She argues that managing aggression between dogs on the basis of the wolf-pack theory is simplistic and probably not effective.

It's quite an interesting view on the subject, and Petra Merten's response is very detailed. What's particularly interesting to me is the point they make that feral dogs usually don't form well structured packs with clear dominance hierarchies, although, as one of the commentators points out, the environment of domestic dogs has a lot of things in common with wild wolf packs that are missing from feral associations. Of course, there's also the question of domestication and how much it has affected wolf-like behaviour in domestic dogs.

Just interested to know what people here think about it, because of all your experience. I'm also looking for a subject for my PhD in the field of animal behaviour, so you never know...

I have read these and similar studies before. IMHO it is the same old argument of nature verse nurture. I tend to think of it as nature and nurture rather than nature verse nurture. It is nature that dictates all things decay including relationships, unless a highly organized and appropriate amount of work is invested.

I personally would tend to think that selective breeding has changed the K9 behavior to point of if not removal then severely limiting of the pack structure. Yet I still use the pack behavior techniques and philosophy in training.
If belief in a dog's need for strong pack structure causes people to behave and respond in a proactive manner to their dog then it is a positive thing.
Dog's are animals. Animals are(not can be) dangerous and need to be trained and controlled. Even Homo sapiens, who do not have strong pack instincts behave similar, they need training. Take for example kids who have not properly been socialized. Look at juvenile and adult jails or walk through parts of Sacramento where I live.
I have seen many kids that bite, kick and punch their parents, not to mention steal bear and murder. The issue is bad parenting. The need to understand the drive for the kids behavior is minute compared to the need to consistently correct that behavior EARlY. I see dogs in a similar way
Every relationship is about relating (profound I know). How you relate to your friends, family, and animals is important. In each relationship there is a leader and a follower. The leader role can be dynamic, but if you allow your dog, or your child or your government to lead you, you are asking for trouble.

I have a brother and sister-in-law that I just purchased Ed's DVD for. They have done a terrible job raising their two dogs. They let the dog dictate their behavior and not the other way around. They make excuses for bad behavior. Such as, "poor Asher was left alone as a puppy so he is not social".... The dogs get rewarded for negative behavior all the time and no investment in correction or positive training had been explored.
Last month they just adopted a 11 month old baby. The little guy is becoming more violent. He screams and hits when he does not get what he wants. He does this because it works for him and he gets rewarded. If they exchanged their wet noodles for something the resembled more of a spine they could handle hard work of training their children. They would not cave in so quickly to stress applied by others.

To end my rant. If Pack philosophy helps handlers be proactive and if it does not cause harm then IMO it is a positive thing. Using positive reinforcement of good behavior and correcting negative behavior and attitudes EARLY AND OFTEN is the result of both philosophies. The broad scope of the argument is one that will never be satisfied.

I have not read the articles. My response in in relation to Jeff.

How many dogs have you owned, Jeff? How many dog packs have you owned/handled/lived with? How many wolves?

I have handled, owned, trained dogs, wolfdogs, and wolves. I have observed and interacted with captive bred and kept wolves. I have a dog that was wild, from a pack of feral dogs. I can tell you from experience that no, dogs are not exactly like wolves but the similarities are so strong it makes little difference. The only thing that tends to affect behavior are the drives and temperament of the dog - if a dog is not rank driven/low drive it seems very little if not at all like a wolf. To people that don't know wolves or have never seen them in person or been around them.

Feral dogs are not truly wild, and the environment they live in helps dictate their behavior. Wolves in the same environment would likely act much more similar to feral dogs and in fact captive kept wolves act quite similar to "feral" dogs. I know this from personal experience.

To say that domestication affects behavior.. hmm.. is somewhat true. Take horses for example. I have experience training and handling both domestic and wild horses. From the experience of gentling a mustang vs domestic horses, the differences I see are that domestic kept horses often have far more behavioral issues as a direct result of living with humans and outside of herd structure. Animals that live with humans do learn from us and how humans are and how we act and what we do and they act and react according to this information. The basic behavior and instincts and social structure is the same inspite/despite of human error/the human factor.

Dogs are pretty much the same way but have more variance in type and temperament than most horses.

Just to make a note - wolves and wolfdogs are not pets. The animals mentioned above were rescues or owned by native americans with lifetimes of experience with the animals. In no way shape form or fashion do I think wolves or wolfdogs are pets or should be kept or handled by anyone who is not very experienced. They should not be bred, they are not pets and should not be kept as such but I do rescue and donate to wolf and wolfdog sanctuaries. My mentioning of wolves and wolfdogs was as background for my experience regarding this thread topic (the difference in pack structure and/or behavior between wolves and dogs)

 Quote: Jennifer Marshal

In no way shape form or fashion do I think wolves or wolfdogs are pets ... They should not be bred, they are not pets and should not be kept as such ...

Excellent point, and one that's adhered to here.

Thanks Jen for your response. I appreciate your personal experience. I personally prefer not to base my philosophy on personal experience. The articles provided proved sourced data based on large sampling groups.
No one is claiming that feral dogs are wild animals. The claim is that they do not organize themselves into strict pack structures and rather have tendencies to live solitary lives.

Sorry Jeff, go back and read the articles again.
Not just the first one.

From the first article:
"Central to this belief is the concept that a wolf pack consists of individuals continually competing for higher rank but ultimately held in check by the alpha male and alpha female."

This is not true.

Wolves, like dogs, are born with temperament qualities that determine the amount of push and shove within the pack. The rank drive. Some dogs have strong rank drive, they are dominant animals. Some do not, they are betas or omegas by nature not because they have been beaten down. This is the same for dogs. The difference is that humans don't care, they mesh together packs based not on the natural compatability of the canines involved, they often just like Fluffy and Fido for their looks and individual temperament without understanding that having too many dominant individuals in one pack is not ideal or natural. In an ideal pack there are many types of wolves. One thing that is often missing in domesticated "packs" is the omega. Omegas act to calm the pack and cool heated or aggressive situations, they are the peacemaker and the peacekeeper with or without the alpha's presence. The omega will even calm the alpha and prevent the alpha from fighting. So combine the lack of peacekeeper with having an unnatural situation of multiple dominant/rank driven animals in one household you have an issue.

Not to say that most dogs that are called dominant really are. Rank drive comes in levels like all other drives.


In wild settings, a dominant youngster leaves to form its own pack, take over another pack, or vies for the top possition within its own.

In the wild it often happens that dominant individuals are not born or mature at the same time to create the situations we see in captivity. As listed in the first article the examples of the captive kept wolves the fights between mature males and females. I will say that in the wild it would not have happened - the reason is there is plenty of territory to move to or claim. Captive animals are contained in one territory with no options for leaving and are forced into confrontations because of this.

Regarding Mech's findings - that would be thanks to the environment of those wolves. The tundra wolves are a subspecies and the environment they live in dictates mating and pack behavior. The population is far more spread out, strength in numbers is not as important or necessary to hold a territory. Also, the amount of prey widely available affects pack size as well. If the prey is just not available to sustain large packs in one territory it makes sense for there to rather be several small family packs over a larger area. Much like the social structure of foxes.

Lowland wolves (lower 48) have a greater source of prey, supporting larger packs which then claim and maintain larger territories. No matter the location, in social interaction a hierarchy is noted, the only difference is how often these social interactions actually take place.

Feral dogs are often not that way from pups. Pups do not survive in a majority of instances unless aided by humans. So these dogs that become wild likely did so while adults or at least past weaning/8weeks. The human factor comes into play here. What was done during the development of the dogs to cause a more anti social behavior pattern? The lack of a need to hunt combined with the wid variation in temperament and drive type in the domestic dog also plays a part. Wolves do not lack drive - lacking necessary drive means they do not survive. Dogs can be high drive, low drive, bred to be very social(foxhounds, labs) bred to be independent(northern/spitz breeds)

I don't have time to read the other articles right now but I will. The differences in breed temperaments and types is not because of the dogs themselves or that domestication is what "caused" it. Humans selected for it. Breeds are the way they are because humans control their breeding and have selected the traits they most liked to be further developed.

Wolves are not exactly like dogs, not all wolves are exactly alike. Dogs are not exactly like wolves nor are all dogs exactly alike. When I work with any dog I deal with the behavior based on the dog I am currently at that very moment working with AND the environment its in. The way a dog has been raised and handled helps me determin the proper course of action and often provides explanation for the behavior I am retraining.

Jeff, when it comes to dogs, horses, cats, whathaveyou. Animals. Personal experience should make up a LOT of your basis for theory or philosophy of training or behavior. If you have not seen it yourself, dealt with it yourself then you reall have no idea. You cannot read about these things in a book and think you know how things are and will be based on a list of facts and figures that someone else put together that is probably not from personal experience either. When it comes to living thinking creatures you have to be active and reactive with learning and handling them.

A dog is not a book. It is not an essay or a theory or a scientific thesis.

I have read the challenges to Kerkhov's article and her response to them. I have also read about 20 studies on the subject; there is nothing to be sorry about.
If you are your dogs leader because you believe your dog needs pack structure or because you believe your dog is an animal and needs to be lead is personally relevant to me. As long as you lead it.
Dogs are genetically similar to grey wolves. Grey wolves for family packs until about the age of two. They move on and form their own packs. The best genetic evidence suggest modern dogs arose around 100-150 thousand years ago. Time and selective breading has caused a large genotypic, phenotype and behavioral diversity.
The monk study made popular in the 70's was seriously flawed.

When I have and provide the food, and the fun and the correction I am dominant.

There is no need for pack structure in a domesticated dog. There is no hunting. I believe it is a vestigial trait and many believe it is not genetically relevant at all, rather it is epigenetic and is taught to the pups after birth.

Feral dogs do not pack.

All animals need structure and boundaries. If thinking your dog is wolf helps people realize that than GREAT! You can believe your dog is bear, a shark or a space alien if it helps you handle it.

There are several other reason why I believe this. In my opinion the list is not important because there is no significant difference. You may drink orange juice because you like the taste I may drink it because I think it is healthy. At the end of the day we both drink orange juice.

Jeff - feral dogs DO pack up. Some do not. But some do. It is based on environment among other things. In a true wild state they would pack up. In feral state they might not based on their environment. Wolves DO THE SAME.

This behavior change is not based on dogs vs wolves. It is based on environment and other temperament differences present in domestic dogs such as drive variation and how long they have been feral/why.

I know this from * personal experience *