The Evolution of Dogs and Dog Training

SECOND PLACE WINNER

By Emily Keegans

Knowledge regarding the evolution of dogs has played a large role in shaping the methods that dog trainers use. New information may affect us and cause us to reevaluate our current understanding of how to communicate with and train dogs. The science of tracking DNA is bringing us amazing discoveries about the origins of all life including human beings and our best friends, Canis familiaris. Studies of feral dogs, wolves, and pet and working dogs uncover new information as well. Dog trainers may find that this new knowledge is the fresh breeze that supports the new, gentler methods of dog training that are coming to the forefront of the industry.

Our beliefs about the ancestry of dogs have changed over time as science and technology have progressed. Darwin pioneered the way for our modern view of evolution and his works are a wonderful place to start to look at beliefs about where dogs come from and who they are. Darwin, looking at the wide physical variations between breeds, hypothesized that dogs must have evolved from multiple member species of the canid family rather than just one. He cited the bloodhound, the bulldog and the Italian greyhound as reason for this belief. Interestingly, he did not think the same thing of sheep or horses; he believed each of those species to have come from a single ancestor. He had seen with his own eyes the variations that even an inadvertent human touch made in just a few generations when different people bred sheep from the same ancestry. Darwin stated that variability is a product of domestication. Dogs are an excellent illustration of just that.

Since then it has become widely accepted that dogs did indeed evolve from wolves alone rather than from hyenas, foxes, and jackals. It has been imagined that early humans stole wolf cubs from their dens and brought them into the human pack, raised as tame members of the family as well as excellent hunting partners. Recent studies of mitochondrial DNA have caused some scientists to state that dogs are descended from the gray wolf rather than having been domesticated 12,000 -14,000 years ago as previously thought, they may have genetically split from wolves as many as 135,000 years ago. Those wolves would have been “preadapted” for eventual domestication and rather than a quick evolution as we had imagined--early humans taking wolf cubs from the pack and raising them to be comfortable with humans--it appears that the evolution may have been much slower, with some members of the wolf species becoming predisposed to domestication and moving gradually toward a new evolutionary niche: a life close to and eventually alongside humans.

In order to survive in that niche, some behavior changed and may have become closer to the behaviour of packs of feral or free-roaming dogs. In Dogs, Raymond and Lorna Coppinger ascertain that the position filled was that of scavenger of human refuse: the village dog. They theorize that traits such as a raised threshold for fleeing from humans and a greater tendency toward scavenging, rather than hunting, were adaptive traits that led to a new species filling a space created by humans. Certain wolves may have been less afraid of humans and more likely to venture close to camps to scavenge from garbage. Those who were most successful were the ones who did not spook as easily, and stayed to eat despite the presence of humans. Therefore their genes were passed on to their offspring.

DNA evidence points to the fact that humans emerged from the African continent around 150,000 years ago. It could be that soon after, the ancestor of the modern-day dog began to adapt to us and we coevolved. It is thought that the reason we see more archeological evidence of humans and dogs interacting closely around 12,000 years ago is that the period changed from Mesolithic to Neolithic—the gradual move from the hunter-gatherer society to a more agriculturally-based way of life. Dogs may not have been morphologically distinct from their wild relatives until this time also due to changes in human lifestyle. These findings about the evolution of dogs may help us discover more effective ways to communicate with and train dogs.

Thinking a dog needs a strong pack leader and that behavior problems stem from the lack of a leader is a widely held view. The word ‘dominance’ is a household word and is often the first thing out of a person’s mouth as they try to diagnose their dog’s misbehavior. Building a whole method based on pack theory may not be the most prudent method of training. The social structure of dogs is far from simple and pack theory is most often thought of in terms of dominance or submission hierarchies. Along with these two forms of linear hierarchies, there are a variety of other models put forth by ethologists and anthropologists such as the three-strata model, despotism, dyadic, and contextual dominance. Rather than the social hierarchy that has been attributed to dogs based on observations of wolf behaviour, we can observe the behavior of village, feral, and companion dogs so that we can continue to build an accurate model of dog behavior and social structures.

Studies of feral dogs observe a loose social structure—sometimes a solitary existence. It is unlikely that strict pack behavior is useful to dogs scavenging from dumps, while it may play a more important role for wolves who hunt in an organized fashion. Various studies of feral dogs, stray populations and village dogs lead researchers to conclude that social structure is affected greatly by ecological factors such as availability of food, as well as human intervention. Different types of social structure have been observed and seem influenced more by the above factors than by some innate sense of social hierarchy.

The Coppingers state that pack behaviour is epigenetic “above the genes” and is a learned behavior: “If dogs don’t develop pack social behaviour during their critical period there is no sense in trying to simulate pack leadership after the social window closes.” Bradshaw and Nott say of their study of the social system of companion dogs: “[these measures] have already highlighted the futility of applying criteria used to detect dominance in wolves [to dogs] (the necessary behaviour patterns do not occur in some breeds), and the importance of treating the domestic dog as a distinct species (or set of ‘species’).” They also cite the importance of taking note of the differences from breed to breed.

There is no doubt that dogs do show varying degrees of behaviors seen in wolves and other canids. Pieces of the hunting sequence have been selectively bred for in particular breeds—often at the exclusion of other pieces. For example, “eye” and “chase” in some herding breeds, not “grab” and “kill;” “stalk” in pointers; “chase,” “grab,” and “kill” in terriers; “retrieve,” not eat, in retrievers. Much of the body language and communication we observe in wolves can also be observed in domestic dogs, although it may be less refined or different depending on the breed and experience of the dog. Many of the behaviors are diluted and just pieces of what are whole chains of behavior in wolves. Domestication is, in part, defined as the animal becoming “behaviorally distinct” from its wild ancestor. Just as humans look at other primates to learn information regarding human behavior, we can observe members of the canid family to add to our knowledge regarding the domestic dog, but know that they are not identical.

Various theories and models regarding the social structures of dogs, not hard fact. One of the problems with looking at dogs as “tame wolves” is that we tend to try and plug all behaviour into the pack theory model. The dog is the alpha, the dog wants to be the alpha, the dog doesn’t want to be the alpha but we’re not being the alpha so he has to be the alpha!!! …..the dog is a beta and so on. In the past we were told to discipline in ways that were thought to mimic wolf behaviour, such as scruff shakes and alpha rolls. Now we look at these methods as unnecessary, possibly abusive, and based on inaccurate information. Interpreting behaviour is a subjective science: we cannot know what another animal is thinking, and can only extrapolate from their behaviour. The principle of parsimony is a scientific law that states criteria for deciding among scientific theories or explanations: one should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic. Assuming that dogs fit us into some form of social hierarchy when most of their behaviour can be explained in a simpler manner--such as the application of the principles of learning theory--is not parsimonious.

So how do we interpret a dog’s behaviour? If we wish to be scientific (parsimonious) about canine behaviour we must interpret it in the simplest way first. What are the consequences of the behaviour? The consequences, good or bad, show us why a behaviour may or may not be repeated. Learning theory, primarily the use of operant and classical conditioning, is proven to apply to all species of animals. It is crucial that a dog trainer understand the principles of operant and classical conditioning. A thorough understanding of learning theory, and what is likely to motivate the dog, as well as what may be punishing--both from us and within the environment--gives the trainer an excellent foundation from which to build. Additionally, absorbing as much information about dog behaviour, ancestry, evolution, breed tendencies, and canine communication and body language will round out that trainer’s repertoire.

An example of looking at a behaviour in a simple and direct manner and addressing it in such a way would be the use of classical conditioning when treating resource guarding. Looking at it from a pack theory point of view, food bowl guarding is interpreted as a dominance issue and the owner may be instructed to assure the dog knows his place with regards to food (owner eats first), walking through doors (owner goes first) and sleeping location (dog is lower than owner). Treated from a learning theory point of view, classical conditioning will be very effective in this case. Specifically, desensitization and counterconditioning will beusedto change the dog’s association with the unwanted occurrence (a human approaching him while he is eating) from unpleasant to pleasant, while keeping the dog in a relaxed state. This is done by approaching the dog with bowl, always maintaining a distance at which the dog can remain relaxed, while tossing treats or producing some other desired item. Done repeatedly, while gradually coming closer or putting ‘higher value’ food in the bowl, one can change the dog’s association from bad to good.

Pulling on leash is also sometimes cited as a “dominance” issue. Trying to determine whether or not the dog’s motivation is to become the pack leader is difficult as we have no way of knowing what the dog is thinking. What we do know is that pulling on leash is more than likely to be positively reinforced by the fact that the result of pulling is going forward, reaching new smells, other dogs, etc. By positively reinforcing the dog for maintaining a loose leash, we can change the pulling behaviour. If we have not taught the dog the behaviour we want, it is unfair to assume that he somehow knows and is defying us. In these cases, whether we have intrinsically changed the dog, we cannot know. But we can observe the change in behaviour.

When addressing behaviour we can look at the individual dog, the antecedents to the behaviour, the behaviour itself and most importantly the consequences of the behaviour. We must account for breed type, socialization history, developmental environment, and so on. It is important to understand the domestic dog as a species and to know the different breed traits to better understand what motivates the particular dog worked with. Those motivators may then be used as reinforcement in training. Building a relationship with a dog involves understanding what that dog really likes and wants: it is important to observe the dog you are working with to see his responses to the things you are using as rewards. Watch the dog’s reaction to food, petting, praise, opportunity to work, and games to gauge what will motivate that particular dog.

Controlling the motivators is important and--if you break it down--basically describes the “Nothing in life is free” protocol. The dog earns all rewards rather than accessing them himself. Because the owner is in control of those rewards, the dog is motivated to work to get them. This can enrich a dog’s life because it encourages owners to ask for something from the dog each time they feed, go for a walk, or curl up on the couch together. This amounts to more interaction and stimulation for the dog as well as a quick training session each time he wishes to access a reinforcer. Having a dog who looks forward to training and interacting with his owner enhances the relationship for both parties. The fact that this can all be broken down into simple learning theory principles should not make it any less a wonderful relationship. Although it is not based on the dog’s “desire to please” or the dog viewing his owner as the “alpha” does not mean that it cannot bring great joy and fun to the relationship.

The animal that has emerged to become friend, partner, and workmate is the animal that has evolved alongside human beings, perhaps for over 100,000 years. It was adaptive for dogs to evolve in this manner: dogs are a successful species and in countries whose people are able to look beyond survival and afford the luxury of an animal solely as a pet, the dog is often a pampered companion. There are many places where dogs are viewed in a different manner, perhaps considered a food source or scavenging pariahs, and are still very prolific and live successfully on the fringes of human culture. There is no question that dogs depend on us and there is a lot of evidence to show that humans depend on dogs too.

Learning that humans may not have domesticated dogs from wolves in the way imagined has changed the way I feel about dogs. As I have I pursued the dream of becoming a dog trainer there has existed a sadness at the thought that dogs were really meant to be wild animals. I looked at the thousands of dogs in existence, and being bred, and knew that these same dogs have the right to fulfilling lives in which they are trained in kind and respectful ways. But felt that we were essentially holding them in a captive, unnatural state. What strikes me when I think of the idea that dogs “self-domesticated” is that humans and dogs evolved TOWARD each other, evolved in a particular direction because of each other and have become partners. The methods we have at hand to communicate with and train those partners continue to improve and evolve and will enhance the partnership if we take the time to choose the most well supported and gentle methods available.

< Return to Scholarship Winners

Contact Us | Privacy | Legal | Site Map