Romeo was wolf who befriended many dogs at the Mendenhall Glacier near Juneau, Alaska.
For some reason, he didn’t take up with a other wolves.
He tried to join up with domestic dogs.
Maybe there were reasons for this attraction to domestic animals.
One story goes that he lost his mate, and he then went searching for a new one. He discovered that Labradors were his type, and he spent years trying make one his new mate.
The more likely story is mentioned in this article, which is a commemorative of this gentle black wolf.
He was probably a two-year-old wolf that dispersed from his natal pack in search of a mate and a territory to call his own.
Judging from his temperament, he was probably not happy hitting on surly wolf bitches. Wild wolves are much more aggressive with pack mates than most domestic dogs are.
So he took off after sweet Labs and other gentle domestic dogs for friendship and “romance.”
Nick Jans, a wildlife photographer, who really got to know Romeo had a Labrador bitch with whom Romeo was particularly infatuated. That’s how he got the name. He was “in love” with a retriever.
Tons of photos of this wolf exist, many of them wonderful juxtapositions of a northern wolf and a domestic dog. Both members of the same species, but one supremely adapted to living with man and the other supremely adapted to living in the frozen wilds, where recalcitrant moose is the main food source.
His head was so much larger than those of any dog– a very important trait of northern wolves. Big heads possess larger muscles that can control far more powerful jaws.
You have to have those if you’re going to grapples with the great Elch on a regular basis.
Romeo was suspected of running off with a few dogs, but the evidence for that is somewhat lacking. We do know that wolves in Alaska are quite cannibalistic, and they eat other wolves that encroach on their territories, as well as any domestic dogs that happen to be running lose.
And there is always this photo of Romeo carrying pug in his jaws.
The pug survived this whole encounter:
See?
My guess is that Romeo considered large dogs to be adults of his own species.
However, a pug has traits that wolf might associate with a wolf pup. It has smaller size and a shorter muzzle.
Adult wolves will actually show very strong parental behavior towards their offspring. Domestic dogs will carry their pups when they are very small, but wolves will carry them even after they are few months old.
All Romeo was doing to the pug was trying to take care of a puppy.
My retriever treated adult Jack Russells as if they were puppies, much to the chagrin of the Jack Russells.
So why wouldn’t a wolf make this error?
Romeo disappeared in the September of 2009.
Hunters were blamed, of course. There was an illegal wolf kill near Juneau in the September of 2009.
But no evidence suggests that any hunter is to blame.
He more likely died of natural causes.
Rome was truly a remarkable animal.
Many people have poo-pooed the various historical accounts of amicable relationships between wolves and dogs that I have posted on this blog. (The one I have found about a bunch of wolves that had playing with a mastiff in seventeenth century Newfoundland is my favorite.)
I keep being told that those wolves have be feral Native American dogs. They have to be because we all know that all wolves are aggressive towards dogs, and they have always been this way.
It is more likely that before widespread persecution wolves were much more willing to have friendly relations with both dogs and people. Lots of reasons for this difference in behavior are possible.
One is persecution was a Belyaev experiment in reverse in which emotionally reactivity, nervousness, and fearfulness were selected for in the wolf population. If a wolf had these traits, it was less likely to be shot, poisoned, or trapped.
In the Belyaev experiment, the onset of the fear period in the tame silver foxes also developed later than the wild-type foxes. If the reverse experiment selected for an earlier onset of the fear impact subperiod, then wolves would have a very hard time socializing as they once did.
It would also negate part of Raymond Coppinger’s theory that hunter-gatherers would have to collect wolf pups before they were 21 days old in order to socialize them to humans. Perhaps what we are seeing in modern wolves is an unusually early onset of this subperiod that is the result of selection from persecution.
And maybe the ancient wolf population experienced the onset of this period in a way more similar to domestic dogs, which experience this subperiod when they are 8 to 10 weeks old. Modern wolves experience this subperiod when they are less than three weeks old, which is why Coppinger makes so much noise that a hunter-gatherer man could not have captured wolf pups and tamed them.
Another is reason is that wolves are not able to live as they once did. Crazed persecution and now regular wolf control programs have disrupted the pack systems that once existed. Wolves do not grow up in the same environment that they once did. Their puppyhoods are spent in very unstable situations, which certainly does affect their development. These wolves that live on moose in Alaska don’t live like the wolves that lived on the Great Plains, where bison meat was always available. They also don’t live like wolves that were living on the Mammoth Steppe, where there were always abundant prey species. It also means that wolves are more likely to turn toward cannibalism just to survive.
All of these factors affect wolves and their behavior.
The modern wolf is a truly victimized species, and it can explain why they don’t normally act like Romeo.
But maybe Romeo wasn’t always the exception.
Wolves had to have been incredibly easy to domesticate. We’ve not been able to do this with any other large carnivore, though as I mentioned earlier this week, we tried with cheetahs. The Ainu people of Japan used to capture Hokkaido brown bear cubs and raised them for a ritual slaughter. (The Ainu revere the brown bear as the “god of the mountains.”) No one has domesticated a brown bear (though Doug Seuss has come close!) or a cheetah.
But we have not only domesticated the wolf, we’ve made our domestic wolf our closest animal companion.
Romeo helps provide some clues on how domestication could have happened. Wolves dispersing from their natal packs could have joined up with humans or with camp wolf populations that had developed from pups that the hunter-gatherers had raised.
He was truly a remarkable animal, one that should have warranted at least some scientific inquiry.
Of course, hew as but one individual wolf, and wolves and dogs are individuals. It is folly to make too many generalizations about them.
But he still was so utterly beguiling. That’s why residents of Juneau loved him so much.
For whatever reason, he didn’t consider dogs to be food or people to be dangerous.
He tried to join up with us.
Perhaps he was doing what some wolves did tens of thousands of years ago, when they first caught wind of the naked bipedal apes and decided that they might be of some use to them.
Romeo was an historian.
He told us of a past that we never wrote down and are only now trying to glean from the archeological and genetic evidence.
But he all he wanted was to have a mate who wouldn’t bite his face off.
You definitely have an interesting point with the potential variation in boldness/shyness in wolves, but there’s another factor which could have influenced Romeo’s temperament that you haven’t mentioned. Since he’s black, he shows clear evidence of the interbreeding of wolves with domestic dogs. If such interbreeding is more recent (because honestly there is continual interflux between wolf and dog populations anywhere there are sizeable wolf populations), then perhaps the resultant wolves are also inclined to be less phobic of humans and dogs. (Of course I’m not saying that colour alone influences temperament, it’s more complex than that and animals are of course also *individuals* and therefore diverse, but there is a potential link in Romeo’s case.)
This would potentially create a situation where given time and a lack of active persecution, wolves could potentially develop the same ability to adjust to human presence and live along side (provided there was appropriate prey of course) just as coyotes and foxes do.
When I’ve written about Romeo, I’ve considered that very question.
The only thing about Romeo that suggest he might have some dog in him is his black coat.
I also have noticed that his black coat didn’t seem to fade in any of the photos. In general, black wolves fade as they age.
http://www.wolfpark.org/ccpage2.shtml
Some black wolves look kind of smoky gray when they age.
But if it fades, it’s most likely a pure wolf.
Pure in that it has only very distant wolf ancestry.
Except for his black color, Romeo looks like pure northern wolf.
I’m not saying he’s not pure wolf (he certainly looks it). But as you said, the black coat is a characteristic tied to interbreeding at some point with domestic dogs. That could introduce (or reintroduce) tolerance for humans/domestic dogs into subsequent generations of hybridized wolves and thereby select for ones which could more easily adjust to survive alongside human incursions.
It’s an interesting idea, particularly since it seems like some subgroups are better at surviving in heavily human impacted areas than others (when you take active persecution and incidental destruction on roads or from disease into account). Specifically I’m thinking of the Iberian wolf, but I don’t think a great deal of genetic work has been done searching for introgression with domestic dogs in that case. (I could only find a couple examples, the sample sizes were small, and they weren’t looking at behavioral links.) The distinctive marker of a black pelt isn’t seen in Iberian wolves, but that’s neither here nor there since a black wolf might be actively selected against for some unrelated reason. (And conversely while it’s easily visible I doubt only black coated wolves are ones with some domestic dog in the ancestry, it’s just a convenient visual marker.)
It would be a good thing if interbreeding with domestic dogs could benefit wolf populations by allowing them to expand their ranges without swamping the wolf genetics or impacting them too badly in other ways, such as transmitting disease.
It’s not just the Iberian wolf.
Lots of Eastern European wolves live very close to people and cause little trouble.
Yeah. That black coloration is the first time inheriting a domestic animal trait actually benefited its wild ancestor.
At least, it’s the first one to be discovered.
I don’t have direct experience from Eastern Europe, but was particularly struck by the difference in how wolves exist around the edges of human development in Spain as opposed to here in Canada.
We see the wolves where I am fairly regularly (particularly in winter when they come to the road sides to feed on road-killed deer), but they don’t noticeably settle into greenspace that’s gone back to wild in the interstices of development the way coyotes do. (I’ll qualify that with “noticeably” — they could pass through unseen, I grant, but it’s not regular. I live backed against a long quadrangle of undisturbed native vegetation that trails into a national park, and we get coyote, fox, elk, moose, white-tailed deer, mule deer, the occasional bear or cougar, etc. No wolves though, and I’d see the spoor because I’m in that area every day. If a deer is downed it’s the other large carnivores that predate the carcass. The wolves don’t seem to use this area even though it’s suitable habitat and actually safer than the area they do frequent in terms of there being fewer roads and less human activity. Why? It’s surrounded on three sides by development, even though that development is a good 3-5 km away. Iberian wolves seem to make use of similar interstices, though, and not just because there’s a lack of suitable habitat elsewhere. Somehow, some way, they’re not as put off by human presence.
I don’t have any sort of hard evidence for this of course, just anecdote, but you can probably tell where my biases lie. To me, more wolves are always a good thing (provided they’re not diseased, starving, or interbred through being isolated). It’s good for the species, it’s good for prey species, and it’s good for the land in general. (There is strong but growing evidence that wolves will selectively kill deer with Chronic Wasting Disease, for example, long before the deer shows any outward sign of infection.)
CWD is a good reason to have wolves around :).
The wolves of Canada are probably more afraid of people because gun ownership is more common in Canada and people have been hunting wolves more intensively in Canada than they have in Spain in recent years.
I mean I don’t think Spain has any wolf hunting now, but Canada has lots of it, including “wolf control.”
There’s a completely unrelated question here that I’d like to ask, because maybe you — or your readership — can give me some insight. Where does the apparently atavistic fear of wolves as predators of humans come from? Throughout history, both in North America and in Europe, all the evidence points to predation of humans by grey wolves as a vanishingly rare event. None the less people seem to be convinced that it happens all the time, that wolves are dangerous to people.
I was baffled, hearing news reports (for example of the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone) where people were asserting that it would be deadly dangerous to people, and apparently sincerely believing the hyperbole. Yet I live in a place where there are healthy wolf populations along with the other predators, and no one, *no one* is scared of the wolves, with good reason. Small children wait alone in the dark at remote rural bus stops, for example. Not one has ever been snatched by wolves. We do get periodic (and fatal) attacks by bears and mountain lions, but never ever wolves. So where does this persistent fear come from?
There was a time in Medieval Europe in which the following conditions existed:
1. Large numbers of unarmed peasants.
2. Dwindling forests.
3. Few ungulate prey species.
4. Hungry wolves.
Some of the wolves learned to hunt livestock, and then realized people would make a good source of food. So they started hunting women and children. There was a wolf that came into Paris to hunt people.
Now, feudal lords and church likely seized upon these attacks as a way of establishing social order.
Serfs should stay on the manor, where it is safe. Don’t try to be a free yeoman in the forest– the wolves will get you.
The wolf was then made into a Satanic figure that fed upon the lambs of God.
Wolves that live where there are few prey species and lots of unarmed humans– like in Russia– occasionally learn to hunt people.
Rabid wolves were also a factor in getting people stirred up against them.
When Europeans came to America they had the same prejudices and ideas.
Plus, when the West was “settled” wolf removal was considered the best way to improve the land for ranching.
To return wolves to the land is like spitting in the face of those settlers.
And then there’s the whole set of people who want wolves removed so that deer and other ungulate numbers can remain very high, even if it is in marginal habitat, like most of Idaho.
Lots of socioeconomic factors drive people into irrational flights of fancy about wolves.
Interesting case of a wolf in Germany:
There is an additional confounding factor in those Medieval accounts, particularly when they’re from northern Europe. Just because someone wrote the term “wolf” doesn’t mean they meant the animal. Wolf was also a term for a warrior not associated with a warband — i.e. a brigand or an outlaw or just a mercenary between jobs. It’s perfectly possible that the stories of people slaughtered by wolves are actually accounts where the killers were human. Add in that actual wolves may then have scavenged the remains (and been seen to do so) and it becomes a nightmare of interpretation to try to discern the facts.
I suppose the Medieval situation could be the source of the modern fear, but (perhaps because I don’t share it) I don’t see how fairy tales can continue to exert such a grip on the modern mind. I suppose it’s not the only one, though. The wolf has become associated with so many ideas and ideals and politics that it’s difficult to see the real animal apart from the myth.
Correction: It was a pack of wolves that invaded Paris:
http://www.coolstuffinparis.com/wolves_of_paris.php
They were actually killed in front of the Cathderal of Notre Dame.
There is some limited wolf hunting in Spain, none in Portugal.
Also, in Spain, there are fewer wild ungulates than in Canada. Compared to North America, Europe has a lot less wildlife, just in sheer numbers.
So that might explain why they are forced to scavenge and live near people.
Lots of reasons.
There is less persecution now than there used to be in Spain, and a slow change in attitudes from considering the wolf as dangerous, destructive vermin to something valuable and beautiful to be preserved, but I’m certain illegal persecution still happens, and quite heavily. (It’s one of those things that the government just ignores and so it isn’t officially reported. Same in Portugal.)
You could be right about the difference in ungulate populations and so food sources forcing different focus. It’s unfortunately one of those complicated situations where one can’t easily tease out causes, and correlation =/= causation. The Iberian wolf does seem to have an easier time adapting to human disturbance, though, which Canadian wolves just don’t. Then again, that could be due to selective pressures from a much longer history of widespread human disturbance in Europe versus Canada. No easy answers, unfortunately, and not germane to the point of your post at all (in re: the potential history of domestication). Oh for a time machine, to go back and observe the interactions between Pleistocene wolves and humans!
Hmmm and who says wolves can’t be black without interbreeding with dogs?
I think the 21 day thing with wolf cubs is partly about what we humans want out of the animals behavior for us to live with them. I think when it came to early domestication that wasn’t a sticking point because the wolf was allowed to be what it was. If we want them to be more easily handled based on our expectations of dog behavior than yes that may come into play.
Just a theory.
Great post and fantastic photos!
I knew a guy, who was older than I was by several years, I talked to his father, who had been stationed in Alaska, way back before he was married, and he mentioned seeing black wolves around the garbage dump. They hung out around there. He said that the black wolves were NOT black like a dog. He also said they were not frightened of people but would NOT let you near them. If you tried to sneek up on them, they snarled.
I know you have shown the black-wolf-domestic-dog-link experiment numerous times, but I’m still not buying it(yet!)–I reserve the right to wait for more research into this one–sounds too much like over eager scientist miscalculating to me(as in, one of them had their black lab in the room while they were doing their DNA tests! Dumbo stuff like that happens all the time!) IF it IS true, this ancestry is SOOOOO remote as to make little difference in the animals’ behaviour–they are wild wolves, and have been for hundreds or thousands of years. So Romeo’s behaviour is NOT because he has some miniscule bit of dog blood(I’ve seen the photos–he’s a WOLF!!). He COULD be someone’s released or escaped pet–so already habituated to people and dogs. But he is more likely just what he is portrayed as–a lonely wild wolf that left his natal pack for whatever reason, and is seeking companionship with whatever is available–this is NOT a unique incident! It could clearly show how such early human/wolf associations first occurred that eventually led to the domestication of the dog. The fact that things like this occur periodically throughout history(which is well known to people who actually DO do research on this subject!) only supports that theory more. Where do we have wolves or ANY OTHER animal “domesticating themselves” anywhere in the world by scavenging from humans, which is a constant, common phenomenon? Things are DOMESTICATED only by the direct intervention and selection by PEOPLE, period! And let’s get that SILLY notion taken care of that the animals visiting occaisionally with dogs in the history of our Western expansion were not REALLY wolves, but just feral Indian dogs, or that the animals seen by early settlers and explorers were really just Indian dogs roaming the wilderness. Only someone who has ZERO experience with real wild wolves and dogs and their behaviour could think of that(and the thinking wasn’t very deep). These weren’t feral dogs BECAUSE most wolves ARE terribly aggressive and deadly to any dogs in their territory(with the exceptions of the few transient animals without a pack.) Talk to anyone NOW living in well populated wolf territory(populated by wolves, that is), and they will tell you any dog that doesn’t stick purty close to people is DOOMED! In short order! This is WHY there weren’t(and still aren’t) feral dog packs living in wolf country–wolves are just as deadly to other wolf tresspassers in their territories(at least, established packs are). But wolves are also extremely individualistic, and exceptions do occur, and that’s what these friendly dog/wolf encounters are–exceptions to the general rule–but they DO occur, and always have(to anyone who has REALLY done any “research” on the subject knows)…..to be continued……
Lane,
If a wolf leave long enough, he or she will leave its natal pack at some point.
They disperse between the ages of 2 and 5.
It’s usually at about age 3.
We’ve also had tons of wolves living in garbage dumps in Europe and parts of Canada, and not a single one has become a dog or evolved in that direction.
I’ve yet to see a self-domesticated raccoon.
When I see that, I’ll pay closer attention to Coppinger’s theory.
….and as for the early settlers/explorers/mountain men misidentyfying wolves as Indian dogs–I doubt that! These people may not have been highly educated in a scholarly sense, but they dang well knew the difference between critters–they HAD to for survival–and the ones that didn’t didn’t survive to write in journals and books later! Is that a cinnamon black bear or a grizzly? Is that a Blackfoot Indian or a Flathead?. If large packs of feral dogs were roaming around unattended and not protected by humans(Indians or otherwise)–which there WERE NOT because of the very high and healthy population of wolves about, which stayed that way till ranchers began exterminating them in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s–do you think even Indian dogs well crossbred with wolves would be so perfectly uniform in appearance as to look just like wolves? Of course not–anyone with experience with wolf hybrids knows that even a bit of dog blood leaves it’s mark–a flopped ear here, and a curled tail there–if large packs of DOGS were roaming about, this variety would be extremely obvious. Although early explorers constantly commented on the wolfish appearance of many Indian dogs(no doubt due to crossbreeding on occaision), they still distinguished between them and actual wolves, and were undoubtedly much better at it than people are nowadays(whose only visual of “wolves” is often on innaccurate T. V. shows that use Siberian Huskies, Malamutes, and painted German Shepherds to portray wolves!). As for packs of Indian dogs roaming around after their Indian masters were massacred–this did probably occur occaisionally, but only for very BRIEF periods–if the whites massacreing the Indians did not quickly shoot all the Indians’ dogs and horses(as it is blatantly recorded in many accounts that they did), the dogs certainly would not have long survived the still heavily wolf populated area. Certainly not long enough to establish and keep large packs roaming about to continually be seen by passing settlers and explorers…….
It’s not the explorers who misidentified them at all.
It’s the experts living in the modern era who second guess their ability to identify them.
Remember that source about the Beothuks and the wolves? It’s the same one about the mastiff playing with with wolves and running with them for days on end.
This expert swears they are feral dogs: http://www.therooms.ca/museum/mnotes8.asp
However, the Beothuk were unique among Native Americans in that they didn’t have dogs. Dog remains have never been recovered at Beothuk sites.
Newfoundland had no native dogs at the time Europeans began to colonize it.
Those had to be wolves, not dogs.
….and Retrieverman, SOME wolves leave their natal packs at 3 or 4 or whenever, but some NEVER do–they stay with their natal pack for life(even if they are never allowed to breed by the Alpha pair)–there is a lot of variety and exceptions of how wolves disperse and unite–they are as individualistic as people! In an environment where wolves hunt really large game(moose, buffalo, elk, etc.), wolves are more likely to stay in larger groups as they MUST to successfully hunt these animals. In places where big game is not as available, the pressure to disperse is much greater, naturally. Dispersing in an area that is well populated with other wolves is VERY dangerous for young wolves, because wolves in other packs will murder any tresspasser they can catch! And ditto with any stray dogs!!! Met with such aggression and competition and rejection on every side, is it any wonder some lonely outcast or dispersing wolves end up associating with friendly dogs around human habitations? It is common sense, really(if you know the where’s and whyfore’s of wolf behaviour).
My understanding is that most wolves will, if they live long enough:
….depends on the situation and the individual wolf–is the pack led by an easygoing, benevolent alpha pair? Or a tyrannical, overly domineering, constantly bullying individual? Is there a lot of competition from other packs in the area?(and if so, then there may be no safe place to disperse). What game and how much is available?(if not much, there may be pressure from the alphas that FORCE some young wolves out of the pack). What is the individual wolf’s personality? Independent and strong-willed?(more likely to strike out on their own). Or laid back and more submissive and content to accept the leadership of others?(less likely to disperse–and also more likely to be tamed and eventually domesticated by humans!). Some tyrant-bully alphas sometimes go too far and the pack gangs up and drives THEM out! This happens more frequently with overly dominant females than males, in captivity and in studies in the wild, suprisingly(or not!). And if such a tyrant bully leader is not killed outright, they may become that rare, outcast “lone wolf” that occaisionally appears–not just a dispersing “teenager”, but sometimes a very mature or even old wolf on its own. Modern human pressure can also affect wolf pack size–most wolves living in close proximity to large human settlements cannot maintain large packs, and hunt alone or in pairs, more like coyotes. So making generalizations about wolf dispersion(or ANYTHING about the critters!) is never very accurate UNLESS you know all of the above mentioned possible scenarios, and probably another zillion or so I didn’t mention! Romeo seems to me like a very good-natured young wolf that was forced to disperse from his pack(all killed by humans or rival wolves? Driven out by a tyrant alpha? Had to leave because there wasn’t enough good hunting in the packs’ territory, and he struck out on his own to try to do better for himself?) and probably met with other murderous territorial packs on all sides, and eventually got squeezed to the edge of this human habitated area and it’s friendlier dogs(Some cohesive dog packs around human areas will drive off wolves like this, too, with the help and protection of their humans), and made some friendly overtures to these dogs, and learned to tolerate an unaggressive human prescence as well. One of three things then probably happened, to account for his dissapearance–1-he WAS shot or trapped or poisoned or something by humans(could have even been hit by a car in this day and age!), 2-he wandered back a little too deep one day in one of the surrounding wolf pack territories(hunting for food?), and they finally nailed him. Or possibly, 3-he met up with a lovely young female wolf in heat(also forced into dispersal for whatever reason) and quickly decided this was WAY more like it–much better than “picking up”(literally!!!) ugly old pugs–and they drifted off together to establish their own territory and live happily ever after! Or maybe yet something else–you just never know with individualistic wolves!
But those that remain never get to breed.
The desire to reproduce is what forces them to leave the pack.
….Although I respect Dave Mech’s opinion on most wolf stuff, I really disagree with this silly redefining of “alpha”! Sure, most naturally formed wild wolf packs ARE a pair with grown or growing cubs(and this IS NOT new information! People have known this for CENTURIES!!! Dave Mech DID NOT discover this aspect of wolf family structure!!!!)–but who is dominant in the pack? Who are the leaders, who decide where and when to hunt, the boundaries of their territories? Who eats first at the kills? Why has the term “alpha” suddenly become an unacceptable synonym to being dominant? Are not most parents(ideally, anyway!) dominant over their offspring?(at least while they are young and strong enough to be). Where is it defined that “alpha” indicates the animals FOUGHT for their dominant position? “Alpha” simply means “#1”–there is nothing in the definition of the term to link it to aggression. But if there IS an altercation in a pack–how is it solved, if the subordinate wolf won’t submit? Well, duh, by fighting! Who wins? Whoever is then “alpha”–and it certainly can change during any pack’s history(in fact, it MUST change eventually, as the older pack members age out and die), and the new “alphas” often tolerate and continue to care for the older wolves(especially if they themselves have been benevolent alphas to their packmates)–but who is in charge, who is leader, who is dominant, who is “Alpha”(all different ways to say the same thing, to me!) has changed and is very obvious to even we dull human observers. I think this associating the word “alpha” with aggression and fighting specifically is silly and a completely inaccurate definition of the word, not to mention confusing to the already ignorant public out there. Shame on you Dave Mech, for making a word a negative thing when it was not originally intended to be defined this way!
…..and yes, some wolves accept, all their lives, not being part of a breeding pair in a pack. But then again, if you consider the enormous variety and possibilities in a wolf pack–you just never know! Older ALPHAS(I for one will continue to use this perfectly accurate and acceptable word, that has so long and traditionally been associated with wolves), are replaced by younger animals in a pack eventually, and though still members of the pack, are no longer the breeders or descision makers. Alpha animals can die, and be replaced by younger, more subordinate pack members who then become the aphas themselves(in fact, this happens all the time! Mortality hunting dangerous big game, fending off rival packs, dodging deadly humans, regularly take heir toll of alpha animals who are at the forefront of all these scenarios)–so if you hang out long enough in your natal pack, you just MIGHT eventually become the breeders–there have been occaisions where older, but still dominant(in other matters) alphas allowed younger, subordinate wolves to breed within the pack, or allowed more than one female to have pups(as Mech himself admitted in the video)–that’s just it again–its hard to say such-and-such about ANYTHING is a hard and fast rule always with wolves!
You know, instead of Alpha, I use a different term:
Elder statesmen.
Oh great; thanks, Retrieverman, just what we need here! Yet ANOTHER term to confuse the public with! But sure–that would be quite accurate and fitting a description–just don’t forget it can be an “elder statesWOMAN” too!
Alphas are just the parents. And we dog people dislike the term because of the idjit using it on tv has made people think they need to bully their dogs trying to BE alpha because that is what dogs need. It’s ridculous. If you must use it refering to wolves fine. But it still only refers to ther parents/mating adults and nothing more.
Consider that most of this alpha behavior stuff comes from CONTAINED wolf packs, not those in the wild. When you can’t get away from living with the pack behavior IS going to be different and creates the status issues. It happens in the dogs we live with to. They have no choice about the pack (we create!) that they live in.
Yeah, and I’ve made myself hoarse in the past year trying to explain that.
That meme of the Alpha wolf is really strong– really, really strong.
It comes from Rudolf Schenkel’s study of wolves at the Basel Zoo– all unrelated wolves that were kept in cages.
You can say that eejit’s name on this blog.
Cesar Millan– the dog thumper.
Marie; did you not read what I just pecked out(wearing my right index finger to the nub?) Alphas DO NOT just describe animals in a captive pack–they describe WHOMEVER is the leader(s) in ANY pack, and NO, it is NOT always the parents–wild or captive!!!!! Nor does it refer to just the mating individuals! Alphas have all manner of responsibilities above and beyond just mating! USUALLY in the wild it is the parents–until the parents get too old to maintain the position–then whatever younger animals are able and willing will take over the position. But there are still definete exceptions to this! Regardless, wild or captive(among all domestic dogs living in a pack environment too–i.e. more than one dog per household!!!) you WILL HAVE ALPHA ANIMALS–there WILL BE A HIERARCHY!!!! This is just plain behavioural scientific FACTS! ALPHA DOES NOT HAVE TO MEAN BULLYING OR ABUSING SUBORDINATES–there are all kinds of alphas(leaders, dominant individuals, elder statespeople, whatever!) WHY do people keep insisting it means being aggressive or a bully to be alpha or dominant??? This is simply misusing the word. WHAT PEOPLE REALLY MEAN IS BEING domineering–that’s DOMINEERING, NOT DOMINANT!! Look these terms up in the dictionary for heaven’s sake! “Dominant” and “Alpha” do not automatically imply negative, aggressive behaviour! Domineering does imply tyrannical behaviour!! But they are not the same thing! Just because some people(even famous dog trainers) misuse a word does not change that word’s meaning(or shouldn’t, anyway!) A benevolent alpha and a tyrannical alpha are TWO DIFFERENT things! If anyone doesn’t like the term still, that’s their(unrealistic) business, but learn what the ACTUAL MEANING of the words are before you knock them!! I am very suprised Dave Mech doesn’t even seem to know this–maybe he’s been hanging out with Ray Coppinger too much……..
Lane, do ever find that some weeks one wolf is higher ranking, then, without any bloody battles, a different wolf is high ranking? Or that one is higher ranking about food, but another is higher ranking about sleeping spots? I think this happens in multi-dog homes, like where the little dog gets the rawhide bone, and the big dog just stands there drooling, but let a female come into season, and the big dog rules.
Utah you make a great point. It is all contextual. That is why labeling can be dangerous. This dog is “alpha” or whatever. Because it changes based on the moment. It is all about the resources the dog finds important. (I believe it would be the same in wolves but I could be wrong. I study dog behavior not wolf behavior because they are different.)
Lane, And no the words do not change their meaning HOWEVER due to the incorrect use by CM on TV the majority of dog owners that watch him now think it means just that, Alpha equals leadership by force.
So that is why we dislike the term. In the manner you describe it is fine. But it will take YEARS to undo the damage CM has done to some of those terms. It is all about the backlash to that. That and in dogs status is a fluid thing so alpha doesn’t really apply across the board depending on the dogs involved.
I will comment on the change of the meaning of words – we will have to have new terms or the bulk of blog readers will believe that they know what we are saying, but they will actually be misunderstanding.
Assuming that you are male, how would you interpret someone posting this to you: “Come over my place and we will go out on the town and have a good time, I am a very gay man………..” But “gay” use to mean “happy, pleasant, fun-loving” – it meant having a tradition Golden Retriever type temperament. ”
Sometimes you have to decide on new terms, or people will misunderstand you. Sometimes words are just lost – like now we have no word for “golden Retriever type temperament”.
“Alpha” has come to mean “brute” to some people, so if you you say “The parent wolves are Alpha”, some people will believe that you are saying that wolves are cruel brutish parents who physically attack their own cubs.
“Alpha” to other people who watch that TV show dog trainer, means “top dog” but in a different way, not so much the results, but the method used to get there.
It is like the word “gay”. There’s nothing wrong about being gay, but if you are not gay, people will misunderstand if you say “I feel gay this morning” (Meaning: I feel happy and relaxed this morning) –
Also: “Lets have a gay old time” (that was a song, and it had no sexual meaning at all), “Christmas is a gay time of the year” (It meant: “Christmas really is a merry time of the year – NOT meaning: “Christmas is for homosexual guys”).
I am told that “tarzan” use to mean a fop (a city dude who likes to dress up in fancy clothes) it was a Jewish word that worked it way into common American English, like the word “schlep” did.
But now, people know “a Tarzan” in an associative way. The word has richer meaning than a standard dictionary explanation. Some says it means “strong”, some say “tarzan” means “animal loving”, some say “natureboy”. Nobody will understand “tarzan” if you try to use it to say “a guy who likes to wear nice clothes” – which the Tarzan never much did.
Yes, I know I’m too much of a nit-picker about words and their meanings, and yes, words’ meanings DO change over the years, but I just find it incredibly irritating! Maybe a sign of old age? But to ME, this negativity towards the terms “alpha” and “dominant” are particularly aggravating, as they take perfectly good descriptive, scientific terms, and twist them into something they were never meant to define. Especially with a controversial subject like this, it just confuses people the more. I view it as being as silly as, say, someone decided(and a trend started from that) they didn’t like the term “father”, because, well, they knew numerous fathers that were abusive, and so viewed it as a negative term. REGARDLESS of that view, it still doesn’t change the FACT that these abusive bozos ARE FATHERS!!!!! And not using the term alpha or dominant doesn’t change the FACT that these social hierarchical behaviours are very much a part of reality! Sure our interprtations can be inaccurate, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are occurring constantly, nor does the fluidity of social relations change the fact that these terms legitimetely describe these behaviours better than anything else! And as for some dogs/wolves being dominant in some situations and not in others–if one spends enough time observing social relations, who is dominant/alpha is still is readily apparent–it does not “change” minute by minute–this is human misinterpretation. Alphas(parents or dominant animals) tolerate all manner of behaviours and allow priveleges to their subordinates all the time–this DOES NOT mean they have given up their alpha status!!!!! One thing I have noticed(and has been written about by other canine behaviouralists) is that it is kind of a canine “law” that once even a subordinate is in possesion of a bone or toy, or some other desirable object, it is theirs until they relinquish it, regardless of more dominant animals wanting said object. Any dog or wolf(or combination thereof) who breaks this behavioural taboo, is guilty of serious, tyrannical lack of “etiquette”. I have known some dogs who DO bully a subordinate till they steal their prize–it usually eventually causes serious problems in the pack–the wolf hybrids I had NEVER violated this rule, but it had nothing to do with who was ultimetely and truly the Alphas. When it comes down to really serious matters, there is no question who the alphas are, and that does not change casually or back and forth at everyones’ whim. That’s just it–there are all kinds of alphas–some benevolent and very tolerant, some insecure, bullying and tyrannical. Just because your boss at work lets you have priveleges and responsibilities does NOT make you dominant over him/her for a second! Try that idea out and see how long you stay hired!
Lane (or anyone else who wants to take a crack at answering this): I have a “who is dominate” question that I find interesting.
My mother had 3 dogs of the same breed, 1 male, 2 females, all grown, all about the same age. She gave each dog a rawhide bone. They each carried their bone off to chew on it in different rooms.
But one of the females snuck around and hid her bone, then she went looking at where the other 2 dogs were with their bones – they snarled at her.
She calmly walk into the front room, looked out the window and started barking at nothing, then she stood on the floor barking loudly into the room – the other 2 dogs came running in, she snuck out, grabbed one of their bones hid it behind a piece of furniture, grabed the remaining bone, carried it to her spot and was chewing on it as if nothing had happened when the other 2 dogs finally decided that there was nothing out front to bark at and went looking for their bones – looking where they had left it – NOT searching the house for it.
She did this over and over. She got the goods – but she was the smallest of the 3 dogs. Who was dominate?
First, because of this universal canine “law” allowing subordinates the rights to possesion(perhaps that is where out term “possesion is 9/10’s the law” comes from–yet another deep, behavioural aspect we share with canines, perhaps…), this VERY SMART little dog you mentioned(with the obvious ability to REASON–something many strict and blind scientists refuse to accept in animals) could be either–dominant or subordinate. My experience with such bright individuals has been that they are subordinate in the social structure, and come up with these clever solutions to overcome their subordinate status, and score against more dominant individuals. I had a similar case occur with my very deviously clever Azawakh who was living with a pack of wolf-hybrids, huskies, and a very belligerent, rude Catahoula Leopard dog. This Azawakh was in no way shape or form the dominant animal–in fact he was quite subordinate to most everyone else, though he DID NOT like to display this–he tended to be quite aloof from common displays of canine hierarchy, but when he overstepped the line on occaision, he had no choice, as he physically simply could not compete with any of these other dogs. But back to the story…..he had a favorite sleeping spot on my couch closest to the wood heater(the ONLY source of heat in the shack I was living in at the time, and Azawakhs like their heat sources in the Winter!). Even though he was subordinate to most everyone else, usually no one contested this spot with him, as he carried on so it just wasn’t worth the bother. But every once in awhile, somebody would take his spot, and if his whining and pawing and other demonstrations didn’t evict the tresspasser(which sometimes they didn’t, and I swear it seemed like they were taking this sleeping spot just to purposefully aggravate the Azawakh!), then he resorted to subterfuge, and would suddenly run barking hysterically at the front door or windows, like we had an intruder! This worked so well, and was so convincing, that he usually fooled me as well! Of course all the other multitude of canines were instantly on their feet and checking things out, whereas the Azawakh would immediately go and claim his newly vacated spot on the couch! He did this again and again–it was no coincidence. And perhaps he learned this tactic by accident, but he had to REASON to utilize it afterwards. In this case, the perpetrator and deceiver was definetely NOT the dominant animal in the pack–quite low ranking, actually. However, all accepted pack members have some rights within the pack, and a benevolent alpha allows this. A tyrannical alpha might have returned and driven the Aawakh off the couch anyway, or taken the bones back, but in most canine eyes, this would have been a serious breach of canine etiquette(from all I have observed). That’s just the point, though, for us humans to know who is really dominant over whom takes close observation and close association-it isn’t always obvious to the casual or occaisional onlooker….
Lane, maybe my mom’s plucky little dog was the 1/10 of the 9/10 of the law? She thought that posession was ONLY 9/10 of the law – she saw opportunity in the remaining 1/10. Was she a canine criminal? Are all of those 1/10 dogs that don’t follow the law of posession doggie thieves, or just revolutionaries bucking the Darth Vaders of their social group?
BTW – just to answer all those show breeders who hounded me for once breeding crossbred dogs – the smart little dog was from a puppymill, and the 2 dogs that got fooled were both from show lines, so which breeders were breeding for what?
So here’s a question, why do we care who is dominant in a group anyways? (regardless of what we call that) It shouldn’t change what we do, no matter what CM says. Supporting the leader within the pack has been disproven as a valid method to change behavior. (Due to status being fluid so pinning one dog down as the leader is ineffective since we are so often incorrect. “Dominance” therefore is always contextual. )
Because status is fluid within a social group does it really have any significance beyond people wanting to label their dogs?
It is also fluid because many times the younger stronger dog takes over the reins in a multi dog pack as the elders become more infirm. Though not always, as with all behavior it depends on the individual dogs involved. Not all dogs care about status.
My experience with living with a large pack of dogs(including several that were part wolf) is that it is very wise to know the pack structure and respect it. And to also know enough about canine behaviour to intervene as the absolute alpha when necessary to prevent fights and other serious infractions–this is basic responsibility of an alpha in any pack–dogs, wolves, or humans! Who “disproved” siding with a more dominant individual was incorrect? It hasn’t been disproved in my eyes–in fact, you had better honor the hierarchy, or you can very easily cause serious trouble in the pack–often “siding” with a dog is not necessary–just don’t intervene for every nit-picking thing that happens–let them work it out as much as they can(this goes for human kids, too!). If you insist on preventing dominance/submissive displays, or are not fair in your treatment of individuals(and remember, their ideas of”fair” may be very dofferent from yours…) you can disrupt pack structure to the point you have serious fighting(as opposed to what I call “squibbling”) all the time. Constantly going to the defense of a subordinate(unless it is VERY serious as in serious fighting) gives them a false sense of support that only makes them resist the pack structure the more, and as the human alpha, you cannot be there 24/7, it will eventually–GUARANTEED–go bad for this subordinate individual. Pack structure and hierarchy is EXTREMELY important to dogs and wolves(and virtually evey other social animal on the planet–including humans!) and having some knowledge of it will go far in helping one be a fair and proper leader for their multiple dog household. Besides, I find it fascinating, and I enjoy very much knowing my dogs’ personalities and interests–the main reason I keep and interact with them. How could you keep multiple dogs and NOT be interested in such behaviour?
Lane, good point about the Alpha wolf being YOU. Maybe that is why Marie and I had trouble figuring out which DOG was alpha – no dogs was – we would have had to look in a mirror to see the alpha?
I agree with 100% about not being able to defend subordinates from dominant dogs in a pack. Once you aren’t standing their glaring at the rude dog, it will attack the one who you defended earlier. This can be true of children too, if you punish the older for beating on the younger, once your back is turned the older may whomp the younger for reporting the bullying. Of course, in children, you can’t neuter to bullies, in dogs you can.
But I also remember my first dog. After she had several years on her, I brought a large breed puppy home. I yelled at her for thrashing him when he was just play fighting, and the puppy grew to bulling her! She never tried to get him when I wasn’t watching, she accepted my rule. Eventially, I had to try to encourage her to assert herself because he grew bigger than her and worried her all the time.
Eventially, the puppy grew too much bigger and stronger than her, and my keeping her from teaching him manners when he was a little puppy, let him feel that it was okay to play with her when she didn’t want to play back. He grew bigger, but not smarter, and she worked out a way to keep him away from her.
We had a porch swing. Before the puppy, she would jump on it and sleep. After the puppy got old enough, he would follower her up there and bother her, trying to get her to play with him. When he got big enough to start to really be aggressive, she ran from him, and made a flying leap onto the swing. It was pushed backwards, then it swung forward and knocked the younger dog flat.
She saw that, and she did it over and over and over. That poor stupid dog never learned. I could watch while I was at the window eating, and she would play the same trick on him 5, 6, 7 times in a row, all in a half hour’s time. Several times a day. For weeks and weeks. It took ages before he had any idea that the porch swing was going to hit him until the second it did.
He would still be running full tilt after her when she hit the back of the swing, and he would still be chasing her with her on the swing) as it made it’s arc backwards. And each time, the swing would, of course, go forward and knock him silly. It was like the roadrunner and the coyote – he never learned.
Although, after a long time, he did learn to stop chasing her went the porch swing came back from the upper reach of it’s high arc – he’d stop, get this open mouth look, and half sit – and it would smack him silly.
The older dog had learned to not just hop on the swing, but to run full tilt into the back of the seat. And she would hop down and go over their and worry him and then get him to chase her around the yard, and then she’d lead him in a circle and do her swing trick again. You could watch her sit on the swing relaxed and panting, happy with herself, looking at him dazed – almost as if she were laughing. It changed to where now she was luring him into the play fights just so she could do this trick.
Naturally the younger dog was getting rougher with her. She had taken to living on the swing, often getting off of it just to lure him into getting whacked again. He was smart enough to aviod the swing when it was still. He feared the swing, But when he was chasing her, he forgot the swing.
I can’t begin to count the number of times this poor stupid dog FELL for the very same trick -i t’s not like we ever moved the swing or anything.
For other reasons, my dad got rid of the younger dog. I cried. But now I understand that those 2 were not good for each other, evan though both were fine playing with other dogs at the park – dogs of any size. And they were both okay with cats.
I was young then, and my parents said to let the dogs work it out amoung themselves. Today, I’d do something, divide the yard maybe. Taking down my parents’ porch swing was not an option then. (They’d get rid of one of the dogs before the porch swing). Now I know that wouldn’t of worked – it would of forced a fight, and the younger dog might of won, and of been put down for it. Would have been a sad ending. Some dogs just don’t get along. And, I wasn’t home enough to moderate their daily actions.
I am slow to comment about wolves because I have almost no experience with them. I am happy to read what other people have written about their experiences with wolves and their logicced thoughts, as well as everyday comments.
To Retrieverman, you logic about what must be fact that we have changed the wild wolves is perfect. I had not thought of it, but clearly it must be true – by shooting down the bold and the brave, what we have left is the shy and retreating. That which survives. The trusting dodos died off, the flighty birds remain. We have made today’s wolves what they now are just the same as we have made other breeds what they are today.
Lane, I enjoy reading about wolves from someone who knows some real wolves, and I like the observation of yours that each wolf is and individual and that different Alphas run their systems differently – that is something that the ‘wolf authorities’ have failed to see, as they each have opinions about how all wolf pack leaders are. And of course you are right – it’s like saying that not all bloggers and not all blog-hosts are the same. If that were NOT true Retrieverman would be the same as Terrierman, and they are 2 different types of pack leaders.
I’m happy to read that people like Jackal73 want the wild wolf preserved, but I’m not totally sure that wolf packs are safe around children or grown people if they grow hungry. I love wolves, but I hiking too. Maybe wolves need their own food source and hikers must know where the wolves’ territories are, and not go into their areas alone and unarmed?
It seems that Marie and I are in agreement, in DOGS not all packs have an Alpha who rules in every situation.
Sometimes dog packs have bullies, which get their way, but are NOT leaders, not respected by the pack, and are given into but not really much part of the greetings and socializing between the other dogs. And sometimes dogs, who might be small or old (or not) are allowed to take things from larger, stronger, calmer, bolder dogs, who could have kept the chewie easily.
I have seen big dogs play tug-of-was with little dogs – they play for a long time – the big dog could easily have won in the first 5 seconds, but the play might last 5 minutes or longer – and the little dog is usually allowed to win. That just blows everything written about dominance.
And dogs do things behind the backs of other dogs. So much for a respected Alpha thing, and when this happens in a house or yard, it must be even more so out in the woods.
I have read that wolves are so much smarter than dogs, this attracts me to look at he idea of wolfdogs, but I’m not into big dogs as I once was. I wonder what a wolf X toy poodle hybrid be like?
Lane I have studied dog behavior (and continue to) and have lived with multiple dogs of different breeds including akitas which some consider more primitive than others. In my experience I have seen people interfering with the pack they have and creating problems because they insist on labeling one dog the “alpha”. Or trying to take on that role themselves but using the bullying methods CM shows.
If what you do works for you then great. But all situations are different because all dogs are different. Many dogs do not care about social status 24/7. It is usually about context and most often seen during episodes of resource guarding.
Having a pack that includes wolfdogs is a completly different thing to me bcause I do not consider wolfdogs the same as dogs. They are not. Which may be why we differ in the behavior conversation.
It makes me sad that we have defiled wolves by breeding them in this way. They should be left alone in the wild, not become our pets. We have created a schitzophrenic animal by breeding wolves who have a fear of people (due to the systematic slaughter of them by humans over the years) with dogs who do not. It’s not fair to them. Hell many people can barely handle a dog and provide a good home for them, forget about giving them a wolfdog! But that is a different conversation.
[…] dog are very low. However, there are and were wolves like this in modern times– Wags and Romeo are good […]
i just read through all the comments and only one said anything about the pug in the picture, and the comment was by lane. he called the pug “ugly”
that pug was not ugly, no pugs are ugly, the only creature on earth that is ugly, are SPIDERS.
SIGNED: DXpugs
p.s i have arachnophobia, im trying to beat my fear my way.
by destroying every spider i see.
sorry