Wolves and dogs, not so similar after all?

Comparing the Canis lupus and Canis lupus familiaris.

Cooperation within as well across species has been suggested to correlate with high tolerance and low aggression towards group members, independently of cognitive abilities. Similarly, in domestic dogs cooperation with humans is thought to be facilitated by their tameness and tolerant temperament. Dogs are often considered to be a more docile, affectionate and juvenile version of wolves. Even when comparing human-raised wolves and dogs, it is obvious that the latter seem better at inhibiting their agonistic behaviours and cooperation with humans. Although this increased tolerance in dog-human interactions is probably facilitated by socialisation by humans and lifelong experiences of relaxed interactions with them, various hypotheses have suggested that during domestication dogs have also been selected for reduced aggression and fear in comparison to wolves.
This view of dogs having a more tolerant and less aggressive than wolves is based mainly on human-social interactions. However, certain scientists have argued that this behaviour is not limited to interactions with humans. They state that dogs are also more tolerant and less aggressive than wolves when interacting with conspecifics. While feral dog groups rarely engage in physical aggression upon meeting and only one case has been described when an out-group dog was killed after entering the territory of another group, aggression of wolves towards non-pack members along the borders of their territory can be extreme and is one of the major mortality factors for wolves (after humans).
Though most European scientists consider the domestic dog a separate species, in 1993, the Smithsonian Institute and the American Society of Mammalogists reclassified the domestic dog from a distinct species, Canis familiaris (the familiar canine) to Canis lupus familiaris, adding lupus or “wolf” to the name. The reclassification of the dog has enjoyed increasing popularity as a result, in part, of studies that show that mitochondrial DNA (genetic material inherited from the mother), is strikingly similar, almost identical in wolves and dogs.
However, morphologists who study the structure of animals would say that wolves and dogs are different. While northern breeds like the husky and malamute may look similar to a wolf on the outside, the differences in skull shape and dimension are significant, and so are the differences in body structure, eyes, paws, teeth, coat, and ears.
Evolutionists would argue that while dogs and wolves share a common ancestor, as do wolves and coyotes, this doesn’t mean that the dog is a direct descendant of the wolf, and certainly not of the modern wolf. As a scientist who studies animal behaviour, ethologist Ádám Miklósi points out that while genetic data shows that the gray wolf is the nearest living relative of the dog, it is not likely a direct ancestor. Instead, the wolf and the dog probably share a common ancestor, making them a “sister species”. The problem of describing categorical differences between dogs and wolves is rooted in the fact that despite their ecological separation, the two species share most of their phenotypic traits and qualitative differences (traits that are present in only one of the species) are rare. In reality most differences are quantitative, and there is a large overlap between the species-species variations. In addition, most of these quantitave traits have never been examined in detail and compared across species.
Four possible sources of quantitative behavioural difference between dogs and wolves can be listed, of which barking provides a good example. Both wolves and dogs bark but it seems that in dogs the threshold for barking is lower. The pattern of barking in dogs differs, as they emit this vocalisation in long bursts and combine it with other vocalisations. Wolves bark in special social context (‘warning and protesting’) whereas in dogs different types of barks are emitted in various social situations. Dogs can be taught to bark (or withhold barking) in response to some external stimuli. Some behavioural differences might be secondary or might be the result of phenotypic plasticity and do not indicate genetic changes.
The greeting pattern in dogs might be different because of the absence of certain glands (e.g. the supracaudal gland) used for olfactory signaling, or the lack of movable ear or tails could cause changes in the communicative behaviour. Olfaction is probably the wolf’s most acute sense, and plays a fundamental role in communication. The wolf has a large number of apocrine sweat glands on the face, lips, back, and between the toes. The odor produced by these glands varies according to the individual wolf’s microflora and diet, giving each a distinct “odor fingerprint”. A combination of apocrine and eccrine sweat glands on the feet allows the wolf to deposit its scent whilst scratching the ground, which usually occurs after urine marking and defecation during the breeding season. The follicles present on the guard hairs from the wolf’s back have clusters of apocrine and sebaceous glands at their bases. As the skin on the back is usually folded, this provides a microclimate for bacterial propagation around the glands. During piloerection, the guard hairs on the back are raised and the skin folds spread, thus releasing scent. The pre-caudal scent glands may play a role in expressing aggression, as combative wolves raise the base of their tails whilst drooping the tip, thus positioning the scent glands at the highest point. The wolf possesses a pair of anal sacs beneath the rectum, which contain both apocrine and sebaceous glands. The components of anal sac secretions vary according to season and gender; this indicates that the secretions provide information related to gender and reproductive state. The secretions of the preputial glands may advertise hormonal condition or social position, as dominant wolves have been observed to stand over subordinates, apparently presenting the genital area for inspection. During the breeding season, female wolves secrete substances from the vagina, which communicates the females’ reproductive state, and can be detected by males from long distances. Urine marking is the best studied means of olfactory communication in wolves. Its exact function is debated, though most researchers agree that its primary purpose is to establish boundaries. Wolves urine mark more frequently and vigorously in unfamiliar places, or areas of intrusion, where the scent of other wolves or canids is present. So called raised leg urination is more common in male wolves than in females, and may serve the purpose of maximising the possibility of detection by conspecifics, as well as reflect the height of the marking wolf. Only dominant wolves typically use raised leg urination, with subordinate males continuing to use juvenile standing posture throughout adulthood. Raised leg urination is considered to be one of the most important forms of scent communication in the wolf, making up 60-80% of all scent marks observed.
Wolf-like grinning is used by dogs (lips are retracted vertically and horizontally exposing the teeth), but only towards humans. To many this resembles a human grin, whereas others describe it as “smiling”.
Species of the Canis genus represent a very successful group of animals. On the whole they are more similar to each other than otherwise, which is also underlined by the fact that despite their relatively long evolutionary separation they can still hybridise with each other. It is hypothesised that the Canis genome can easily be adjusted to any challenges represented in the actual environment. In lack of evidence to the contrary we cannot exclude that any Canis species had (or has) the potential to become a dog. Increased sociality is the main argument in favour of the wolf, but this can be selected for in a few generations. Targeted socialisation experiments involving various Canis species and subspecies might reveal similarities and differences in behaviour towards humans. There is much to be learned about behavioural variation in the wolf, and whether this has a genetic and/or environmental basis. The evolutionary history of wolves might have resulted in a genotype with increased phenotypic flexibility. In parallel, there is also a need for quantative description of phenotypic variability for present day dogs.

Training a wolf, an impossible task?

Dogs and wolves are genetically so similar, it’s been difficult for biologists to understand why wolves remain fiercely wild, while dogs can become “man’s best friend”. However, you wouldn’t raise a Bengal tiger kitten and expect it to grow up with the personality of a house cat would you? Nevertheless, many people believe that with plenty of love and attention, they can turn a wolf into a dog. This is a huge misconception; call it evolution, call it selective breeding, a wolf is not a dog. The wolf is the ancestor of all dog breeds that exist today. Wolves and dogs are very similar genetically, but the seemingly insignificant differences in their genetic structure create hormonal changes that result in vastly different behaviours.
A well-behaved wolf is not a well-behaved dog. The wolf behaviours discussed below have enabled wolves to survive as wild animals for millions of years. Unfortunately, these healthy, normal, natural drives are extremely difficult to deal with in captivity, and “proper” training doesn’t eliminate them. While dogs often exhibit these behaviours to some degree, they’ve been greatly altered by generations of selective breeding. In wolves and hybrids, these wild characteristics are strongly expressed; it is unrealistic and inhumane for people to expect such animals to suppress them.
Dominance: As puppies, wolves and hybrids readily accept domination by their human owners. This makes sense because under natural circumstances a wolf pup’s survival depends on its willingness to submit to elder pack members. However, by the end of their second year they have matured sexually; it is at this time that they often challenge their owners for the dominant role. In the wild, wolves have a strong incentive to become dominant because usually only the strongest female and male members of the pack (the alphas) breed. Subordinate pack members may attack a dominant wolf that displays signs of weakness. In interactions with its human “alpha”, a captive wolf or hybrid may interpret clues as subtle as fatigue, frustration or a twisted ankle as weakness and initiate a dominance battle that is potentially lethal. Dominance battles also occur between wolves, hybrids and their canine companions, be they dogs, wolves or hybrids. In the wild a subordinate wolf may choose to leave, but obviously this avoidance behaviour isn’t an option within the confines of an enclosure. Therefore, it is not unusual for captive wolves and hybrids to seriously injure or kill pen-mates. Additionally, the proper social manners of a wolf or hybrid can harm a child. When two wolves greet, they lick faces, bite muzzles and straddle one another to communicate dominance. Such “greetings” from an animal that weighs 100 pounds or more can easily frighten and potentially endanger a child.

While it is possible to train practically any dog to obey commands the situation is completely different when it comes to wolves and hybrids. Wolves and hybrids are much more cat-like than dog-like in their response to training. While they’re perfectly capable of learning commands, they cannot be counted on to obey them in frightening or dangerous situations or when they’ve decided they’re bored with the game. These are the times of course when it most important to be able to rely on obedience. This trait is attributable to the fact they are expressing “adult” canine behaviour as opposed to the more “juvenile” canine behaviour of dogs. From an evolutionary perspective it is very important for young wolves to obey older pack members. However, as they reach adulthood it is important for them to assert independence. As a result, wolves and hybrids make for very poor guard animals. In the wild, non-dominant pack members hang back in the face of intruders or strange situations while the alpha animals decide how to handle the situation. In a captive situation, with the human as alpha (considering the fact that you wouldn’t want nor be able to live with an alpha wolf), a wolf or hybrids natural tendency will be to stay behind while its owner confronts the burglar.
Predatory behaviour: In North America there has never been a verified account of a healthy, wild wolf killing a human. Unfortunately, this is not the case with captive wolves and hybrids. A child running, screaming, stumbling or crying may trigger a predatory response (even in an animal that has always been “great with kids”), resulting in serious injury or death of the child. Once this predator-prey response has been stimulated, the animal may never again view children as anything but prey. Other animals also arouse wolves’ and hybrids’ predatory instincts. Cats, small dogs, chickens, sheep and other domesticated animals are not safe in the presence of a hybrid or captive wolf. While we all know many dogs that exhibit this behaviour, it is to a lesser and much more controllable degree.
Territoriality: Wild wolf packs maintain territories and drive off or kill trespassing wolves. This behaviour ensures that packs do not compete for prey within a territory. In captivity, mature wolves and hybrids display territorial behaviour by being extremely aggressive with strange dogs. Any meeting is potentially lethal to the dog.
Several other wolf characteristics (such as scent marking, “destructiveness”, possessiveness, excessive shyness, pacing, digging and howling), while not necessarily dangerous, constitute behaviours undesirable to humans. Scent marking (urination and defecation) may occur anywhere the wolf or hybrid wishes to establish territorial boundaries, which may include the living room sofa. Chewing behaviour is another common complaint of hybrid owners, as jaws powerful enough to crush the femur bone of an adult bison quickly dissect any interesting object. An owner rapidly learns that once a wolf or hybrid has taken possession of a favourite shoe, no amount of discipline will help recover it, and an attempt may in fact lead to a serious bite. To a wolf, possession is 100% of the law; you don’t take things away from a wolf or hybrid unless you’re prepared to fight. Additionally, wolves and hybrids are often quite suspicious and uncomfortable around objects they weren’t exposed to as puppies. Things that most dogs take in stride, such as umbrellas, people wearing backpacks, overhead ceiling fans can cause a wolf or hybrid to panic. Extremely shy animals may panic simply at the approach of a stranger. Frightened wolves and hybrids have been known to scale fences that had contained them adequately for years. Panic can cause destruction of property, injury to the animal or loss of control of the animal resulting in an injury to someone else. Wolves and hybrids are also very active and curious animals. If not given plenty of exercise and mental stimulation (several hours daily, especially during their most active times, dawn and dusk), they can be depended upon to continually pace, move prodigious quantities of earth and howl incessantly.
Of course, environmental conditioning can modify any animal’s innate behaviour. A properly raised and socialized animal living in an interesting environment will be easier to handle than one that spends its days at the end of a chain. However, just as it is ludicrous to think that a Chihuahua raised like a tiger would grow up to act like a tiger, it is ludicrous (and much more dangerous) to think that compassion, tender love and empathetic nurturing can subvert wolfish behaviours that have evolved over millions of years. Hybrid owners may successfully raise and enjoy one hybrid, only to find that the next hybrid they acquire acts like a wolf, despite the similarities in how the two animals were raised. The difference lies in the genetics of the two animals: the first was primarily dog, the second primarily wolf.

Dog as man’s best friend, the Eskimos and their sled dogs.

Wolves are noble animals. They’re not like dogs. In Yupik, the word for wolf is ‘Kegluneq’, and the Aleuts revere them as honourable cousins. Though wolves are trainable, they lack the same degree of tractability seen in dogs. They are generally not as responsive as dogs to coercive techniques involving fear, aversive stimuli and force. Generally, far more work is required to obtain the same degree of reliability seen in most dogs. Even then, once a certain behaviour has been repeated several times, wolves may get bored and ignore subsequent commands. Wolves are most responsive toward positive conditioning and rewards, though simple praise is not sufficient as in most dogs. Unlike dogs, wolves tend to respond more to hand signals than voice. Captive wolves are also less suitable than dogs for working. German wolf biologist Erik Zimen once attempted to form a dog sled team composed entirely of wolves. The result was a complete failure; the wolves ignored most of the commands and were far more prone to fighting than sled dogs.
For this reason, the various tribes of the Arctic turned to dogs for cooperation, not wolves. One of the most famous examples is The Inuit Dog which has existed for about four thousand years and is properly referred to as a landrace or an aboriginal dog, but not a breed. Vladimir Beregovoy defines the term aboriginal dog as having ‘evolved by natural selection under conditions of free life and close interactions with people’. Archeological evidence has shown that the Inuit Dog was not used to pull sleds until about 800 AD. Prior to that time it was primarily used as a hunting partner to find terrestrial (musk ox, caribou) and marine (seal, polar bear) mammals and in some instances “detain” the four legged quarry until they could be killed for food, fuel, clothing and other materials necessary for existence. The Inuit Dog was also used as a pack dog in the summer and camp guard dog, alerting Inuit to the approach of polar bears. To fully appreciate the Inuit Dog one must understand the the history of the Inuit themselves because both the people and their dogs were dependent upon one another. In the year 2000, shortly after becoming a Canadian territory, Nunavut declared the Canadian Inuit Dog ‘Canis familiaris borealis’ its official animal, recognizing the landrace’s essential role in human survival.
Many myths or legends exist around the origin of the Inuit Dog, claiming that it is part wolf. However, this is absolutely untrue! It is also unlikely that the Inuit staked out bitches in estrus to be bred with wolves seeing they have known for centuries that wolves are unpredictable and might end up killing the dogs. Any resemblance between these wild and aboriginal (yet domesticated) canids is the result of certain shared arctic phenotypes. They might look like wolves but this because of the fact that the phenotype of the Northern Breeds is the best solution to the problem of Arctic weather and conditions. The Northern Breeds did not evolve much past that phenotype as other breeds have because most variations to the phenotype would be killed off. A bulldog would not survive simply because of the fact he isn’t built for the situation.
The Inuit Dog is known by many names. Qimmiq, the Inuktitut word meaning ‘dog’, comes from a time when there were no non-aboriginal dogs in the North. Qimmiq remains understood to refer to this landrace. This animal is also called the Canadian Inuit Dog or Greenland Inuit Dog, but can be collectively referred to as Inuit Dog or Inuit Sled Dog because it has been shown by archeological and anthropological fieldwork as well as by DNA analysis to be one landrace
The behavioural profile of the Inuit Dog is the result of millennia of a working life in harsh arctic conditions. The term “primitive” applies in part to the dog’s survival and breeding success under largely natural conditions, with only some human influence, and represents a far more finely tuned level of skill sets than could be found in cultured breeds of domestic dogs. In very early times, the dogs were not confined, instead being allowed to roam outpost camps socialising with humans of all ages as well as with their own species. When the dogs were not working in some capacity (not just pulling sledges) for humans they were usually left to forage for their own food. So predatory-aggressive behaviour was not only a result of their partnership with a hunting society in the acquisition of animals as food and other raw materials, but also for their own survival when not being fed directly by humans.
Within this historically early, free-ranging Inuit Dog society, pack dynamics were established. There existed an alpha dog, also identified as a “king” dog or “boss” dog. A competent, intelligent boss dog who ruled supremely and generally kept the peace among lower ranking dogs. He ate first and most, and was the male who mated with the bitches. A good boss seldom fought to injure or kill, unless a lower ranking dog failed to accept the boss’ authority or decided to challenge it. Where the boss was old and failing, he would be killed by the younger, stronger rival. This is an example of the Inuit Dog’s social-aggressive behaviour.
Part of the Inuit Dog’s survival success has resulted in an animal with a well developed sense of pack social structure, an animal that is acutely aware of hazards and opportunities of its environment and an ability to communicate its feelings and intentions, and in a manner far more directly than cultured breeds. It is also adept at reading body signals of other dogs and humans to a greater degree than dogs bred as pets and show dogs. It has been observed that other, more “cultured” dogs do not or poorly understand or acknowledge the “language” of Inuit Dogs. This communication disconnect along with the Inuit Dog’s strong need to live within a structured social hierarchy has given it a reputation to be more likely to fight with dogs outside of Inuit Dog society.
All dogs benefit from early socialisation. However, for primitive aboriginal dogs in general and Inuit Dogs in particular, human contact right from birth is considered essential to establish a useful bond between working dog, master and other humans. Fear aggression in Inuit Dogs has been described since old times in animals that have not had adequate early and continuing human contact. Properly raised, the Inuit Dog is generally very social to humans. However, this should not be confused with “pet” behaviour as these dogs are selected for reproduction based on working performance and everything that encompasses, not based on a “soft” temperament.
In the past century, the role of the Inuit Dog has certainly changed. Perhaps with rare exception Inuit Dogs are no longer used every day to perform the many vital roles in a nomadic society. The Inuit live in houses nowadays and no longer depend on their dogs. Although some Inuit Elders say that today’s dogs are not the ones they remember from their youth, there is no doubt that traditional Inuit Dogs still exist in northern communities, mostly in the Eastern Canadian Arctic and Greenland. There may even be Inuit Dogs in Arctic Russia although this has never been confirmed. Nowadays, in the North, the Inuit Dog is used for tourism, expeditions and hunting for “country food” to supplement an increasingly “southern” human and sled dog food diet. In Canada client sport hunting for polar bears can only be done legally by dog team. In Greenland there are districts that do not permit the use of snow machines. The Inuit Dog can be found on recreational teams as well as those of commercial outfitters who understand, value and respect them. However, there also exist owners who keep or use cultured breeds of sled dogs who are only vaguely familiar with the Inuit Dog. These people have no understanding or appreciation of the nature of primitive aboriginal dogs and cannot understand why they don’t curl up on first introduction. Mushers who use other breeds (and mixes) of sled dogs have openly questioned the “need” for Inuit Dogs to retain their “aggressive tendencies”, observing that they don’t hunt polar bears or fend for themselves anymore. This uninformed attitude and desire to dissect out parts of a dog’s profile as a matter of convenience to suit the desires of a foreign culture in a foreign land is the mind-set of what has transformed so many formerly functional working dogs into scores of useless cultured breeds, a practice began in earnest in Victorian England. With attitudes like these, the responsible ownership and use of Inuit dogs outside their native habitat can be challenging to say the least.