The new MonsterQuest episode last night was probably the most interesting episode that I've seen.  They stepped outside of Cryptozoology for a moment and dealt with a very serious problem; wild dogs.

There was a biologist on the show who seemed to state a difference between the terms feral dogs and wild dogs.  Wild dogs simply being stray animals that form a pack while feral dogs have a long history of breeding populations and being in the wild for generations.  Well, beyond just the MQ show, there seems to be more and more evidence of the latter. 

Here's an interesting story about the topic.  Notice that the article was written in 2003:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0821_030821_straydogs.html

Since the article does a very nice job in explaining the topic, there's no need for me to recap it.  However, there is one thing that I'd like to point out about that MQ show.  They were doing DNA tests to see what mix of breeds a couple of feral dogs had in their genes.  They were looking for certain "temperaments."  They made it a point to show the dogs had a bit of German Shepherd in them.

Now, I've been around dogs all my life.  I have a couple of dogs.  I also like to study animal behavior, primarily dogs.  It simply fascinates me to no end how dogs have been developed throughout the centuries for specific needs and jobs.  To single out the German Shepherd for the feral dogs aggressive traits, at best, is idiotic.

Many dogs have been literally designed for protection or hunting.  Take the Jack Russell Terrier for example.  They were bred to aggressively run, chase, and flush out foxes and badgers in England.  They have no fear.  Pound for pound, they are more aggressive than German Shepherds.  The only thing that separates them is size.  I can't even imagine the problems associated with a 90lb Jack Russell.

In any event, to single out particular breeds for the "cause" the aggressive behavior in feral dogs is pointless.  I don't know…maybe the fact that many of these feral dogs were originally bred for dog fighting has a bit more to do with it.  Maybe breeding specifically for aggression is the more likely cause.  People are breeding the canine versions of monsters.  And if they aren't "lethal enough" they are either killed or let loose.  I mean I can take a Labradoodle and through selective breeding, turn it into a monster too.  Does that mean the Labs and Poodles are aggressive too?

The breed has little to nothing to do with the aggresive traits of the feral dogs.  What does then?  Mankinds treatment of the dogs.  Breeding them to fight and then discard them like trash is irreprehesible.  Now they are attacking and literally killing people in St. Louis and Detroit.  And people wonder why its happening.  Well, it's the German Shepherd's fault, obviously.  *sighs*  

Hmmm…I guess everyone now knows where I stand on Mike Vick's reinstatement to the NFL…  

Nosfer said:

I don't know, from what you've said, it DOES look like breed/breeding is key

Ok…not sure where you're going with that…

I talked about the Jack Russell Terrier to show that there are many dogs that have "aggressive" traits, not just a few bigger-sized dogs or particular breeds. 

I also talked about the Labradoodle and making it into a monster.  So, you would be correct that "breeding (dog fighters breeding for aggressive traits)" has certainly played a role, but not necessarily a particular "breed." 

For example, Pit Bulls can be the sweetest dogs on the planet.  Stick them in a cage and poke them with a stick while starving them…yeah, not so much at that point.  Then breed the biggest, strongest, and craziest over a period of years…and you've got a bunch of big, strong, crazy dogs.  The actual breed isn't crazy or mean, just the particular lineage that these wacko dog-fighters produce are.

And back to the German Shepherd reference in the MQ show.  The dogs that they tested were apparently full grown.  Only 35lbs.  Less than half the size of a typical German Shepherd.  I'm not sure what percentage of German Shepherd were in those dogs but it had to be ultra low.  Maybe 1/16th at best.  That's what originally drew my attention.  I've been able to go a shelter near where I live and help out some of the behaviorists at figuring out what mix some of the dogs are there (only breeds over 35 lbs…I don't have any patience for the toy breeds…).  I'm pretty decent at it.  Those trapped feral dogs…sorry, no way is German Shepherd a recent addition in their mix.  Overall the body is too small, the head is shaped differently, the hind-end isn't sloped enough and the tail was completely wrong.  Actually, it looked like it had way more in common with the Australian Shepherd, which is a completely different breed. 

Nosfer said:

But if they've been "bred" for something (aggressiveness, fighting etc) doesn't that make it part of the breed (the breed is the outcome of the act of being bred whether naturally or selectively by man)? I guess where I was going is where do you separate the act of breeding from the resulting "breed"?

Now I understand what you're saying.  Thank you for clarifying.

Do I separate the act of breeding from the resulting "breed?"  When it comes to dog fighting, yes I do.  The dogs are specifically bred for normally undesirable traits and abnormalities.  Neither of which are indicative of the true breed.

In a very absurd and somewhat wild example, think if there was a "breeding program" for criminally insane men.  Throughout the years, you keep "breeding" the worst of the bunch.  The end result, due to probable abnormalities in the brain and other conditions, would be a very dangerous and very unstable individual.  Since this individual is still "man" he is truly indicative of the "average" man like you or I?  I would say no because particular traits have been extremely exaggerated to the point where the individual no longer represents the average man. 

Now relate this back to dogs and my example of the labradoodle (a cross of a lab and a poodle…and, in my opinion, an odd looking dog).  No one who knows anything about dog breeds would say that labs or poodles show "aggressive" traits that would be desired in dog fighting.  However, give me ten years and I could probably produce one by selective breeding.  In no way, shape or form would this "monstrosity" be indicative of the true breed, the lab or the poodle.

You also asked "Do certain breeds tend to form packs more than others? Answers that may not be known one way or another until something is ruled out or ruled in."  An excellent question.  And you're right, I don't think that there is an answer.  I mean we're talking about domesticated animals that truly haven't been "wild" for centuries.  What specific traits and behaviors will they exhibit by becoming feral…wow…I don't know.  But, unfortunately, it looks like we're going to get an opportunity to see it.  Also, this problem (feral dogs) isn't exclusive to the US.  It's happening in many countries.  It should be extremely interesting to compare and contrast the differences between various breeds within various countries, especially those with radically different climates and environments. 

Nosfer said:

Maybe (quite probably) their use of the term breed was not the best choice of words. And using DNA just to determine German Shepherd, Pit Bull, or Basset Hound is insufficient, but if DNA could be used to tease out the other identifiers or traits, then they might have something. I must confess to not having watched the entire episode. Did they come up with anything or did they show results of their tests? Did they limit it only to the breed (in which case, nice try, but they stopped several steps too short!)

Did they show results of their tests?  Kind of.  I mean, we're still talking MonsterQuest here, not Nova. 

You know, your question about certain breeds forming packs or not really got me thinking.  We're really on new ground with these feral dogs.  And…I have another reason why DNA testing for certain breed attributes won't work for feral dogs.  But before that, I should stress that DNA testing should be done anyway.  Just mapping out the genealogy of the feral dogs will be useful information, especially in the future when more breeding is taking place.  Figuring out how these animals are progressing and what physical attributes they value will be extremely interesting.

So…another reason why the DNA testing for certain breed attributes won't work for feral dogs.  And, it's so simple, it can be easily overlooked and I thank Alicat for pointing it out to me.  To illustrate the point, here's a great, heart-warming actual story of a dog. 

In that story, the cattle dog became wild.  His temperament totally changed.  For all intent and purposes, he was a different dog.  That is why the DNA testing for certain breed attributes won't work.  It is biased.  It is assuming the traits of a domesticated dog, under the training and interference of man will translate to the feral version.  The story of that dog shows that this is not the case.  Cattle dogs were bred for…you guessed it by the name, driving cattle.  They are working dogs, not hunters.  Yet, due to the extreme situation, this dog developed the ability to hunt and to kill.  This is not indicative of the domesticated breed.  The story goes on (and there was a much better article on it that went into infinite more detail, but I just can't find it) in how the dog wouldn't come near the rangers on the island.  In fact, they had an unbelievably hard time trying to capture it.  It had turned that wild.

So to say that a feral dog may exhibit this behavior or that behavior simply based upon having a bit of German Shepherd DNA is faulty reasoning because there is no evidence of what any domesticated breeds are like when they have become feral.  For all we know at this point, the most docile of domestic dogs might be the most vicious in the wild.  There is just not enough evidence or information to say or conclude otherwise.

And again, I credit Alicat for making me see that.  For some reason, she's not posting in this thread even though I consider her a dog expert for all the work she's done with the injured Greyhounds.  Maybe she just hates you Nosfer.  After all, who doesn't?    I'm kidding…there's probably someone around who doesn't hate you.  Probably someone new though, so maybe in time, they'll come around to hate you too.    I'm kidding you again…everyone hates you.

And really, I'm finding this feral dog topic extremely interesting.  Maybe I'll start looking around locally and see what is going on.  This topic is going to need a great deal of study.  Maybe I can find a few scientists and behaviorists who need an extra hand.  If I do, I can update you guys on any studies being done and give you some firsthand knowledge on the subject.  Although…getting a rabies shot doesn't sound too good though…  

Bobarino – I've heard that joke too.   Here's another one…why did the genetically altered German Shepherd cross the road?  To bite Nosfer because everyone hates him.  Ah, forget it…  

Okay.  Let's set the record straight here.  I do not hate you Nosfer!  I think you know that or at least I hope you do.  It's all that trouble maker, Revenant's fault!  (Thanks a lot Revenant!)  I just had an exhausting week and now, after seeing GA last night, I had enough laughs to break the cycle.

I am by no means a dog expert but I will say this dogs, by nature, are pack animals.  When you take a dog training/obedience course, you learn to become the "alpha" dog of the pack otherwise, your dog will rule you which is not what you want no matter how "cute" or how friendly.  However, once a dog becomes feral (including a greyhound), you will have a dog with a totally different temperament and all caution (even with a mild mannered grey) should be taken.  Over a long period of time, these dogs are forced to scavenge for food and shelter.  Their experiences "in the wild" change their behavior.  For this reason, any dog in this situation should be approached cautiously whether you believe the breed has shown aggression or not.  Even if it is your own dog that was lost and now found, you will see a change.  We take these precautions even when we search for lost greyhounds who are some of the most docile dogs you will find.  Will that dog's behavior change once it's home?  On the surface, possibly it will but you will still have to watch your step when it comes to behavior, especially around food, toys and other animals for example.  They may very well perceive items such as these as "theirs" as they had to fight for them outside your home.  It's like a greyhound with cats, some are okay, some are not.  Those that are okay with them inside the home may not be so outside – even with the same cat.  We always caution individuals adopting greyhounds with small animals that there is absolutely no guarantee of safety.

DNA testing can tell you the breed of a dog but even if you use your own dog's DNA for cloning, you cannot guarantee it's temperament, etc.  You may get the physical "look" of your favorite pet/dog but that is all.  It will never be that original pet/dog.  Just the way you can have a litter of puppies and yet not one is the same as its littermate.  If that were true, the greyhound racing industry would have winner after winner and you would have no greyhounds suffering the fates they do and all because they weren't fast enough or showed no interest in running at all.  For example, my greys both had a long lineage of Hall of Fame runners (Dutch Bahama, Downing, K's Flak and Tell You Why from Australia, to name a few) yet one never won a race, the other raced 9 times with only 1 win.  There are no guarantees.

EDIT:  My apologies to Revenant for not thanking him for crediting me in his post.

Here are a few links you might find interesting.  After you read a link or two, you will understand and find that one of my favorite quotes is from Francis Battista, co-founder of Best Friends:  "you don't ban cars because of reckless drivers."

http://dogs.about.com/cs/breedprofiles/a/mean_dogs.htm

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/ncrc-research/

http://dog-training.suite101.com/article.cfm/aggressive_dogs_and_breed_bans

http://www.bestfriends.org/nomorehomelesspets/pit_bulls.cfm

http://doghealth1.com/2009/02/training-agressive-dogs-part-2-michael-vick/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3111455.ece

Nosfer said:

The more I think of this DNA testing bit, the more I wonder if we're missing something. As I said, I did not get to see the whole episode, so bear that in mind with what I say next.

If they knew the breed (ie, it sounds like they knew it was German Shepherd) why would they need to do DNA testing to determine the breed? Is it possible that they didn't know and thus did DNA testing to know what they should be looking for when trying to find the animals that did the attacking? Not as a means of seeing what breeds are problem-causers, but rather to find which specific animals were involved?

That's the murky part.  The dog wasn't a German Shepherd by any stretch of the imagination.  It was a true "mutt."  Like I said in a previous post, I could only guess at the possible mix of breeds and definitely shocked to hear German Shepherd.  It didn't show any physical traits of that breed.  And they were definitely making a reference to the German Shepherd's temperament, as if that was the cause of the attacks by feral dogs.  That's what I found fault with.

Again, I do agree with testing the DNA to see what that particular dog was a mix of.  Yet, I do not believe DNA testing on dogs can show proof of aggressiveness.  I do not think that there is an aggression marker.  I'll take a look around though and try to verify that.  I haven't kept up with DNA testing on dogs in that regard.

As far as "problem causers"…the fatal attacks on humans, at least one case showed a pack of pit bulls.  One would assume associated with dog fighting (I'm not sure if this link was proven.  Then again, I'm not quite sure how one would prove the link.  Although, I think the assumption is pretty reasonable given the area where the attack occurred and the level of dog fighting taking place there).  But, I would classify these dogs as "wild" and not "feral."  Remember, feral implies generations of a breeding population in the wild.  If the dogs are simply wild and killing people, doing DNA tests to lay claim to particular breeds temperaments in "true" feral dogs is still shaky at best.

The feral dog that was captured and had the DNA testing done…I don't think attacks were associated with that pack.  And…from their size, I'm thinking they would chose flight over fight against humans.  I mean size does play a role in the determination of prey for wildlife.  Overall though, I think there needs to be a better distinction between the terms stray dogs, wild dogs, and feral dogs.  From a strictly scientific viewpoint, they are not the same but they are being used interchangeably.

Revenant, thanks for the credit but I just supplied the links, you did all the research and hard work.

One thing I'd like to point out for those who are unaware of the "Canary Dog".  You may remember hearing about a Presa in the news the past few years.  One of the most publicized cases was the woman in San Francisco who was killed by two of these dogs (belonging to her neighbor) in her apartment hallway.  The second was a 30 year old woman in Florida who had two of these dogs as pets and planned to breed them.  She was killled by one of them in front of her 9 year old daughter.  I will not discuss the extreme gruesomeness of either case but these dogs are not meant to be kept in an apartment or around 9 year old children.  They are extremely difficult dogs to train and maintain and why anyone would ever have these dogs in these conditions or put your family in a precarious position is beyond me.

Thanks again Revenant for a great post.

Alicat-  Unlike two particular Ghost Hunters that I can name…I give credit where credit is due.  In the field of science, it is incredibly bad form not to credit those who have helped you even in the smallest way.  Although, when I win the Nobel prize for my research on feral dogs…you will be dead to me.  Funny how that works out.   

Great point about the Canary dog.  It can be quite a dangerous dog in many seemingly normal situations.  I strongly disagree with people owning them here in the US.  They are on the same level as the hybrids; the wolf-dog and the coy-dog (coyote mixed with a dog).  And no, neither the wolf or the coyote are in that DNA data base as well.  Another example of why that particular test will just not do for the study of feral dogs. 

Anyway, just a couple of cool side notes on the Anatolian Shepherd for those interested.  Historically, they were used to guard various herds of animals.  No big deal, many dogs have done that.  But, the other dogs didn't get to wear the swanky, medieval torture devices around their necks either.  Check out the ultra-cool battle gear that they used to wear.  And keep in mind, these collars weren't used to train or harm the dog, they were used as a defensive measure against predators.

http://www.anatoliandog.org/members/takingmytime.htm

Another fun fact about that breed…if you ever meet one, do NOT place your hand on top of the dogs head as you would normally do with other breeds.  Here's why:

According to one website: "Anatolians are not outgoing dogs that want to make friends with everyone. They often do not want to be boldly approached and usually dislike being touched or stroked on the top of their heads when greeted by a stranger. This is not because of shyness, but because they prefer to be approached on their own terms. This is what people mean when they say that the Anatolian seems to expect a formal introduction. They dislike strangers who are too forward. When greeting a new Anatolian, one may stroke the dog's chin after the dog has initially sniffed the hand."

I did test this and it is true.  Going in palm down and going for the top of the head may be looked as an act of aggression.  Quite an interesting quirk.  (Here's the link to that website.  I tried to link to the actual section, but for some reason, I was having trouble doing so.)

Blinddog- Without question, in your scenario, the Chihuahuas would be the Sharks.