I have just read a very interesting article by Michael Fox, Alan Beck and E. Beckman entitled “Behaviour and ecology of a small group of urban dogs” (see full details at end of this post). This article certainly stirred some thoughts in me.

Basically, this is a study of a trio of feral dogs (two males and a female) living in vacant, derelict buildings in St Louis City, Missouri, in 1973. These dogs were studied from March 1973 until February 1974, for 90 hours over this period of time.

Obviously somewhat dated, but nonetheless an interesting investigation of how unowned dogs fend for themselves in an urban setting. (The authors do make the distinction between free ranging dogs, who have owners who allow them to range, and feral dogs, who are on their own.)

It’s an interesting enough piece of work all around, but the areas I found of particular interest is: the marking behaviour of the dogs, the interactions of the dogs with others of their species, and the psuedo-hunting behaviour the dogs engaged in. I will detail each of these below.

Marking

In regard to marking, the boys were more inclined to mark. The authors note (on pg 125), “Marking over, that is marking where another conspecific has just marked, may be a very significant social phenomenon in the dog since it was one of the most consistent findings in our study. Of the 36 times that the female F urinated, one or occasionally both males were seen to mark over her mark 30 times”. What an effort! I would be interested to read more about the urinating habits of ranging dogs. Perhaps it could help us better understand the obsessive-compulsive behaviour of some dogs peeing habits.

However, of more interest regarding marking, is the behaviour of the dog the researchers called “Y”. Y was the most aggressive towards strange dogs of the trio, and also the most likely to pee around strange dogs. This behaviour resonates with me as I had a male dog, Mac, who also had each of these characteristics. I had associated this form of urination in Mac as a stress behaviour, but now I am curious as to if there is more depth to the phenomena. Yet another issue for further investigation.

Dog-Dog Interactions

Interactions Within the Trio

When the trio interacted with one another, the researchers were surprised at the lack of overt behaviour cues they gave to one another… Now, this was 1973, so I am not confident the researchers were as schooled in dog behaviour as we are now, so this lack of observed behaviour may be an experimental flaw. However, this article suggests that the interactions between the trio were a lot more subtle and covert. Indeed, the article refers to there being no ‘linear pack structure’ and so need for dominance and submission displays as seen in wolf packs. (Of course, now the debate of whether groups of dog behave in a manner like a wolf pack and whether dominance is relevant at all. This article does, in between the lines, suggest that dogs do not form wolf-like packs.) Regardless, it seems that these dogs just ‘got along’ with no real need for them to communicate to one another in a strong way.

The researchers also observed that the dogs would sometimes be dominating in some situations and not others. (Indeed, this is a common train of thought in the dog world today – that particular dogs dominate some pack activities, but not all.) For example, Y had the role of guarding the group, while the bitch had the role of leading the trio in foraging expeditions.

When observing other dogs in the area, they found that most dogs travelled on their lonesome, and sometimes in pairs. The authors suggest that when food is abundant, such as in an urban setting, a pack is not useful and may in fact draw unnecessary attention to the dogs. The trio may be a rarity in the urban dog world.

Interactions With Outside Dogs

This trio of dogs also interacted with other wandering dogs. There were 33 recorded encounters, with 6 encounters described as neutral (i.e. ignoring), 19 encounters described as aggressive or offensive, and 8 encounters described as friendly. Of the aggressive or offensive behaviours, the summary seemed to suggest that this was mostly ‘chasing off’ and barking with no real serious fights encountered.

Sometimes these wandering dogs would temporarily join the trio for a short period. This could be a few hours, or in one case, a bitch followed the group for 6 days. Additionally, the trio made friends with dogs that were tethered in backyards and would interact with them in a friendly way when passing through the area.

Psuedo Hunting

Now, the hunting behaviour was well described by the authors, so I wish to quote it here. Basically, the dogs would routinely go to the park and spend 1-3 hours chasing squirrels. “The dogs expended considerable energy on these mornings in the park; the adaptive significance and bioenergetics of this hunting behaviour are questionable since out of a total of 61 chases no squirrel was ever caught… Such unreinforced activity may be rewarding in its own right and could be interpreted as play” (pg 134-5). As many of us with pet dogs have issues with dogs engaging in unwelcome but self rewarding behaviours, it is interesting that free ranging dogs find time to also waste energy in this way. Many suggest that dogs have been selected for over time to be ‘puppy like’ and maybe this excessive play is a remnant of the domestication of the dog.

There are many more areas that could be commented on in this piece but, because of my own experiences and interests, these bits are what stuck out for me.  Let me know if there is something that you’d like to know about.  I do have extensive notes so the answer may be there.

Reference:
Fox, MW, Beck, AM, & Blackman, E (1975). Behaviour and ecology of a small group of urban dogs (Canis familiaris) Applied Animal Ethology, 1 (2), 119-137