Talk:Dog behavior/Archive 1

Style
I've been in a long e-mail discussion with User:DigitalDog over some of her contributions and I'm helping her to understand the styling and inclusion standards. If you Google this text, it all resolves back to her site. I've simply brought this in line with NPOV and the manual of style. Thanks, all. - Lucky 6.9 05:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I'm proposing merging Dog society into this article for two reasons (1) dog society includes mainly social behavior that is entirely redundant with what should be here; and (2) because this page is awful and more incorrect than correct. Here is a list of problems I have found:hi i am daniel fitzgerald

1) "Dog behavior refers to the instincts that influence how a dog would react..." this is wrong. Dog behavior refers to behaviors of the subspecies canis lupus familiaris, which can be driven by either instinct or environment, and include reactions and internally generated behaviors.

2) The second paragraph is nonsensical.

3) The third paragraph is unreferenced. The last sentence is nonsense.

4) The fourth paragraph: "Anything that moves" is hyperbole and adds no real information.

5) This section is in no way an exhaustive discussion of self-preservation, and seems to be based on anecdotal rather than scientific information.

6) The "Behavior" section intro is nonsensical. The first sentence provides no information.  The second sentence is totally unsupported and speculative. The third sentence is uncited and not very specific.

7) The next two subsections are empty.

8) Food Aggression includes unsupported and point of view statements that are highly controversial.

9) Territory and Forced submission include unreferenced statements that are in direct contradiction to the referenced statements in Gray Wolf.

10) Eye Contact is uncited, and provides an opinion on handling dogs without providing any verifiable information about dog behavior.

11) Tail up is uncited and in direct contradiction to referenced statements in Gray Wolf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesoxlost (talk • contribs) 2008-10-30

Consider Revising
It seems to me that this page is in need of revision, addition, attention, etc. From reading the article, the main idea the reader comes away with is that all dogs behave as if they were the leader of the pack, when clearly this cannot be the case. In each pack, there can be only one leader. There may occasionally be power struggles and competitions for new leaders to come about, but certainly not all dogs view themselves as leaders of the pack. This article repeatedly mentions a dog's "instincts," "drives," "genetic make-up" and other terms all referring to a dog's nature. Well, if we consider what dogs would be like in nature (i.e. living in a "pack" consisting only of other dogs), it is obvious that only the few dogs who were the leaders of their packs would behave in the way that this article describes.

It seems to me that this article is describing the tendency of the typical dog owner to fail to establish him or herself as the leader of the pack. Two of the behaviors listed under "Dominating Behavior" in this article are behaviors that any human being can do to establish himself as the leader of the pack, rather than become submissive to the dog. A human can roll a dog onto her back and hold her paws to her chest for a period of time. A person can also refuse to be the first to look away when the owner and the dog engage in direct eye-contact. As is mentioned in this article, food belongs solely to the leader of the pack, so if a dog owner makes his dog eat well after the owner eats and has complete control of the dog's food, the dog will realize that her owner is the leader.

In any case, I suggest the wording of this article be changed to reflect the fact that only the dog who considers herself the leader of her pack has such dominant behavior, and that it is clearly the case that most dogs in nature simply aren't leaders. Rather, inexperienced, human dog owners create a situation in which many domestic dogs think of themselves as leaders.

BareAss 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know what the user (DigiDog) is claiming as references for his "conclusions" regarding dog behavior. I went to the web page referenced at the end of the article and it merely goes to the user's page with no indication as to what the author is basing his statements on. According to EO Wilson ("Sociobiology: A new Synthesis") dominant relationships are based on attempts to control access to valued resources with the dominant individual in the relationship being the one who can displace another from that resource and can also defend posession of that resource. Many of our pets can take posession of a resource such as food or a highly valued chew item and use aggression to maintain that control. That does not make the animal dominant in its relationship with the person. It just indicates that the dog has learned that aggression is an effective tool to maintain posession. A dominant display would occur if a pet was able to get the human to relinquish the item.

Also, dogs are not wolves. They are far removed from wolves. While they may have evolved with wolves as ancestors, they are not "mirror-images". In the wild, wolves have a very loose dominance structure while it is more intense and dog-like in captivity. While dogs and wolves in captivity have a linear dominance hierarchy, that is not the case with wolves in the wild. There is not an aggressive tendency to role subordinates on their backs as is claimed in the article. Dominance is developed by leadership, stares, growls, fights then deference on the part of the submissive wolf. There are no "alpha rolls" in wolf society. In my experience, people trying to emulate this merely incite a need on the part of the dog to escalate an aggressive response to physical handling thus causing a heightening of the aggression towards the person. Leadership does not occur via force. Violence is used when individuals are combative over swho can control access to resources but ceases once the relationship is established.

I am not sure where the conclusion came from that only males display territorial behavior, but this is also false. Female dogs will use aggression to manage their space and control movement to it and within it. Just look at some female dogs that are left to patrol their yard and home when alone. Gender is not a factor.

I am a veterinarian and board certified in animal behavior (John Ciribassi DVM, DACVB) and President of the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior. We will be posting revisions to this page in the near future and will post references to the material. I would appreciate discussion on this topic before we post our material.

AVSAB 24 January 2008

Indeed, the information about dominance (and everything else of course) should be updated by someone wih knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevad (talk • contribs) 17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The last changes since my revision I have found quite offensive, consult with me before you start undoing. The said person laid a dogmatic (ha ha pun) and inconsiderate tone and bias on behavioral nature of dogs. This was made out of ignorance and not of experience. Consult first and watch it!


 * The whole popular mythology about dominance in domestic dogs, and about humans becoming "pack leaders" has fallen out of favor with many (most? all?) animal behaviorists. See the comments by John Ciribassi above.  It just doesn't wash. I have two dogs, and I assure you they treat all humans quite differently from any dog. They distinguish people from dogs as effortlessly as they distinguish other dogs from birds and bushes.  Weird human behavior like "alpha rolling" only makes dogs distrust the crazy big animal that does it to them. It's a good way to get bitten, or to form an enemy for life. Any mention of wolf behavior is dubious at best.  Dogs are not wolves. Some forms of wild dogs do not run in packs; They run in families.  Adult dogs do not compete for alpha status; They leave the family and try to form their own families.  Domestic dogs are not wild dogs either.  I was extremely disappointed in the article as it stands (May 21, 2010).  Don't add junk science about "dominance" that can seriously damage people's pets. There is plenty of that on TV and the web. Get rid of the stuff about wolves, and enlist the help of actual animal behaviorists to write about domestic dogs. Jive Dadson (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

New paper on dominance
I noticed a press release of a new paper which is being advertised as showing "how the behaviour of dogs has been misunderstood for generations". I don't have access to the paper. II | (t - c) 22:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Geez
This article is wrong on more than one point. Go to the dog article and pull sources from there, you'll see half the stuff said here is bs. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Section: Dog Anxiety Treatment
This section seems particularly problematic. It seems inappropriate to have a section proposing to provide treatment suggestions for one particular behavioural problem in dogs in the first place, and secondly, the treatment suggestions are neither referenced nor entirely useful. The worst being the last point suggesting an anti-bark collar. These collars may suppress the barking that often occurs secondary to some canine anxiety disorders - but they certainly do not treat the anxiety! I would suggest this section should be removed altogether. Gary Beilby (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Dog behavior
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dog behavior's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CDC": From Doberman Pinscher: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf US Centers for Disease Control: Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. Retrieved March 25, 2007 From List of fatal dog attacks in the United States:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger discussion - dog behavior & dog communication
I am suggesting that dog behavior and dog communication be merged into a single page; titled something like - dog behavior and communication.

There is a a lot of duplicated information on both pages, and I feel that the unique information currently used in each page would not make a single article overly long. Both pages could also use more attention. They are currently poorly sourced and contain a lot of how-to advice. I feel that merging the two pages would better allow editors to improve this topic by focusing on 1 page instead of 2. I am not strongly attached to the suggested target name, it is the first thing I thought of. If anyone has a better suggestion for the target name, it is more than welcome.

Vandraedha (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Vandraedha, I agree - and include the Bark (sound) page as well. The talk pages of these articles indicates (1) the articles are not edited often and (2) people are generally not happy with the content, particularly lack of citation or need of relocation. There appears to be no disagreement from other editors on this talk page about a merger as they have had almost 9 months to respond. The way to make this happen is to describe a plan of action here for other editors to see and either agree/disagree. My thoughts are:
 * 1) Make a statement on each of the Talk pages that this is about to happen, and this includes the Dog talk page - for editor comment and to allay administrator concerns
 * 2) Mark all uncited verbiage on the article pages as being in need of citation - an early warning to other editors
 * 3) Remove all uncited verbiage from the article pages - 2 weeks later
 * 4) Relocate anything that really belongs to another page
 * 5) Define a draft structure for publication on the Talk pages - for comment
 * 6) Bulk export from/to the new structure - 2 weeks later
 * 7) Produce a very short summary of the article content as the introduction
 * 8) Amend the Dog page with that introduction to cover behavior and communication, ensuring we have everything covered that is on the Dog page currently

How do you propose we proceed? Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   01:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello DrChrissy, given your passion for matters regarding animal behavior, could I call upon you for your views on this one, please? Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   02:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongly support I think this would be a great opportunity to bring the Dog communication article to a better standard. I have always considered communication to be a sub-set of behaviour.  Given the very social nature of dogs, it is almost impossible for the behaviour of dogs not to influence the behaviour of other animals (a "definition" of communication); i.e. I consider "behaviour" and "communication" almost synonymous in these circumstances.  I would not be in favour of merging Bark (sound).  I think there is sufficient information for this to be a stand-alone article and it also contains sections (e.g. nusiance barking) that would not really fit easily into Dog behaviour without undue weight.  For the merger, I would prefer the title Dog behaviour, rather than Dog behaviour and communication.  I do not feel very strongly aboout this, however, WP does prefer titles to be as concise as possible.  Hope this helps.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks DrChrissy. Searching back, most of the verbiage in this article was originally supplied by http://www.digitaldog.com/ ("Digital Dog provides the best info on the best products!") and appears to have been set up here to help promote itself. Therefore, its academic rigour is questionable - there have been similar comments (see sections above) over the years. I will consider a structure for the new arrangement - I think if the skeleton is right others will contribute to help flesh it out with relevant citations. You might have some examples where you have assisted with the structure of other species on Wikipedia, as a guide? I fear that Vandraedha has become despondent over the last 9 months and may no longer be active. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   21:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Tentatively oppose: Animal communication is not entirely a subfield of ethology (animal behavior; see Ethology). In particular, aspects of dog (or other animal) communication with humans, and influenced by humans, is not a ethological topic, but one more of human evolutionary ecology, including our shaping of domestic plants and animals with selective breeding, and the gradual alteration of our own cultural life ways to integrate them. The bulk of the Dog behavior article appears to be about non-ethological behaviors, but bred and trained ones.  It makes sense per WP:SUMMARY style to have a short, summary section on dog communication here with a  pointer to the main article on it, which might contain both ethological and human-centered information, the former of which might not be proper to merge into this article.  Aside: The idea that an article needs to be brought up to encyclopedic standards is in no way connected to whether its topic should be merged with another one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks SMcCandlish ☺ and DrChrissy. I agree that dog behavior is not an ethological topic as there is no "natural environment" element - little of the dog's environment is natural. I have no expertise in the field of dog behavior but I know my way around a decent citation and how to find one, and unless another editor has yet to express an opinion - doubtful as this quiet backwater of Wikipedia appears seldom visited or edited - let me suggest the following:
 * we do not merge the two articles and take the banner proposing this off the pages (plus the Dog communication page currently appears to be at an acceptable standard)
 * we give further thought to how the dog behavior article can be brought up to a better standard i.e. move away from the "Digital dog" training-and-breeding type information and the over-comparison with the grey wolf. To do this we might borrow some of the structure from the better texts on this subject - Coren (USA), Miklosi (Hungary), and Hare (UK). We set up the structure and see if others can help flesh it out. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   11:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Although I put strongly support previously, I can see both sides of this. Merging the two articles could be a huge project - perhaps we should get the Behaviour article to a high standard and then consider a merger (or not) later.  For information, the term "ethology" is used in various ways.  I agree that it places an emphasis on behaviour in a natural environment, but, what is the "natural" environment of the domestic dog?  It is generally belonging in a family of humans, not hunting to survive (although they can do this).  The study of the relationships between animals and humans is anthrozoology.  I have jotted down a possible skeleton of the article - very happy to discuss this.

Dog Behaviour

Senses Cognition Evolution/Domestication/Co-evolution with humans Social behaviour Reproductive behaviour Relation with humans Historical (for warmth,       Modern (Assistance dogs, sniffer dogs)        Use in science (Pavlov, space exploration)        Attacks __DrChrissy (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Ethological canine-to-canine communication material that is actually relevant to this article, on the behavior of the domestic dog, could easily be worked into the "Social behavior" section, while dog–human communication could naturally be worked into "Relations with humans" section, with no need for any article merge. I'm not opposed to a later merge discussion after the development you propose has proceeded, if it still seems like a good idea to someone after such changes. (As an aside, from a co-evolutionary viewpoint, the dog didn't develop to live in family homes, but around early human campsites, even if specific landraces and breeds since then have been intentionally developed for specialized roles like house pet, guard dog, war dog, hunting hound, sled dog, herding dog, etc.  So I wouldn't agree that the ethology of the dog is centered on human family cohabitation as it "natural" environment; that only describes the typical case for certain populations of dogs, mostly in industrialized societies where pets are common as such.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello All, I have already made some headway on the section for Evolution/Domestication/Co-evolution with humans - see Origin of the domestic dog - there is no shame in replicating that content here as well, if appropriate. I have searched the chapters used by key authors. Coren focused more on intelligence and communication. Hare was more focused on intelligence but included a chapter on the human/canine bond (basically, love). Miklosi focused on behavior, and included a thorough treatment. Of interest, he included a chapter that compared and contrasted behavior with other canids, and across breeds. He also had chapters on: dogs in human society, dogs in the family, dogs at work, social roles of dogs in human groups, outcast dogs. DrChrissy might we ask you to finalise the draft structure, please? I have placed a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs to call for assistance and allow others to comment. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   11:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * William Harris et al, I am sorry not to get back to you sooner. I got sidetracked by other projects and didn't come back to this page until recently. I am glad you and the others got started on getting this page cleaned up, material moved, and added relevant info to the appropriate sections. I still feel the pages could be merged, but not strongly. I do still notice a lack of information about some subjects, and a few things that could still be pruned. However, I plan on discussing that outside of this merger proposal. Since no one seems to strongly support a merge at this time, I will close this request for merge and remove the banners. -- Vandraedha (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Genetics
Articles can be improved by to mention more about how dog's behavior changed genetically, or is there any genetical change in them. I also want to know more about how their social behavior is different from other animals, perhaps wolves or feline animals. This article do not really talk much about their evolutionary process and I think talking about this will improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Park.1529 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hunting section needed
This needs a section on hunting, including both natural behaviors (pack hunting), and human-bred behaviors (including at least "driving", "pointing" and "setting"). Many dog breed articles need somewhere to link to when these behaviors are mentioned as part of the breed profile. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi SMcCandlish ☺. You have seen this page - it barely addresses some aspects of dog behavior! Do you have an interest or expertise to drafting something in this area? Even one or two well-written paragraphs would be a start. It will require citations to scientific publications - books or research. Your favourite search engine is very helpful at that. See Merger Discussion above. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   03:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have an interest in it, but no expertise. I'm a cat person (and a caudate person), more than a dog person.  I'm a regular editor here, and know how WP works.  The fact that the article barely (or not at all) addresses some aspects of dog behaviour is my point.  I'm suggesting a subtopic with regard to which the article needs improvement by those most interested in and competent to work on it, with a specific eye to incoming links from other, extant articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi SMcCandlish. Try putting some edits in that you think might be useful.  I'm quite prepared to help with these and if there are any concerns, I will be very friendly in my approach to discussing these.  I am sure this applies to other editors too.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be getting it. I'm not a shy would-be editor who needs encouragement and has something to contribute to this article; I'm suggesting that subject-matter experts improve this article in a specific way because we need the material that's missing.  I.e., focus on the content, not the editors.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Scope of this article
Given that there appears to be an imminent re-write of this article, perhaps we should discuss the scope or emphasis. Should we be discussing the behaviour of the domestic dog, or that of its ancestral precursor (the answer of course is "both", but we need to discern where the focus should be). At the moment, the article is confusing. The lead paragraph says the article is about the domestic dog but then says "The social unit of dogs is the pack." I can't remember the last time I saw a domestic dog in a pack. I live in a semi-rural area of Somerset and I am sure this is a locality bias (i.e. packs of dogs exist out there), but I would have thought for the great majority of domestic dogs, living amongst a "pack" of humans is the social unit.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be in favor of focusing on the domestic dog because we know so little about Canis familiaris in its wild state. (Right now, I have 45kg of lightning-fast and very muscular ex-feral lying at my feet. When we first met in the wild and the next few weeks after, he was scary not because I thought that I would be bitten - quite the opposite, they are very shy and anxious like all wild mammals - but because his behavior was so far removed from what we know as a dog.) We could do a section that touches on this subject, I would be happy to put it together citing the work done in Italy that I have found most useful and have been thankful for. We also need to consider the reader, why have they searched and come to this page on Wikipedia and what are they looking for. Regards,  William Harris  •   talk •   12:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with the idea we should be thinking about the reader. I would think the vast majority of people clicking on the article will want to find out about their faithful pooch sitting on the rug infront of them.  We simply must include information about domestication, co-habitation, evolution, etc.  We must include information on the behaviour of feral domestic dogs (and their behaviour on de-feralisation, if that information exists).  I just think it would be much easier to write if we were in agreement about the emphasis.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First step now taken (Evolution/dom/coevo) based on your layout in Merger Discussion above - you may have missed my final comment there as well. (OK, you took the first steps!) The evolution section needs a lot more work, but this is the first step. We need to be very clear that if we are going to compare dog behavior to wolf behavior, we include the other canids as well as what we are seeing may be canid behavior. Also, not only did wolves interbreed with dogs, dogs have interbred with wolves - some wolves have been found with a rear dew-claw - so much of the earlier findings might now be in dispute unless a genetic analysis had first been done to confirm that the subject was a pure-bred wolf (most unlikely in the past), else we may be comparing dog behavior with dog behavior! Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   21:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I am making edits which hopefully will not be controversial before we have discussed the scope of this article.  So, while I carry on writing about the behaviour of modern pet dogs we can all chat about what other aspects to include.  Hope this is OK.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me merge what we have said above to result in a structure as follows:

Senses (can link to the biology section of the Dog page)

Cognition

Evolution/Domestication/Co-evolution with humans (light overview from the Origin page)

Comparison with of behavior with other canids (more research, as yet unsure where to start)

Social behavior (huge task but the "Hungarian team" has this covered, a bit of reading and research here, I have made a start) In groups (to include dominance and submission – avoiding all wolf studies) Feral dogs Reproductive behavior

Relation with humans (or dogs in human society) Historical (for warmth etc) Modern (Assistance dogs, sniffer dogs) Use in science (Pavlov, space exploration) dogs in the family dogs at work (Assistance dogs, sniffer dogs) dogs in social roles with human groups Attacks (both human and animal i.e. sheep)

This task is huge in itself. My view is that anything uncited on the page is a target for removal. We must be objective and not be persuaded by past thinking that is now outdated. (The dog is not a wolf.) Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   21:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree wholeheartedly.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Right DrChrissy! The top level of the restructure is in place. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   10:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel we might soon need to be careful about the scope of the article. Readers may soon be asking is this article about the dog, or is it about the wolf, or is it about both? People might be asking why are comparisons made with the wolf rather than e.g. the cat.  There is nothing wrong with discussing the behaviour of the ancestral species, but we will need to avoid undue weight in this. DrChrissy (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to see comparisons of dog behavior with all of the genus Canis where the research has been done - sadly there is a fascination by researchers with wolves (and probably the Grey wolf without saying so) and very little about the other canids in this genus. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain what is evolutionary behaviour and what is environmental behaviour. I am doing no further work on wolves apart from a short section on early cognition. Then I hope to furnish something on feral dogs and that will be the finish for me. How do you feel we have progressed? Regards, William William Harris  •   talk •   10:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: Love your new signature!
 * Ah, I see the problem regarding wolves and other dogs. I think we have improved the article tremendously! Sometimes it really is the best thing to just start again.  There are still areas I wish to work on, particularly cognition (huge area) and Dominance.  Looing forward to seeing the Feral Dog stuff and glad you like the signature - I rather do too! DrChrissy (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am pleased. Your further work on cognition would be good, it is a big topic that could become a lifetime commitment here! I also need to add some work by Gregory Berns based on MRI studies, and also from my favourite dog behaviour researcher, your Brian Hare. I will propose a lead-in to the article here shortly for you to consider. Once we agree on that we will be ready to amend the main Dog page. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   22:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello DrChrissy. I have put up some of Berns material using an MRI scanner, but found that most of my Hare articles relate more to dog communication than behaviour - it is that behaviour/communication bridge we talked about earlier. Therefore, I will save those for some minor work on Dog Communication. Regarding the lead paragraph, which has no citation and currently reads:

Dog behavior is the range of actions and mannerisms made by the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, in conjunction with themselves or their environment, which includes other organisms as well as the inanimate physical environment. It is the response of dogs to various stimuli or inputs, whether internal or external, conscious or subconscious, overt or covert, and voluntary or involuntary.


 * I believe we should draw from the Wikipedia page Behavior and furnish something similar to:

Dog behavior is the internally coordinated responses (actions or inactions) of dogs (individuals or groups) to internal and/or external stimuli.


 * Then we add something that might attract the reader into further reading, such as:

As the oldest domesticated species, with estimates ranging from 9,000–30,000 years BCE, the minds of dogs inevitably have been shaped by millennia of contact with humans. As a result of this physical and social evolution, dogs, more than any other species, have acquired the ability to understand and communicate with humans and they are uniquely attuned to our behaviors.


 * A second sentence taken from the article could read:

Several personality traits in dogs are recognised. These include "Playfulness", "Curiosity/Fearlessness, "Chase-proneness", "Sociability and Aggressiveness" and "Shyness–Boldness".


 * I also like:

Behavioral scientists have uncovered a surprising set of social-cognitive abilities in the otherwise humble domestic dog. These abilities are not possessed by dogs' closest canine relatives nor by other highly intelligent mammals such as great apes. Rather, these skills parallel some of the social-cognitive skills of human children.


 * Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   10:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

refs in text?
I have just moved citations from a list at the end of the article to within the text. This makes them easier to check and edit. Is this OK and should we do this throughout the article?__DrChrissy (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good evening DrChrissy, we are certainly progressing with this redevelopment. I am a believer in WP:LDR (see WP:LDRHOW), therefore I prefer to put the citations at the end of the article, the reasons contained in the WP. When we have finished development, we can then arrange the citations in alphabetical order under References if we desire. I have a superb recent article that will help cover the topic of Cognition and also help fill out Feral Dogs plus Comparison with other Canids. I am going to remove the Refimprove tag, we are progressing with more relevant and up-to-date information now, and nobody has complained about our bold edits - I think this review has come not-before time. Regarding your last edit - (Better starting with prevalence) - I think this makes the article too USA-based but I shall not contend it. Happy editing! Regards, William (down in "the colonies").


 * Hi, I have just made a couple of edits where I put the references in with the text. This was not in defiance of what you wrote - I simply hadn't read it yet!  I personally don't like this method, but maybe using it will broaden my editing skills.
 * I have also written in some UK stuff.  I am from the UK so I like to balanced material.  I lived for 12 years in Australia - is this the "colonies" to which you refer?__DrChrissy (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Adelaide in South Australia which was a free settlement so no convict-descendent jokes! I have used both referencing types in the past and have moved to LDR. I think the dog bite section is much improved now and I had concerns about Wikipedia offering medical advice on bites. On the Talk Page, I also have concerns about being associated with WikiProject:Veterinary Medicine - I cannot see the relevance. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   11:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was in Perth for 10 years and then Armidale (NSW) for 2 yrs! Never stayed in Adelaide though.  I am greatly worried about the potential imposition of WP:MEDRS on vet medicine and other science pages.  The bar is just so high.  In fact, I think it is so high that almost all medical articles would fail to achieve it if applied to the letter of the guidelines!  Anyway, this talk probably belongs on another Talk page. Cheers!__DrChrissy (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @William Hi, sorry for the repeated inclusion of refs in the text.  I'm not being disruptive here, just forgetting to move them.  Must try harder! DrChrissy  (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi DrChrissy, no you are not being disruptive (plus if you were, you would have heard from OccultZone - our guardian over this page - by now.) The article is becoming large and well-developed with a mass of relevant citations. We have slashed and burned the field and sowed new seed - others can now add if they wish. We should shortly give some thought as to what the opening paragraph to the article should read, implement it, then implement it on the Dog Page under behavior and remove the current verbiage from there. We might also look at what else on that page falls under "behaviour", and cannibalize it back here under the same process. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   09:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent images
Hi William. I'm not sure about the recent images and their captions. Images and captions are supposed to inform the reader. Unfortunately, the image captions you have added are potentially inaccurate. For example, the "playtime" image could also be "The destructive behaviour of a dog with separation anxiety". The second could easily be captioned "A dominant dog has control of the stick and runs away from a subordinate".__DrChrissy (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi DrChrissy. We can have the captions say anything that you prefer. However, I have had much experience with the Black Labrador breed and can vouch that they are the clowns of the dog world - the one with the stick is definitely trying to get a game of chase up (I see that at least once a week at the local dog park, the other dog being an English Pointer). That Labie pup will tear things up right in front of you because that is what popped into its head - no separation anxiety required! Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   21:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed this article from the scope of Wikiproject Veterinary Medicine. A look at WikiProject Veterinary medicine leads me to conclude that dog behavior does not fall within its scope. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   22:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello DrChrissy, I have a present for you - its WP:DOI and WP:PMID, which I have just become aware of. If an article has either of these you simply cite it in the reference list and Wikipedia's software does the rest. Here is an example: (You will need to look at this in edit mode to see the example.) Regards,  William Harris  •   talk •   09:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Attack dogs and aggressive behavior
I've added a small blurb about attack dogs (security dogs) from various other wiki pages (see page history) to the section on working dogs. I also added the fact that attack trained dogs are responsible for a number of bites to the dog bite section, as this seemed the most logical places to add that information to the current article. I think it could probably be re-factored to better show that aggressive behavior, barking, and biting are both natural and trained behaviors. Additionally, we could probably use a section about aggression to include fight behaviors, both natural and trained, and specifically include a link to dog fighting in that section. --Vandraedha (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dog behavior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150411211206/http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf to http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dog behavior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150414161000/https://www.avma.org/Events/pethealth/Pages/Infographic-Dog-Bites-Numbers.aspx to https://www.avma.org/Events/pethealth/Pages/Infographic-Dog-Bites-Numbers.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

missing behaviors
I noticed that this article is still missing some important information. Particularly - I will try to add some of this information, if I can, but there are no guarantees that I will be able to do it soon. -- Vandraedha (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * allogrooming (licking or nibbling of others, including humans & other species, in order to "groom" them)
 * licking of faces/throats in order to encourage another to give (drop or regurgitate) food
 * "butt scooting/bottom dragging" (an infamous behavior typically seen with dogs trying to relieve parasitic itches or impacted anal glands)
 * scent related behaviors, particularly
 * use of scent to find or track items, both as a trained and spontaneous behaviors. Air scenting, ground tracking, drug/person detection, etc.
 * scent marking via chin rubbing/paw scraping (especially by more "primitive" breeds)
 * communication via urine (fear urination/territorial marking)
 * communication via feces (dominance/territorial marking/latrine behavior)
 * rubbing/rolling against strong smelling materials to mask or share scent (dirty laundry, garbage, cow droppings, etc)
 * kneading, especially by suckling puppies (typically outgrown and to a lesser degree than cats)
 * notable eating habits, including the most common disorders - food regurgitation for select pack members, pica, coprophagia, grass eating by obligate carnivores
 * hoarding/caching behavior - the tendency to hide/bury bones, toys, & other "possessions"
 * Hello Vandraedha, welcome back - look what you have initiated! I think it wise to leave the merger proposal for the time being. I forecast that DrChrissy will raise this matter again at the appropriate time. The the two of us have done a lot of work on this page, largely looking at the cognitive behaviour of dogs. The behaviours that you have indicated are all ones that a person might want to know about their dog and are important. I would be pleased if you or others could do further work in these areas and it does not have to be done in the near future. DrChrissy intends on doing more work on cognition. I intend on completing the section on feral dogs, get a leading paragraph or paragraphs completed and agreed, implement that here and under the behavior section on the Dog Page, move the items currently on the Dog Page back here for use/amendment/disposal, archive most of the commentary above and probably leave just this section, then I am returning to my core interest in Late Pleistocene Canidae and the search for the dog's ancestor. My thoughts on the lead paragraphs appear at the bottom of the section above called "Scope of this Article" - please let me know what you think. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   09:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello DrChrissy and Vandraedha, the new lead paragraph is in place, is reflected on the Dog page under Section 6.2, and the information that was on the Dog page has been imported into Section 2.4 of the Dog behavior page. This information will now need to be validated for usefulness/deletion. Regards, William Harris  •   talk •   10:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Now integrated into the article. (This elaborate process is transparent and auditable to other users/administrators.) William Harris •   talk •   09:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow! I get distracted by some other projects and you guys (and gals) took up the challenge of fixing the page (that's a great thing). Those were some major improvements to this article. Thanks! Good job! It looks so much better with citations and references. -- Vandraedha (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to add that their is little information regarding differences between dog breeds and how genetics play a role in behaviour. Djmoq3 (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Scent
I believe the section about scent misleading. The research I found says the olfactory part of the brain is 40 times greater but the science of smell is 10,000 to 100,000 times greater. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/dogs-sense-of-smell.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnermt6 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)