Wild dogs?

[justacouch]

There were two sets if dog tracks traveling together in the snow on Mt Gingerra in Namadgi NP last weekend. We followed them for a while and found a hole they'd dug through the snow for something.

uploadfromtaptalk1339798485498.jpg (17.09 KiB) Viewed 25313 times

.

uploadfromtaptalk1339798555516.jpg (35.11 KiB) Viewed 25313 times

I've heard howling around Witzes hut and seen plenty of sign in Namadgi but haven't encountered live dingos or feral dogs. Have seen pigs though.




Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk 2

[curwalker]

Why do you think that this could be a problem? If they were likely to attack livestock, why didn't they do so already? If they really are descendents of dumped dogs why didn't they go for easily accessable livestock already? And what damage to wildlife could they do? If the people solely blaming the dingo for the dissapreance of mainland thylacines are right than the dogs would take the ecological niche of the thylacine in Tasmania.

And what exactly happened in their backyards? The article isn't clear and considered the topic of big predators newspaper usually aren't a reliable source and there is alot of hysteria especially in case of ferals. If the dog numbers could explode why didn't they do so already?

So what basis is there "to do something about it now?"
And if research from Australia, Europe and North America is any indication, killing of them would only increase the problem and definitely lead to attacks on livestock.

Just read your post and cannot understand where you are coming from I am commenting on non native Ferals not Dingos.
corvus

And what is a dingo if not a feral dog?

Ok, I think it might be best if we are nearing it step by step:
What evidence is there that these "ferals" are a problem? *Newspaper articles are not reliable in that regard.*
And:
What could they do that a dingo or a thylacine could not?

[corvus]

It would appear that this could be an ongoing problem as there was a Dog Pack running wild in the Pelion Plains area a couple of years ago which I thought were eradicated ?and they were a mixed lot of escaped /lost dogs used for hunting .
If the report from Lorrina is correct regarding species, Blue/Red Heeler cross I did not think that this breed was used much for hunting (no expert) so is it correct that they are the result of "dumped" pups or just from dogs that were allowed to roam free from that area to go forth and procreate at will

In the article there was a wee bit of a contradiction
"They're very vicious and they are all different breeds" and or "the dogs were mainly blue heeler and red heeler crosses"
It also states that "There have been a couple of people surrounded by the dogs and beaten them off with sticks" sheeite would not fancy my chances with a wild dog pack if I only had a stick to beat them off

Regardless of origin it is a real worry if they are there in the numbers mentioned in the article and we need to do something about it now , Cr Thwaites needs to be told it is a "stray dog" problem therefore a council concern under the dog control act I believe.
corvus

Why do you think that this could be a problem? If they were likely to attack livestock, why didn't they do so already? If they really are descendents of dumped dogs why didn't they go for easily accessable livestock already? And what damage to wildlife could they do? If the people solely blaming the dingo for the dissapreance of mainland thylacines are right than the dogs would take the ecological niche of the thylacine in Tasmania.

And what exactly happened in their backyards? The article isn't clear and considered the topic of big predators newspaper usually aren't a reliable source and there is alot of hysteria especially in case of ferals. If the dog numbers could explode why didn't they do so already?

So what basis is there "to do something about it now?"
And if research from Australia, Europe and North America is any indication, killing of them would only increase the problem and definitely lead to attacks on livestock.

Just read your post and cannot understand where you are coming from I am commenting on non native Ferals not Dingos.
corvus

And what is a dingo if not a feral dog?

Ok, I think it might be best if we are nearing it step by step:
What evidence is there that these "ferals" are a problem? *Newspaper articles are not reliable in that regard.*
And:
What could they do that a dingo or a thylacine could not?

One we have no Dingo's or Thylacines in Tasmania that I am aware of !! and it would appear that there is a regular pattern of dog attacks on Sheep on the NW of Tasmania in urban areas I believe from "domestic" pets allowed to free range ,so what damage could we expect from "domestic" dogs "gone feral" with Farm stock and Native wildlife?
For the record I am a dog lover (just cannot face the thought of replacing my big beautiful departed golden Lab of 16 years) and we own a cat that is neutered and is "trained" to go outside only on a harness and lead ,garden full of Birds , Bandicoots,Possums (brush and ringtail) skinks and their bigger cousins Bluetongues

You ask what could they do ? why not take a good look at my origional post, what you have written and ask yourself that same question
corvus

[corvus]

curwalker,
Having given thought to your posts could you elucidate your reason for this passion please
corvus

[puredingo]

curwalker,
Having given thought to your posts could you elucidate your reason for this passion please
corvus

I get the feeling that curwalker is the type of bloke who enjoys taking his K9 mate with him on his walks through the bush and gets upset and disappionted (but nearly as much as his dog) when his hikes take him into National park where he has to leave his faithfull offsider at home....No hang on, that's me! But seriously it does annoy me that I can't take my dog who is a red cattle breed with plenty of Dingo blood anyway, has excellent and instant recall and basically walks one step ahead at all times, what's the problem?

[curwalker]

Well I don't know Australian legislations but up here in National Parks it's the "they should not disturb wildlife" argument. And outside people often take them on a leash to avoid having them shot by hunters who claim that the dogs are potential poachers. That dogs get shot when they are not even 100 m away from their humans is not common but also not a myth. And such excuses are used to "explain" the shooting of wolves up here.

Now to corvus:
1) Sure. currently there are neither dingoes nor thylacines in Tasmania. But the latter was not even 100 years ago. Now this is speculation of course, but if the dingo was capable of replacing the thylacine because they were so similar wouldn't that mean that dogs would fill a similar role in Tasmania and their potential wild prey would therefore not nearly be as vulnerable as it is to dogs and cats since it already coevolved with a predator similar to the dog for thousands if not millions of years? And supposedly apex predators are needed for ecosystems and since the thylacine is gone as it seems who else would fill the role best?

I have seen your post but I am also aware how misleading newspaper articles can be and how fast predators can cause hysteria and how much of conservationism is pure and irrational ideology and I am one myself I might add. Therefore I usually ask for solid evidence and as much up close experience as possible. I mean what people here told of their encounters doesn't sound like those murdering beasts wild dogs are often portrayed to be.
And neither do most studies. There are attacks on livestock of course but all in all they are not different than those of wolves and as to what feral dogs could do what dingoes could not, well nothing as far as I know. In addition studies on their (as well as dingoes) effect on "native" wildlife never seem to mention why that wildlife is rare to begin with. It's like the canines are blamed but is their influence really bigger than those of industry, pastoralism and agriculture?
By definition feral dogs have to fend for themselves, which means that they cannot afford to waste too much energy, unlike their domestic brethren. At least based on studies in Italy feral dogs were only reported to be a nuisance by pastoralists (there aren't many studies who focus on more than destroying them, but I guess you know that issue) while domestic ones did the most damage. I guess that is due to the fact that they are usually fed and therefore have time and energy to spare, both are things a feral dog cannot usually do, not out in the wild.
Now in theory unlike dingoes (or most dingoes since some captive ones up here come in heat twice per year) could come in heat twice per year and theoretically breed as often. But raising pups is taxing, very taxing, and I think if Australian environments allowed such a thing to a significant degree dingoes would have developed this already.

I guess if you already ask the passion question it must be really strong in my case when it already filters through text.
Well I am passionate enough to wait for hours just to get footage like these from a local zoo:
German dingo pups bark ... or do they?!

Now my reasons... I guess I better give you a quick list before I start writing til I am blue in the face:
1. I regard the nature culture dichotomy as false.
2. The wild dogs of Australia are an interesting and possible unique study case of evolution.
3. They are a good reference system as to what traits in domestic dogs can be considered healthy.
4. This whole talk about dingo-purity is eerily reminiscent of racial purity in humans as well as dog-breeds and in both cases the results were and are far from positive.
5. Genetic studies indicate that the dingo already had a genetic bottleneck in its past and therefore the current demand for pure dingoes for later release would cause another, possibly more severe bottleneck effect.
6. I think "the dingo" is rather an artificial construct that does not truly encompass the actual wild population and is rather based on myth and wishes, both in the good and bad reactions to it. Something reminiscent of dogs and gray wolves in general. An actual portrayal seems relatively rare and mostly it is either romanticizing or demonizing.
7. Current conservation discourses seem to portray the "pure" dingo as some sort of indicator of intact wilderness and liken it to gray wolves, but regarding wolves this is a myth, so where is the proof that among dingoes it isn't?
8. There is no consensus on what features a "pure" dingo actually has and identification methods are inherently flawed as it seems.
9. Even the possibility of a past as a domestic being seems heretic to many dingo-conservationists.
10. The statement that the dingo is not a dog but a wolf, brings me to the question what is a dog? Since the physical and behavioral characteristics that separate all dogs from wolves are shared by the dingo. In addition DNA studies classify them as dogs as well and if you say dingoes aren't dogs what is keeping you from saying e.g Dachshunds aren't dogs?
11. The only objective criteria on whether a population is native or not is whether it's integrated into the ecosystem. Based on studies on wallabies it is highly likely that dingoes are, however these also indicate that all dogs are native to Australia since prey species are usually not naïve towards them. In addition if wild dogs (dingoes either included or excluded from the term) should be gone because they are not "native" shouldn't humans and their livestock and pets go as well?
12. What is now blamed on the "wild dog" is also reminiscent on what was once blamed on the dingo and therefore I ask myself whether the main attitude problem regarding them has really changed or was simply directed towards a more convenient target.

[puredingo]

Struth....and i just thought you wanted an excuse to let your dog off it's lead. DOH!

[corvus]

Thanks curwalker,I did ask for elucidation and you sure did provide it
corvus

[maddog]

10. The statement that the dingo is not a dog but a wolf, brings me to the question what is a dog? Since the physical and behavioral characteristics that separate all dogs from wolves are shared by the dingo. In addition DNA studies classify them as dogs as well and if you say dingoes aren't dogs what is keeping you from saying e.g Dachshunds aren't dogs?

A dog is a wolf that has been socialised for human purposes. Therefore a Dachshund is a dog. A wolf is a wild dog that lacks sociability. Therefore a dingo is a wolf.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/628a8500-ff1c ... z1yDc6epVY

Last edited by maddog on Tue 19 Jun, 2012 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[corvus]

curwalker just curious in which part of the world do you live ??
corvus

[sailfish]

And what is a dingo if not a feral dog?
Snip

The difference between wild and feral dogs is huge. At its heart is the process of domestication, selectively breeding for handling and bonding behaviour with humans. This results in a smaller brain and is considered a developmental retardation. It also gives rise to the physical diversity that has resulted in the domestic breeds we see today. This process is evidenced by a well known USSR experimental breeding program beginning with wild foxes.

Domestic dogs released into the wild do not exhibit the social and hunting behaviour of wild dogs. It is very much like Lord Of The Flies. They form large packs and go on killing sprees, not to eat but just for excitement and leave the carcases to rot. While wild dogs will generally avoid humans, these feral dogs are much less predictable and have been known to harass or even attack people. They have a devastating effect on wildlife and livestock.

While dingos were originally brought into Australia as domestic hunting dogs thousands of years ago, they have had plenty of time to return to a genetically wild state so cannot be considered feral in that sense. They displaced Thylacine on the mainland and filled that predator role in a balanced echo system prior to settlement.

Regards,
Ken

[curwalker]

@maddog
Wolves can be socialized to humans as well (there is evidence from Canada that they already could socialize with Ravens before that) and dogs can lack socialization. Socialization is a process occuring early in individual development. And dingoes can easily be socialized to humans and obviously did so very often so that statement doesn't hold up in my eyes. If you go by that you will have to say that many of those Moscow strays are wolves and not dogs since they are not socialized to humans.
By the way Financial times articles cannot be seen by unregistered users, at least that is what the site told me when I followed the link. Do you have another?

@ Corvus
I life in Germany and when it comes to dogs the dingo is one of best researched examples of dogs living without humans. And also one of the few who are not nearly exclusively seen as pests or poor little outcasts, which helps get more reliable information.
And yeah, I hoped I could get my reasons across as short as possible. I can be pretty talkative... well and a wise guy.

@sailfish
With all due respect but what is this based on what you say?

Historically it is a feral dog since it was once domestic (albeit it is not clear what they were used for), as you yourself said and evidence is strong that it had never lived exclusively in either world in Australia.

What you wrote is not new to me but every time someone says that these differences are "huge" I found that they either don't say what these differences are or they fail the test of reality. The same holds true for the rest you wrote.

At its heart domestication is selecting for certain traits by humans and this does not necessarily include being tame or being unable to live on ones own. The fox farm experiment you mentioned proved that since there foxes were not only selected for tameness but also in the other direction, resulting in extremely shy and "anxiously-agressive" foxes (I don't know the english word for this, it means that they display aggressive behavior out of fear).
As a matter of fact in my eyes some dingo-populations are definitely domesticated in the truest sense of the word now. Brad Purcell printed an exerpt from an E-Mail he received in Jun2009:

'Here at our sanctuary, where we have … bred only from DNA tested "pure" dingoes, we have had quite a few pups born with heavy white spotting – up to ¾ white collar, long white socks, white tail and even some large splashes over the midline. I admit that we select against these … and … cull soon after birth.'

This is domestication in every sense of the word.

In addition according to Hemmer the dingo has the same relative brain size that is normal for dogs (and Corbett never mentioned brain-size in his works about his equation), actually it falls right in the middle of the sizes, so the brain statement cannot hold also.

What you write about feral dogs is exactly the same many Australian hunters and pastoralists claim of wild dogs and also dingoes. Hunting probably is enjoyable to canines but what you seem to refer to is surplus killing and that is known for many wild predators, not just domestic ones. It is triggered by ineffective flight behavior where the prey practically runs in front of the predator time and again and thereby triggers the attack over and over. Many sheep are a good example of such prey, or chicken trapped in a hen house.
Sadly studies on feral dogs are rare, only generalizations are common, and so I cannot say much on hunting. I can only say that some studies report surplus killing and others not. Bibikov studied some dogs in the former Soviet Union and did not report surplus killing, neither for the ones that lived near humans nor for the ones that lived independently out in the forest.
As for social behavior I do know of 3 packs of Italian ferals in Tuscany that were observed for about 3 years and this is the most extensive study I know up to date. The biggest pack consisted of about 12 dogs, most interactions were friendly, they had a home range and a core territory, they had an alarm system, practiced protection of pups (albeit in this case only the mothers fed the pups [in an Indian study there were males feeding pups as well]), howling rituals, patrolling of territory and keeping strangers (dogs, not humans) out, except for one case when a young female joined the pack after another dog died of old age and another of heartworms.

In addition every study on feral dogs near human habitat has to deal with problem of differentiating between a true feral dog and a stray. In addition how many cases of "harassment" and attacks were there and how many were that compared to the whole feral dog population? For the most part studies indicate that feral dogs tend to avoid conflict with humans, especially the ones out in the wild since they were never used or even socialized to human presence and are thereby very shy towards them. In addition even wild dogs have a more variable behavior, no matter the species. Wolves, coyotes and jackals have all reported cases of completely healthy individuals who showed no fear of humans and in some cases attacked.

Furthermore domestic dog does not equal domestic dog. Based on a study about intragroup aggressive behavior up here where several dogs and a group of gray wolves were observed over the first 12 months of their life. The observed German shepherds, Alaskan Malamutes, Fila Braileiro and Bullterriers where only slightly more agressive than gray wolves and when I say slight I mean it, sometimes there was no difference at all. However among the Labrador retrievers the agressive interactions rose signifcantly in the last four months and among king and toy poodles they were more than twice as high in the first seven months and more than three times higher over the rest. So apparently even among this small sample (which is nearly exclusively of European origin) there are significant differences in the ability for peaceful coexistence.

Also, where is the proof that feral dogs have a devastating effect on wildlife and livestock? As I said they usually cannot afford to spare energy any more than wolves could. There are barely any studies in that regard and often ferals cannot be differentiated from their stray and domestic brethren. So how do you know that what you are writing is correct?

[sailfish]

[quote="curwalker]
@sailfish
With all due respect but what is this based on what you say?
[/quote]

Like everybody else, information is gathered over a lifetime from many sources. However it is for the most part consistent with discussions with my son who holds an honors degree in animal science. I do not have the time or inclination to expand on each point you have raised but I think you need to consider the context of a very brief note. It can not be taken as expounding every statement in detail and must by nature make only 1 or 2 major points, and not deal with the scope of doubt or variability that exists for each statement. I can only say that if we consider one group and map its median to be here and another to be there and these 2 are placed at a significant difference, we can make a statistically valid generalised statement. This is the basis for discerning between domesticated, feral and wild behaviors. While the precise history of dog domestication will always be unknown, the USSR study does stand as a significant model. It Cleary shows that breeding form a relatively homogeneous wild breed to disposition alone gives spontaneous rise to very wide physical variation like coat type and colour, body size and proportion etc but the 1st significant change by far is brain size and intelligence. Obviously the dingo covers a wider swathe of that spectrum than a purely wild dog but I think in the Australian context, wild is a valid classification as it is our only one.

Regards,
Ken

[puredingo]

Here is a bit of a look at some of the different styles of dog that have gone "wild" in Australia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JkioRo8 ... ure=relmfu

[corvus]

curwalker if English is not your first language you sure put a lot of us to shame your punctuation is good and I only picked up one typo (you live in Germany not life) and if you are addressing Australians you are not a "wise guy" (so American) but a "smart *&%$#!"

Still cannot get my head around your passion ,are you doing a " Doctorate" study on this subject or are you just *&%$#! obsessive

On a more serious note the NW Coast Tasmanian Farmers who have lost sheep from dog attacks in the last few weeks would not agree with your assertions .

As mentioned previously elucidation was asked for and once more served up in full (right or wrong) however as a curious person or as known in Tasmania "a nosy old fart" how old are you ?
corvus

[curwalker]

First, my apaologies for not responding sooner, it was a pretty busy two weeks over here.
It's summer and Berlin in the summer, well, whatever you are looking for chances are good you're gonna find it.

@sailfish
That a classification is the only one doesn't make it valid. How many different viewpoints on the subject do you and your son know? E.g some scholars regard the lack of regurgitation of food in dogs as a species trait (despite the fact that many dogs, male and female, still show it perfectly) while others regard it as a degeneration and dogs as a subspecies. It is the same with many breed traits.
Just answer me one question:
How can the dingo not be a feral dog if it shows exactly the same characteristics both physically and mentally that separate all domestic dogs from their lupine brethren (as far as I know the reference wolves were European wolves), even if you do not include the dingo when selecting these traits?

@puredingo
Thanks for the video.
Personally I found the comments more telling. Especially the ones "arguing" for the shooting say all the same: that the dogs kill natives, that they kill for fun, that they are huge, they are not dingoes etc.
Interestingly all these "arguments" are without basis and at least in my eyes show a lack of understanding of the concepts of basic canine nature (surplus killing is already known for wolves and coyotes, as well as red foxes) as well as ecology (killing just for fun, and only for that would lead a population to extinction and what could a feral dog do that a dingo couldn't?). Also they are exactly the same thing people claim about wolves in other parts of the world when they want to get rid of them, except for the whole native stuff (but it is claimed that they destroy wildlife), and so I ask myself two things:
1) Is it really the dog's behavior and their "danger" to native wildlife that is the reason for wanting them gone or rather a convenient justification?
2) If these dogs are so dangerous to livestock and wildlife, why is it that both are still around?

@Corvus
There you got me. I am such a smart *&%$#! (and I usually prefer to watch and read in the native languages because much is lost in translation), but I am also intensely curious, guess that is the result when you grow up in a boring countryside.

I know that farmers probably would not agree with my assertions but I would ask them, whether the sheep mainly died due to the dogs or due to lack of protection. My country had millennia of dealing with predators and pastoralism didn't die out, actually in most cases the shepherd was blamed for loss of sheep and not the wolves (or bears, or dogs) and livestock guardian dogs had proven themselves time and again and so I ask myself why it took so long for Australian farmers to do the same. At least it looks that way as though such dogs hadn't been considered for decades. And many of these claims let it sound as though these are superpredators.
And don't worry about me, I dealt with people who called me prick and moron time and again, some Irish guy once told me I should kill myself in every one of his "arguments", and even the worst sort, those that think themselves so superior that they laugh even at solid evidence. So I would be fine.

Now my passion, well it was enough to do videos and write an article (and searching for three years for a black-and-tan dingo picture with a creative commons license), that's for sure. I guess it's because I am a dog-person and grew up with one ever since I was a year old (by the way I am 29) and only don't have one with me now because I don't want a toy dog or any of those over- and inbred pedigree dogs and therefore could not give an actual dog what it needs (I nearly typed "he" because the German word for dog is male and therefore if you don't know a dog's gender you tend to refer to it as male). Also after getting my hands on the few information (both books and articles) there was that treat feral dogs as well as pariah dogs not just as pests or poor little outcasts and offer some more insights I found myself looking at a quite different picture of dogs than what was presented to me (e.g. surviving diseases and injuries that would kill a European pedigree dog without any treatment). Although I already noticed the differences between my first two dogs and the third one (all German shepherds) simply based on their built (the first two black-and-tan with a light dingo-build, while number three was very heavy, yellow-grey and big, plus the lower spine was oddly shaped downwards) I was never aware what all those breed traits do to dogs. Especially with all those colorful dogs in Australia's bush you can see what dogs could be even if they have different forms and colors, and when you see what they actually are you see how much it has gotten downhill in many areas of European dog-breeding (and the countries whose dog-breeding derived from it).
That is one part I guess, I just want to know more and be capable to make the right choice should I ever get the possibility to have a dog, or dogs, again.
The other reason is possibly the similarity between the discourse on dingo-purity and that of racial purity. I think if you would replace dingo and dog with any two human ethnicities and then argue the same you would be called a racist. I mean what does that say about us as humans?
A third reason would be that there are so many things that are regarded as true and correct by so many people (e.g. the Noble Savage, the one-drop-rule, the superiority of European culture [or non-European cultures], the nature-culture dichotomy, the "natural shyness" of wild animals, wolves as indicators for "pristine" wilderness etc.) in regard to environmentalism, society and biology that don't stand up to scrutiny and reality but are nonetheless regarded as universal truths. So I find myself actually having to restrain from asking "how do you know?" time and again.

I hope I could clarify this somewhat.

[corvus]

G'day curwalker,
Thank you for your extensive reply just a couple of pointers to add to your excellent English
an *&%$#! is either a Donkey or a stupid or obstinate person ,*&%$#! is american speak for *&%$#! (no idea where" smart *&%$#!" comes from" clever buttocks" just does not have the same punch )which is course slang for the buttocks and also the tail end of a pulley block,also your use of "cur" in your avatar is very derogatory to your beloved dogs as a cur in English is a mongrel or inferior dog or a craven cowardly person.
corvus

[curwalker]

Interesting that cur stands for that. In my case it was short for "curious."

As far as I know "*&%$#!" when it stands for donkey comes from assa (male donkey) or assen (female donkey) and might be related to the genus Asinus (donkeys).
Another comes from *&%$#! of course.
Now as to where it came to be part of smartass and badass, no idea.

Any idea why cur came to be a word for mongrels or inferior dogs?

[corvus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cur
This is the best I can come up with
corvus

[sambar358]

As a sambar deer hunter I see and hear wild dogs quite frequently in the mountains and I've always found them to be quite timid and wary of humans. These are remote-country alpine dingoes and not the camp-ground dogs of Fraser Island or other popular tourist areas. Wild dogs are certainly a signfiicant problem in rural areas where I live in East Gipplsand and many of the dogs shot or trapped on the fringe country are of cross-bred types with cattle dog or domestic dog influences in them and many are not the typical alpine dingo type. One of the popular myths is that lost hunters dogs will interbreed with the dingo but ask any dog tapper about that and they'll tell you that they've never trapped a wild dog that looked like a foxhound, beagle, bloodhound or any of the companion gundog breeds. Any lost hunting dogs (itself a very rare occurence) would more likely be killed by the resident wild dogs or die slowly of starvation as of course they are not used to having to fend for themselves and as a hunting dog they don't actually catch the animal that they "hunt" when under the control of someone hunting.

The alpine dingo is a very impressive animal and I've often been laying back in the bag at night way-out somewhere and had them howling mournfully close to the tent...even had a few come snuffling around the camp after I've turned in but I've ever had an issue with them and usually any contact with a wild dog is quite brief as they are very wary and alert. Generally we get two color phases with the alpine dogs : the yellow and white and the black & tan...both with the shorter bushy tail. I've had a few close-range encounters with them especially on fresh kills (usually an emu, wombat, possum or small sambar) and they'll stand and hold their ground for a while until you get close but if pressed they always seem to give to eventually move-off rather than stand and defend....or that's my experience anyway. Here's snaps of two "pure" alpine dingo types : a yellow & white alpine dingo from the ANP in Victoria and a night-shot of a black & tan dingo from one of my remote trail cameras. Cheers

sambar358

[puredingo]

Great shots Sambar but i reckon the second shot, the one with black saddle would have Alsation in it for sure. Even the way it carries it tail, mid to low slung is sheperd like?

[sambar358]

Puredingo....actually both those dogs in the 2nd pic have their tails down and the lead-dog is a yellow/white alpine dog. I've seen them trotting along like the dog in the 1st pic holding their tails high and often you'll also see them with tail low or at half-mast like those 2 in the second pic. The black/tan is a typical alpine dingo color....some more tan than that fella and I've seen some almost pure black with just a hint of tan. But they all have the same features....wide head and that shorter bushy tail.

So for me anyway.....an alpine dingo and these were probably as far as you can get from any habitation. Lower country wild dogs can be just that....wild dogs of mixed parentage and I've shot some that look just like a blue-heeler cattle dog, others fluffy black & white like a border collie and certainly a few 50kg plus models that have the Alsation apperarance. Most pure alpine dogs are quite small and 15-20kg would pull most of them up where-as low-country wild dogs tend to be larger quite often as usually they have more abundant food sources with stock and moe 'roos, wallabies and other small prey-animals around settled areas and farmland. Pretty slim pickings generally in the high country for wild dogs and you'll never see a fat one ! Cheers

sambar358

[puredingo]

Yep, no worries Sambar I'll go with that. I have seen black dingos but mainly the short coated desert dwellers that are usually so skinny they look like a working kelpie. Mate you must get around in some unreal country I'm sitting here going green with envy.

[curwalker]

@Corvus
Thanks.

@puredingo
I agree with samba358, such a coloration is no hint for Alsatian ancestry. I am actually not sure that it could be because among Alsatians this "typical" color with the black sable back is actually recessive and the dominant color is the grey-black-brown mix.
And up here we have a research station that has both alpine dingoes: http://www.gfh-wolfswinkel.de/gehege/au ... ergdingos/
and "step dingoes" (I think it refers to northern dingoes): http://www.gfh-wolfswinkel.de/gehege/au ... pendingos/
And these northern dingoes have a significantly stronger curled tail than their alpine brethren, at least on the station, so I think tail posture is not a reliable indicator by itself.

@samba358
These are great shots. How did you make them?

I read about the myth you talked about (the last person I "met" who claimed that was actual a shooter of wild dogs himself [no idea whether he was a dogger]), but do some people really think that the dogs you talked about had a realistic survival chance? Seriously, especially beagles and bloodhounds are very unlikely to even have the physical capabilities to survive on their own.

Also, 50 kg and more is really big. Wolves up here have roe deer in abundance and they don't get that heavy. Do the dog's prey species profit from settled and farm areas?

And what did you mean when you made a distinction between domestic dogs and cattle dogs?

[sambar358]

Curwalker...my "50kg" comment was in reference to a few wild dogs (as opposed to alpine dingos) that I've seen around farm fringe country....certainly large cross-bred wild dogs far bigger than the pure dingo. Most are smaller that this of course but I have shot several of these low-country fringe wild dogs and they have been very big dogs but I've never seen this type in the high country as all my dingo sightings have been of the normal smaller, stocky alpine dogs. I must add though....that I don't shoot the alpine dogs that I encounter while off hunting and I don't regard them as either a threat to me or to the livelyhood of any private landholder in these remote locations. They are a great animal to encounter or hear howling at night and to me anyway add a lot to our bush....although the wallabies and wombats that they prey upon may beg to differ on that !

Domestic dogs & cattle dogs ? Many of the wild dogs shot and trapped in the farm-fringe country show domestic/working dog traits and this to me is evidence of occasional inter-breeding between the wild dogs and on most occasions local working cattle dogs but not necessarily cattle dogs that have gone wild. I talk to plenty of farmers in wild dog country who will relate tales of wild dogs coming down and trying to get at their cattle dog *&%$#! when she is on heat or their male Kelpie or Blue Heeler going missing for a few days then coming home a bit worse for wear but with a smile of satisfaction on his face...if you get my drift. I have shot quite a few farm-fringe wild dogs that have shown clear cattle-dog influence in their coat coloration and build...mostly Blue Heeler or Red Kelpie and a few black & white Border Collie types. Not sure on the "lost pet dogs" going wild claims as I would expect most pampered dogs would quickly die or starvation having never had the need to fend for themselves. I guess working farm dogs are a bit more robust and may be more able to handle a wild dog encounter and live to tell the tale. I know that my own gundogs (German Wirehaired Pointers) are very wary of wild dogs and get quite uneasy at fresh wild dog tracks & sign and if one is sighted they tend to get back to me very quicky....neither of my WHP *&^%$#@! will go anywhere near any wild dog that I've shot.

My images ? The first one of the yellow/white dog was taken with a normal handheld digital camera as the dog just trotted past while I was having a breather. I saw it coming down a cattle pad a fair way off, got the camera ready and as it trotted past got a quick snap of it before it smelt me which it did soon after and it hit top gear instantly. The night shot was taken with one of my trail cameras which I build as a bit of a hobby....they are essentially a small waterproof box containing a digital camera and a control board with a movement sensor which it triggered if an animal moves with range of the sensor and the board then activates the camera which snaps a shot of whatever has triggered the sensor. I set these for sambar deer usually but get plenty of other bush critters too as the sensor will trigger on things as small as a mouse or a bat flying past as well as the bigger animals like wild dogs, 'roos and the deer. The shot below is from one of my trailcams....a bit of a double-bonus....a black-phase alpine dingo and a bat cruising past as the camera fires. Cheers

sambar358

[curwalker]

Ok, I think you misunderstood my intention. I knew of course what your 50kg statement was referring to. It is just that I am curious as to why some of these dogs can get so big, even if it is the exception rather than the rule. As I stated, the wolves up here don't get that big even though they have lots of roe deer to prey upon. Now in regard to these bigger wild dogs, sure there is the genetic component, but genes can only contribute so much and sufficient nutrition is needed to reach such a size. And since, like I said, wolves up here don't get that big despite all the prey (and due to deer hunting the roe deer population is kept at a constant production peak) I wonder how much food for these dogs must be there to reach such sizes. And I thought that you might have made some observations in that regard. Up here boar and roe deer populations soared due to modern agriculture and hunting, and I wonder whether some herbivores down in the areas you frequent did the same.

Also to me it seems as though you made a distinction between domestic dog and working dog and I wondered where the difference is between the two since a domestic dog is not necessarily a working dog but a working dog is a domestic dog. Or perhaps I just misunderstood that.

I am also curious though. You talked about the Alpine dingoes generally having basically two color variants, but if my info is correct (that is if my geography knowledge doesn't suck) in some parts of the Alps they look quite different. Some have stripes or big spots, respectively are purely white. Have you ever encountered any of them in the remote regions or do you only encountered them around farm-fringes?

Now for all these "doggy-joy" you talked about, I heard of that, just didn't thought it to be so easy for both sides to mix. Which makes me especially wonder why some people still adamantly defend the dingo's status as a species. I mean, two different species don't mix that easily. And I do wonder whether there is some sort of mate selection and preferences. It happens among dogs still, so perhaps some of these dogs you talked about actually meat with the same wild dogs every breeding season. Also do you know anything whether the male wild dogs come every time of the year or just during dingo-breeding season?

As for pet dogs and their survival chances: well, let's face it many dog-breeds could never ever survive on their own, some cannot even reproduce on their own anymore (not in sufficient numbers at least). There is not much research in that regard, I can only say that it seems as though most wouldn't make it, however the data I do have makes no distinction between pet and working dogs so I can't be sure. I agree with you that a working cattle dog probably has better chances than e.g. a banana-back pet Alsatian. Let's see. I only know of two cases where such things were observed on a big scale. The first one was by Bibikov in the former Soviet Union where he spoke of two forms of feral dogs, the first lived close to human settlements and fed of garbage, the second lived remote in the woods and hunted and reproduced on their own. Now the next best thing would be the data on the street dogs of Moscow. According to that one professor only about 3 % of the pet dogs survive on the streets and so the majority of the street dogs were already born that way (interestingly they are nearly exclusively of the dingo-form [slender and long legged]). So perhaps it's the same in the areas you talked about, most of these "hybrids" are either the descendents of a short trip of a working dog into the bush or their parents already had some percentage of non-dingo ancestry and now these genes just flow around in the population and natural selection weeds out what is not fit for survival and reproduction.

Now the third shot is even better. I wish I would have the opportunity for doing something like that (I could never find them for my article in the german wikipedia). Have you ever thought of publishing your pictures? If they are all of this quality I am sure people will like them.
At least I would that is for sure, you rarely see pictures of dogs like that.

[sunset]

Hi everyone

I'm planning on doing some lengthy solo bushwalking/camping trips in VIC state forests next month and I'm a bit concerned about the growing presence of feral dog packs in the state. Since it's not practical or legal to take a rifle or capsicum spray for protection, what would be the best way to fend off a group of dogs? I could probably handle one or two with my pole, but is there any option short of climbing a well-placed tree quick smart to deal with large groups?

[sambar358]

Sunset....I wouldn't be too worried about having to fend off a pack of wild dogs if you are solo walking in the Vic bush as virtually every wild dog encounter that I have had over the years has seen them turn-tail and bolt at the sight or even smell of a human. Usually dogs will be by themselves or maybe hunting as a pair or a female and a few pups in tow......large groups would be very uncommon and more likely in lower farm-fringe country anyway rather than up in the mountains. I would expect that if you did come-across one or a couple at close range then a bit of noise from you, chuck a stick at them and show a bit of aggression would get them going "south end heading north" pretty quick ! Your only possible threatening situation would be if you came across a few on a kill as they will protect that kill to a degree.....but a back-off and retreat should resolve that. But a very unlikely scenario really and one I've only experienced a couple of times and one emu kill had 6 adult dogs on it. I just watched for a few minutes from 30m and they watched me but they didn't bolt and stood their ground (but no threat postures from any of the dogs) so I left them to it and wandered off.

I've been off solo hunting in the ANP and had dogs come into camp at night for a snuffle around & one even left a nice steaming "calling card" a few meters from my tent one night but I've never seen them at all and didn't feel threatened but I guess I had the rifle as a last resort. Hearing them howling at night not far from the tent is a bit of a buzz too I reckon and gets the senses nice and wound-up but in reality I've probably been in more danger from a falling branch or on the road getting to or going home from the bush. Actually the only animal that I've ever encountered in almost 40 years of bush hunting that was keen to "have a go" was a big old buck wombat that rushed at me and actually bit me several times on the pants leg.....a very grumpy old fella that didn't appreciate me bumping into him a bit too far from his burrow......now that was funny!!! Cheers

sambar358

[curwalker]

That sounds really funny.

I wonder though. The way you describe it you never seem to have been scared when encountering wild dogs, do you think it might make a difference?

[sambar358]

Curwalker....I've had various gundogs all my adult life (German Shorthairs and Wirhaired Pointers) and I've had a fair bit to do with hunting hounds like foxhounds, bloodhounds & beagles so I guess to a degree I am confident enough around dogs and I can certainly recognise when one's not too happy, afraid, feeling threatened or about to take it to the next level. Dogs will certainly pick-up on human body language and our scent too and they know if someones afraid of them or if they are a threat or something to be wary of. I guess we have varying degrees of wild dogs out there....the apine dingo which I regard as a pretty timid dog but still a top-end predator and one to be aware of in the bush and then varying levels of wild dogs which can be crosses with the dingo and domestic or working dog stock...but wild dogs just the same. With these there may be the potential for more of a threat under some cirumstances as you really don't know what you've got if a few of these are encountered under potentially threatening circumstances such as on a fresh kill or a pack out hunting that happens to come across someone's scent and do a follow-up.

Most of the isolated incidents with wild dogs that I've heard of in the last 10 years have been encounters with packs of wild dogs at close range when someone has either come upon them on a kill or they've met suddenly and there's been a bit of a stand-off situation develop with some posturing by the dogs and some implied threats given to the person at close range. Now this would certainly be scary especially if that person was on foot and not carrying a rifle but I know of no instances where anyone has been actually attacked and the dogs seem to have stopped short of that when the person has either managed to frighten them off or they have left and the dogs have not followed-up. But very isolated incidents and probably exagerated a tad with each telling too and I wouldn't let it put me off a good walk in the bush. Like I said in the last post....I think that there's a far greater threat to our safety from falling limbs/trees or other bush hazards and on the road in the vehicle than getting attacked by a pack of wild dogs out in the bush IMO. Cheers

sambar358