About the behavior of feral and stray dogs. Taiga Chronicles

“A dog is man's best friend. There is no more loyal animal than a dog."

Specially trained dogs have been helping people for a long time (rescue dogs, guide dogs, hunting dogs, herding dogs, guard dogs, search dogs, sled dogs, healing dogs, etc.). But, unfortunately, incidents are increasingly occurring, the cause of which is the aggressive and uncontrollable behavior of dogs, which are largely due to human fault. On the streets there are stray dogs, sick, abandoned by careless owners and offended by people; they roam around the city, gathering in fairly large packs and pose a great danger. There are many reasons why a homeless animal may behave aggressively at the sight of a person: Hunger; fear; protection of offspring; rabies; intrusion into their protected territory; also, if a dog is not trained correctly, it can attack unexpectedly, this is especially true for fighting breeds. In the process of breeding such a breed, the most cruel animals were selected.

Stray dogs pose a danger:

If they are aggressive and rush at everything that moves.
If they gather in large flocks with a leader at their head.
If the dog has rabies, because... She is very unpredictable, she can attack without warning bark.

According to the center for legal animal protection, over 11 years in Russia, dogs killed 391 people. On average, 3 people die from dog teeth per month or 35 per year. And, it is clear that these sad figures are not final. A dog is a pack animal. The psychology of dogs is such that they always want to become the leader, at the slightest opportunity. A pack of dogs is like a pack of wolves. Especially if the dogs left people long ago. Then there are 2 leaders in the flock: a male and a female. Thousands of years of persecution by humans have led to the fact that those wolves that avoid humans have survived. But the dog, on the contrary, has lived next to us for thousands of years. And he knows us. Moreover, the degree of feralization varies: therefore, animals behave differently.

Rules and methods of protection when meeting a dog or a pack of dogs.

Stray and feral dogs are dangerous in a group. 2-3 dogs are already dangerous. Especially if there are 4-5 or more of them. If you don't want any trouble, avoid such groups. Leave the conflict zone immediately without panic. When you see a pack or a dog running in the distance, try to change your route without haste. Situations when a “showdown” has begun in the group and you happen to be nearby are of increased danger.
When you encounter a stray dog, evaluate how it reacts to your appearance. In some cases, it is enough to simply carefully walk past the dog without provoking it.
If you see several dogs lying down on the lawn, under no circumstances walk through such an area. Because four-legged animals consider this lawn to be their rightful resting place, which is part of their territory - much like a sofa in your apartment. Well, what will you do if someone breaks into your home and stomps near the place where you are resting? Or even climb through it? This is approximately how they perceive the appearance of a person at a dog’s bedding area. Whether to feed them or not is, of course, your business. But know that feeding cannot always preserve “good neighborly relations.” Quite the contrary: situations may arise when an attempt to appease aggressive animals can turn into trouble. Or even disaster: one will get food, but others are also hungry. Hence the aggression.
In the dark, especially avoid vacant lots, parks and other similar places. The most “inviolable” habitat areas of the flocks are located there. They protect them with special zeal.
Under no circumstances should you run. You can only run when you can be guaranteed to be out of the dog’s reach. For example, quickly run to a tree and climb it, climb the ladder to the roof. · Never touch animals without their owners present, especially while eating or sleeping.
You can't tease dogs. Don't provoke her into aggression.
You should not approach and pet an unfamiliar dog.
Don't take dogs' toys or bones away.
It is advisable to leave without turning your back, without sudden movements. If at the moment when a running dog begins to bark, a person, frightened, averts his eyes or turns his back, trying to leave as quickly as possible, then such behavior can provoke a further increase in dog aggression. Here the dog may even rush after you and try to bite, even if initially it had no such intentions.
Don't look the dog in the eyes. There is no need to be afraid. Dogs react to movements. A sweeping step will help not show fear.
Dogs with rabies are very dangerous. She approaches people, flirts, wags her tail, everything is as usual. And only after receiving a bite, you realize that it was in vain to give her a piece of bread.
Dogs are very sensitive to loud noises. You can make a loud threatening scream or speak louder. You should not make shrill or hysterical tones; dogs will perceive this as weakness.
You need to know one feature of an attacking animal, whose instinct tells it to grab its teeth into the part that is closest. Therefore, when attacking, it is best to place some object in front of you - a bag, an umbrella, a briefcase...
If attacked, protect your face and throat.
Also, an unfavorable development of events can occur even if people react inadequately to a dog that approaches them with the most peaceful intentions. After all, stray dogs often hope to beg passers-by for something edible, without intending to attack them. However, when faced with the inexplicable behavior of people who begin to scream, back away in fear, and swing, the dog may also become frightened and behave unpredictably. The main sign of a dog's peaceful disposition is a wagging tail.
Try to hide behind any door, climb higher.
You can grab a stone, stick or pretend, but only if the dog is small or small! You can pick up a handful of sand and throw it in the dog's eyes. But, if large dogs want to attack you, you don’t need to do this, because... this will only provoke the dogs.
If you are attacked by a dog while riding your bike, you need to stop. The dog will most likely stop too, then walk a little and the dog will fall behind.
It is important to know that the dog’s vulnerable spots are: the tip of the nose, the eyes, the bridge of the nose, the base of the skull, the middle of the back, the stomach, the transition from the muzzle to the forehead. At the same time, blows to the sides, ears, paws, and ribs, although they cause pain, do not always force the dog to retreat.
Gas canisters, pepper spray cans, and a stun gun can be useful as means of defense. If they are not available, use deodorants and aerosols.
Things you shouldn't do. Don't try to handle dogs with your bare hands. Or even feet wearing boots. They'll bite you on the arm, but you can't reach them with your foot: four-legged street dogs have excellent reactions.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

Growing humanity is rapidly filling almost every corner of the Earth's surface, which is having a serious impact on the environment. Wherever people settle, they bring their pets with them. As a result, various species of domestic animals have colonized new habitats around the world. The dog (Canis familiaris) has accompanied humans since its domestication 15,000 years ago (Savolainen et al., 2002), and is now the most widespread canine species on Earth (Green and Gipson, 1994), having a significant impact on nature. The rise in the number of stray dogs is a growing concern for conservationists in various countries where dog predation is affecting wildlife. Hybridization (crossbreeding) of domestic dogs with wild canids endangers rare species by distorting their gene pool. In addition, dogs serve as carriers of many diseases, posing a health threat to both wild animals and people.

Domestic dogs are dogs that stay within the confines of a home or are controlled by people. This type of dog has an impact on the natural environment only if their owners take them into the wild and allow them to hunt.

Stray dogs - These dogs live in or near human settlements, using human structures, but are only partially controlled or not controlled at all by humans. Sometimes stray dogs are fed by people, other times they use garbage dumps or hunt livestock to survive. They also use other human structures, such as water systems or bomb shelters. Such dogs can have a significant impact on the environment because they often hunt in packs for sport, kill more than they need to feed, and pursue both large and small prey. Human-created food resources and habitats allow these dogs to survive in areas where canines were previously absent.

Feral dogs are the most common species of wild canids (the author classifies feral dogs as wild species based on their ecology - V.R.). They appear where people lived and allowed dogs to run free, or where people left dogs they didn't need. They are found in abundance on all continents of the world, including North, Central and South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and on some ocean islands such as the Galapagos. Feral dogs survive and reproduce regardless of human intervention or assistance. Some feral dogs find food in landfills, while others hunt or scavenge for food, similar to wild canines (Green and Gipson, 1994).

Origin and domestication of dogs

The exact time of the appearance of dogs is still unknown. Archaeological sources are scarce and insufficient. Most of the fossil remains discovered date back to before 7,000 years ago (Kendall, 2002). Current research suggests that humans probably first domesticated dogs (Canis familiaris) during the Paleolithic period, domesticating wolves (Canis lupus) by selecting for the least aggressive individuals in East Asia about 15,000 years ago (Savolainen et al ., 2002). To determine the number and location of dog domestication areas, Savolainen and others compared maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) samples from 38 Eurasian wolves and 654 domestic dogs collected in Asia, Europe and Arctic America. The results of the study confirmed a common origin from a single gene pool for all dog populations. The diversity of the dog gene pool in China, Thailand, Cambodia, Tibet and Japan is much greater than in Europe, Western Asia, Africa and Arctic America, supporting the East Asian origins of domestic dogs. Leonard et al. (2002) isolated mitochondrial DNA strands from the fossil remains of dogs found at archaeological sites of American settlements that existed before the arrival of Europeans in Latin America and Alaska, and showed that dogs of Native Americans are much closer in origin to Eurasian dogs and wolves than to American wolves. The researchers concluded that America's domestic dogs were descended from various lines of Old World dogs that accompanied humans during their migration across the Bering Strait during the late Pleistocene.

Hare et al. (2002) suggested that during the process of dog domestication, selection was made for a set of social and cognitive abilities.

Dogs serve people in a variety of areas: they protect property and livestock, act as guides for the blind and help other people with physical disabilities, participate in rescue and search activities, serve as mounts, are used to search for explosives and drugs, etc. It is clear that dogs are important and useful pets and companions. However, without proper monitoring and supervision, stray and feral dogs can become a public nuisance and cause serious harm.

Dogs that have gone wild

Feral dogs come from dogs that ran away from home, were kicked out by their owners or abandoned as puppies, or from stray dogs that moved into a wild habitat and switched from feeding on scraps to hunting wild animals. Like domestic dogs, feral dogs come in a wide variety of shapes, sizes, colors, and even breeds, and are difficult to distinguish from domestic dogs in appearance. However, as a result of uncontrolled crossbreeding over several generations, a common cross-bred type is formed with external features characteristic of breeds such as the German Shepherd or Laika. McKnight (1964) (in Green and Gipson, 1994) noted that German shepherds, Dobermans and collies often become feral. In general, feral dogs reflect the breeds found in a particular area (Green and Gipson, 1994).

The main characteristic that distinguishes feral dogs from domestic ones is the degree of their dependence on people and, to a certain extent, their behavior towards people. Scott and Causey (1973) (in Green and Gipson, 1994) attempted to classify dogs as domestic or feral by observing the behavior of dogs placed in cages. Domestic dogs typically wagged their tails or remained calm when approached by humans, while most feral dogs were extremely aggressive, growling, barking, and attempting to bite humans. Some dogs showed an indeterminate intermediate reaction, their reaction to humans did not allow us to determine whether they were domestic or feral. However, if such a classification is based solely on observations of behavior, then a vicious circle is obtained, that is, the type of dog is determined on the basis of its behavior and vice versa.

NumericalCanine awns and their distribution

There are about 500 million dogs in the world. The number of dogs in certain regions is influenced by factors such as topography, climate, availability of food and shelter (Wandeler et al., 1993, in: Veitch, 2000). Feral, stray and domestic dogs are now found in almost all regions of the Earth and outnumber all other members of the canine family. Veitch (2000) suggested that the presence and abundance of dogs in certain regions depends on the general attitude of the people living there towards dogs. These attitudes are often influenced by how society perceives environmental and agricultural issues, views the diseases dogs carry, and determines the value of dogs as pets. Many countries (eg Australia, New Zealand, UK and Germany) have strict laws regarding the keeping of pet dogs, as well as laws allowing local authorities, farmers and hunters to capture or kill dogs that are outside of designated areas or are not controlled. human (Veitch, 2002). The number of stray dogs dependent on humans (apparently, this means both stray dogs and stray dogs in settlements - V.R.) in these countries is quite small, although populations of feral dogs may exist (since dogs outside human settlements are less subject to control - V.R.). In Italy, where there is a certain number of stray and feral dogs, it is prohibited to kill stray dogs and they must be captured and kept in special public shelters (Genovesi and Duprae, in press, in: Veitch, 2000). (We are talking about the well-known Italian law of the early 1990s, which prohibited the euthanasia of stray dogs, but at the same time provided for their trapping. In southern Italy, trapping is low-intensity and dogs are quite abundant. - V.R.) Stray and feral dogs are widespread in Hong Kong, but they live mainly on the outskirts of urban settlements (Dahmar, 2000). Many of them were abandoned by owners who no longer wanted to keep them as pets, and some may have run away from their owners. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Environment, in conjunction with the Humane Society, traps and euthanizes an average of more than 20,000 stray and feral dogs each year. However, Damar (2000) believes that despite all efforts to reduce the number of stray and feral dogs, the number of dogs killed in Hong Kong each year is only equivalent to the losses that would have occurred anyway due to natural mortality caused by disease, starvation and accidents. This suggests that there are in fact significantly more stray and feral dogs in Hong Kong and their population is recovering quickly. (A common mistake caused by the inability to compare the numbers during catching and without catching. Captured dogs have already been removed from the urban environment - before they died for other, natural reasons. Consequently, the average duration of presence of dogs in the urban environment is less than the “natural” one, and their number is less than potentially possible - V.R.) .

Most states in the United States have laws regulating the ownership of dogs, however, in some regions, owners allow their dogs to roam freely (S. Sorby, personal communication, in: Veitch, 2000). Information was provided about the high population density of stray dogs in US cities: in Baltimore, Maryland - 232 individuals per km 2 (Beck, 1973, in: Daniels and Bekoff, 1989) (please note, we are talking about 1973 - V.R. .), in Newark, New Jersey - 154 individuals per km 2 (Daniels, 1983, in: Daniels and Bekoff, 1989). In Ciudad Juarez, one of the densely populated regions of Mexico, the dog population density is 2-5 times higher (Daniels and Bekoff, 1989). These values may depend on different urban population densities or different levels of crime, since dog owners in Ciudad Juarez believe that dogs protect them well from criminals (Daniels and Bekoff, 1989) (as well as on the level of law-abidingness of city residents and the strictness of compliance with the rules of keeping animals - V.R.).

In Zimbabwe, more than 70% of the country's dogs live on communal lands, which occupy 42% of the country's area. The estimated dog population in the country in 1954 was 250,000 (Foggin, 1988, in Butler and du Toit, 2002). By 1994, the number of dogs on public lands alone had reached approximately 1.36 million; the annual increase was 6.5% (Butler and Bingham, 2000, in: Butler and du Toit, 2002.).

Social behavior and reproduction of dogs

Daniels and Bekoff (1989) suggested that dogs in urban and rural areas are largely solitary. Other studies (Beck, 1973; Daniels, 1983) point to the same general feature of conspecific avoidance. (We are talking primarily about semi-free owner dogs, which, indeed, do not form permanent packs - V.R.) The territorial behavior of urban and rural dogs is limited by the boundaries of the house in which they live (Daniels and Bekoff, 1989); This may be due to the fact that this is where the owners provide them with food, in addition, this space is a relatively small area that is easy to defend. Feral dogs, in contrast, are highly social animals (Daniels and Bekoff, 1989; Green and Gipson, 1994). In most cases, they are collected in permanent flocks that exist throughout the year, although some individuals may be seasonal members of the flock. The benefits of a gregarious lifestyle are increased vigilance, which results in a greater degree of protection from possible predators, as well as greater opportunities to gain access to higher quality food sources (Daniels and Bekoff, 1989). The core of a new flock can be brothers or sisters (sibs), who settle together (Bekoff, 1977). Nesbitt (1975) noted the strict social organization of feral dog packs, from which non-native dogs, including females in heat, were excluded. In one experiment, Nesbit used three single females in heat, chained in a corral-type trap as bait. In 59 days he did not catch a single feral dog. He then used carrion as bait. Within a week, a pack of feral dogs, including 4 adult males, were caught in the trap.

Feral dogs, like wolves, can have permanent places of social activity (days). Routes to and from meeting points can be well defined. At activity sites such as daytime sites, food remains and other evidence of dog activity may be found (Green and Gipson, 1994). Female domestic dogs mate only when in heat (estrus), which occurs approximately every six months and lasts from 18 to 22 days. The birth of the offspring occurs after a gestation period that lasts 9 weeks. The number of offspring depends to a certain extent on the size of the dog. Small dogs rarely produce more than two puppies, while larger dogs average about ten (Dog reproduction, Colombia Encyclopedia, 2003). Feral dogs typically have two reproductive cycles per year, unlike most wild canines, which produce offspring once per year (Kleiman, 1968, in Daniels and Bekoff, 1989). During two years of observation of one pack of wild dogs in Alaska, Gipson (1983, in: Green and Gipson, 1994) found that only one female in this pack gave birth, although there were other mature females in the pack. Daniels and Bekoff (1989) suggested that the birth of offspring by a second female may force her to leave her pack and temporarily establish a new roost. This may protect her offspring from the threat of being killed by the dominant female (Daniels and Bekoff, 1989). In wolves (Canis lupus), as a rule, only one dominant female produces offspring. In a pack studied in Alaska, all puppies from both litters had the same coloration, suggesting that all puppies were born from the same father. At the same time, the flock included adult males of various colors. Gipson (1983) suggested that several pack members may help raise the pups. Burrows dug in the ground or secluded places under abandoned buildings or agricultural machinery can be used as dens. Wild dogs commonly use abandoned fox or coyote holes (Green and Gipson, 1994). Typically, early mortality rates are quite high (Daniels and Bekoff, 1989). However, pups born in autumn and winter have been documented to survive, even in areas with very harsh winters (Green and Gipson, 1994).

Distribution and habitat of feral dogs

Individual home ranges of feral dogs vary significantly in size. Perhaps the size of the patch is influenced by the degree of food availability. Flocks that feed on human waste may live in close proximity to landfills, while flocks that feed on livestock or game can hunt over areas of up to 130 km2 or more (Green and Gipson, 1994). At Fort Rucker Military Reservation in Dale and Coffee Counties, Alabama, pack sizes of completely feral dogs ranged from 2 to 6 adults (Causey and Cude, 1980). Feral dogs often live in areas where human access is restricted, such as military training grounds or major airports. (Typical for the USA. - V.R.) Apparently, the only areas unsuitable for feral dogs are those in which shelters and food supplies are unavailable, or where large predators are common that hunt dogs - primarily wolves. (Green and Gipson, 1994).

Dogs as predators

Domestic dogs have been introduced into the wild in many areas of the world. Additional factors that made this return to the wild way of life possible were the destruction of wild predators of the canine family and large representatives of the cat family; the emergence of new populations of wild prey animals; violations in the disposal of human waste; the introduction of a food source such as other domestic animals (Veitch, 2002); irresponsible handling of the remains of dead livestock and poultry, and irresponsible dumping of unwanted dogs and puppies.

Canis familiaris is not a natural predator; feral dogs are a domesticated species introduced into the wild. The environmental impact of feral, stray and domestic dogs has not been adequately studied. It is often difficult to distinguish it from the impact on nature of other invasive pest species and humans. In many cases, the damage caused is caused by a combination of several factors, one of which is the influence of dogs. Where human-created food and water sources and shelter increase the likelihood of dog survival, natural prey species may decline below levels at which populations are sustainable (Veitch, 2002).

Dogs are constantly being introduced, intentionally or unintentionally, into the natural environment, and the feral dog population is maintained by a constant influx of new members coming into the group from domestic and stray dogs. Owner's dogs that have become unwanted, lost hunting dogs and unwanted puppies discarded by their owners eventually become homeless strays or feral dogs. Thus, the feral dog population is maintained and reproduced at the expense of domestic dogs. In Israel in 1991, during the Gulf War, there was a very dangerous tendency among dog owners to abandon their pets. People who realized that there was no longer room for a dog in their home, or those who urgently left the country, left their dogs, often right near the airport. Many of these unfortunate dogs have become strays and feral animals.

When domestic dogs attack domestic animals, they may injure or kill several animals, but they rarely eat their victims. Rather, it seems that they are participating in a sinister game, rather than trying to get food. For example, in my neighborhood, in Yehuda, 3 female domestic dogs killed 20 chickens and 2 turkeys, while only one bird was eaten. One of these dogs once killed a pair of ducks in the Tel Aviv National Park, she also often chases and injures turtles when she encounters them during walks, and likes to tear up the burrows of lesser mole rats (Spalax leucodon ehrenbergi) in the yard (T. Mekhandarov, from personal conversation). Unlike domestic dogs, feral dogs, which hunt for food, consume most of their prey. Their survival, like that of other wild canines, depends on their ability to obtain food. Feral dogs use a variety of food sources (Green and Gipson, 1994). They can hunt successfully, pursuing both small and large animals, including livestock. In addition, they may feed on carrion, especially animals that have been hit by cars and livestock carcasses, as well as vegetables, berries and fruits, and garbage from landfills (Green and Gipson, 1994). The most common types of injuries that dogs inflict on their victims are lacerations and bites over most of the body (Green and Gipson, 1994).

Green and Gipson (1994) report that wild dogs are generally secretive animals and wary of people, so they are active primarily at dawn, dusk and at night, like most wild canines. In Zimbabwe, stray domestic dogs scaveng at any time of the day, but their activity peaks around dawn (Butler and du Toit, 2002). In general, dogs are both diurnal and nocturnal animals, which provides them with more opportunities for hunting and scavenging. As a result, they have better access to prey than natural predators.

There are very limited detailed studies of the impact that domestic dog predation has on wild animals. We will look in more detail at one detailed study that was carried out in Zimbabwe and concerned the relationship between stray domestic dogs and wild animals that feed on carrion. Below are some examples of damage caused by dogs to wildlife. Collected from around the world, these examples illustrate the scale and type of harm that domestic dogs cause to wildlife.

On Zimbabwe's communal lands, which are devoted to traditional agriculture, the number of stray dogs has reached unprecedented levels (Butler and du Toit, 2002). Zimbabwe's nature reserves are adjacent to public lands along 62% of their boundaries, resulting in significant ecological interactions between dogs and wildlife. Butler and du Toit (2002) conducted a 2-year study to examine possible competition between dogs and wild animals scavenging at the border of Gokwe Community Land and Sengwa Nature Reserve. Most dogs in the study area had owners, but were not kept within the confines of a home, but grew up in the wild, and depended on people only for their basic needs. These dogs mainly ate human waste, with the main food item being the remains of livestock, since in most cases the owners of livestock left the carcasses where the animal died. This study looked at scavenger vertebrates, namely 8 species of mammals and 9 species of birds. Dogs have been noted as the most successful scavengers among vertebrates because... they consumed more than 60% of the total mass of carrion. Consequently, dogs appear to have had a direct influence on wild scavengers by competing with them for wild animal carcasses, especially on the periphery of the Sengwa Game Reserve. Butler and du Toit (2002) suggested that the consequences of this were most severe for vultures (which are represented in the study area by 4 species: the African griffon vulture (Gyps africanus), the long-eared vulture (Torgos tracheliotus), the African griffon vulture (Trigonoceps occipitalis) and the brown vulture (Necrosyrtes monachus)). It was the vultures that were previously the most successful scavengers. Researchers have proposed 4 reasons for the superiority of dogs over vultures. Firstly, dogs are both diurnal and nocturnal animals, which gives them more opportunities to find and consume carrion compared to vultures, which are exclusively diurnal. Secondly, dogs successfully drive away vultures from carrion, perhaps due to the fact that they are larger than them. Thirdly, dogs eat the bodies of small animals very quickly and entirely, before the vultures discover them. Fourth, vultures are more susceptible to human interference than dogs, and since most human interference occurs during the daytime, this is likely to have a significant impact on vultures. Butler and du Toit (2002) believe that this entire situation seriously threatens the conservation of vultures, since their population in South Africa is already at risk due to the destruction of vulture habitat and indiscriminate poisoning. Given that the dog population growth rate on Zimbabwe's communal lands is 6.5% per year, researchers believe that the impact of dogs on wild scavengers will increase in the future.

In Spain, in the Las Amoladeras Ornithological Reserve, 68–99% of the nests of crested and gray larks (Galerida theklae and Calandrella rufescens) were predated by foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and wild dogs (Yanes and Suarez, 1996). These canids were the only predators that influenced the nesting success of larks, and the effects of both species (foxes and wild dogs) were similar. However, the researchers found no connection between the abundance of dogs and the population density of larks. Yanez and Suarez (1996) suggested that dogs selected areas where rabbit abundance was high because there was a direct relationship between rabbit abundance and the number of dog hunting routes. Thinking in terms of biomass consumed, it can be concluded that it is hardly beneficial for dogs to actively search for larks' nests. Nest predation by dogs appears to meet the definition of incidental predation described by Vickery et al. (1992) as the incidental capture of unexpected prey while searching for the primary prey, the consumption of which does not alter the foraging behavior of the predator. This phenomenon reflects the high degree of adaptation to different resources used by both foxes and dogs (Triggs et al ., 1984, in Yanes and Suarez, 1996). Some indirect effects of incidental predation appear to have significant consequences for the lark population in the reserve (Yanes and Suarez 1996). Because dogs' opportunistic feeding habits prey on small animals they encounter while searching for primary prey, large numbers of dogs can pose a serious threat to certain species of wild animals found throughout the world. dog feral dingo domestication

In Italy, five dogs, not under the control of their owners, completely destroyed the largest flamingo colony in the country (in Cagkiari, Sardinia) in one day. In addition, complete destruction of waterfowl colonies by dogs in some lagoon complexes in Italy has been periodically reported (Genovesi and Duprae in press, in Veitch, 2002). In the US state of Alabama, over a period of 30 months, feral dogs were documented hunting small rodents (as in the text - V.R.), for example, Florida rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus), as well as gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), in addition they they fed on garbage and various types of carrion (Causey and Cu de, 1980). In addition, dogs routinely harassed white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), although they were never killed. Causey and Cude (1980) suggest that dogs may kill and eat young deer. Rick Adams, district conservation manager for Basalt, Colo., says dogs have become pets and have lost much of the instincts that allowed them to quickly kill prey and instead chase and harass frightened wild animals. until the pursued animal collapses in exhaustion (Wildlife Report, 1998). Adams says his department receives reports of dogs chasing big game almost daily. White-tailed and red deer (Cervus elaphus) fawns are particularly vulnerable during spring, and Adams recounts a case in which a stray domestic dog attacked and literally tore the young deer apart (Wildlife Report, 1998). Glen Eyre, district conservationist for Archuleta County, Colorado, reports that in early winter, when deer come down from higher elevations, they find themselves sharing habitat with dogs. Thus, in winter there was a case when two dogs killed 12 deer in one day (Wildlife Report, 1998). Specialists from the En Gedi Nature Reserve in Israel also report cases of ungulates being chased by dogs. Here dogs often hunt Nubian ibex (Capra ibex nubiana) (Michael Blecher, personal communication 02/02/2003). In addition, the increase in the number of feral dogs on the coastal plains of Israel has led to a decrease in the number of gazelles (Gazella gazella) in the region (Perry and Dmi"el, 1995). On Kau Sai Chau, the fifth largest island of Hong Kong (6.67 km 2 ), from May 1998 to May 2001, 6 cases of death of civet cats as a result of attacks by feral/stray dogs were recorded (Dahmer, 2000). Five of them belonged to the small civet species (race) (Viverricula indica), and one belonged to the Himalayan civet species (Paguma larvata), these species are not very common on the island. None of the carcasses found were eaten by predators.

The introduction of dogs into geographic regions not previously inhabited by canines often has serious ecological consequences. Dogs played a significant role in the extinction of native wildlife when they were introduced to islands that were previously free of vertebrate predators (Vietch, 2002). Feral dogs have been present in the Galapagos Islands since the first half of the 19th century (Kruuk and Snell, 1981). On about. Santa Cruz and Fr. In the Isabela archipelago, dogs seriously threaten populations of endemic animals such as giant tortoises (Geochelone elephantopus), as well as colonies of flightless Galapagos cormorants (Nannopterum harrisi) and blue-footed boobies (Sula nebouxi) (Barnett and Rudd, 1983, in: Vietch, 2002). Dogs regularly hunt marine iguanas (Amblyrhynchus cristatus), which are also an endemic species. Crook and Snell (1981) estimated that dogs kill up to 27% of the marine iguana population per year, including destroying iguana egg clutches. The iguana population in this region is unable to withstand such a one-time loss. In New Zealand, lack of effective dog control is a major threat to adult kiwis, in areas where kiwis live close to human settlements or in areas where dogs accompany people on hunts and walks. Of the 194 reported deaths of kiwi in Northland, 130 were documented to have been killed by feral, stray, farm or hunting dogs (Forest and Birds, 2001). In one case in Waitangi Forest, a single stray dog killed approximately 500 kiwi (Apteryx australis) out of a population of 900 birds in just a few months (Taborsky, 1988). At Azerton Tableland in northern Queensland, Australia, at least 4 tree kangaroos (Dendrolagus lumholtzi) were killed by domestic dogs or dingoes (Newell, 1999). This happened after the clearing of tropical forests, which are the habitat of this rare arboreal marsupial. This situation is an example of a combination of various factors affecting the lives of wild animals. Habitat destruction, a major threat to wildlife worldwide (Colenan, 1997), coupled with predation by Earth's most abundant canid species, could harm many endangered species. African black oystercatcher (Haematopus moquini) incubates eggs on the open coast of southwest Africa (South Africa and Namibia) during the height of the summer tourist season. These birds can be extremely easily harmed by nest destruction by humans or vehicles, or by predation by domestic dogs that destroy nests and kill chicks (Leserberg and al ., 2000).

Uncontrolled roaming of domestic dogs threatens shorebirds in various regions. In Santa Barbara, California, USA, stray dogs have become a major source of disturbance to wintering plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) (Lafferty, 2001a). 39% of dogs on Santa Barbara beaches disturbed birds of various species and more than 70% of birds left beaches when disturbed (Lafferty, 2001a). Feral dogs often kill domestic cats (Felis catus) and may also injure or kill domestic cats. dogs (Green and Gipson, 1994).

Dingo

The origin and specific status of domesticated animals are difficult to determine due to the crossing of different breeds and their movement to different parts of the world. This problem is particularly acute for dingoes and domestic dogs, which interbreed freely. The origin of the dingo (Canis lupus familiaris dingo) is not entirely clear. Dingoes belong to a group of primitive dogs that inhabit equatorial regions such as New Guinea, Borneo and the Philippines. The most likely ancestor of animals in this group is considered to be the Asian (Iranian) wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) (The Dingo, 2000). Because dingoes are not native to Tasmania, they are thought to have arrived in Australia after the formation of the Bass Strait (10,000-11,000 years ago). The approximate time of their appearance in Australia is about 3500-4000 years ago (Dingo Farm (a); Dingo, 2000; Australian Conservation Foundation, 1984). The oldest known fossil remains of dingoes, determined by radiocarbon dating, are 3,450 years old. Around the same period, rock paintings of dingoes appeared in Aboriginal art (Dingo Farm (a); Dingo, 2000). Dingoes are genetically different from Australian domestic purebred dogs and crossbreds. Dingoes can be reliably distinguished from other dog breeds by their skull morphology (Corbet, 2001), and DNA testing can determine the purity of dingo populations (Wilton, 2001, in Muir, 2001). Under the Endangered Species Act 1995, dingoes are considered a native species because “they were present in New South Wales before the arrival of Europeans” (Muir, 2001). However, in order to appreciate the damage caused by introduced dogs, it is useful to consider the impact of dingoes on Australia's endemic animals, both historically and currently. Apparently, dingoes were the first large placental predators to arrive on the Australian continent. Their appearance could have influenced the extinction of at least two species of marsupial predators on mainland Australia - the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) and the thylacine marsupial wolf (Thylacinus cynocephalus) (The Dingo, 2000). (An example of competition between species occupying similar ecological niches, one of which is obviously stronger - V.R.) On the website of the Queensland Museum, in the section devoted to endangered species of animals, the following species are listed, the populations of which, among other factors, are threatened and Dingo predation: false water rat (Xeromys myoides), greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis) and possum rat (Bettongia tropica). Dingoes also prey on adults of the endangered claw-tailed kangaroo (Onychogalea fraenata) (Fisher, 1998).

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Rules for supervising service dogs, necessary procedures for supervising them. Peculiarities of cleaning and washing dogs in and out. The main security measures when transporting animals in various types of transport. Patterns of dog training.

test, added 03/25/2010

Dog piroplasmosis: etiology, distribution, pathogenesis, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, prevention. Toxoplasmosis of cats, biology and distribution of the pathogen. Features of the treatment of animals with sorcoptic mange. Ringworm in dogs and cats.

abstract, added 06/26/2014

General characteristics of invasive animal diseases. Studying the routes of penetration of pathogens into the body and the characteristics of the course of babesiosis in dogs. Incubation period for infection. Description of clinical signs of toxoplasmosis in dogs and cats.

abstract, added 12/07/2015

Photos from V. Mason's book "Breeds of All Nations", clearly demonstrating how the appearance of dog breeds known to all of us has changed over the last century. The detrimental impact of centuries of selective breeding work to “improve” breeds on the appearance and health of dogs.

presentation, added 09/10/2014

Study of the conditions for the breeding use of the club's dogs, methods of breeding work with livestock, population structure, representatives of lines and families. Study of the biological characteristics of dogs, genetic abnormalities, and the use of inbreeding in breeding.

thesis, added 10/18/2011

A methodical replacement and theoretical grounding in the habit of training dogs to search and revealing the speeches of people in the field of locality. The method of training dogs according to the habituation of dogs to the sound of people's speeches. Vimogi until the trainer is prepared.

abstract, added 11/21/2010

Concept and periodization of ontogenesis. Processes that take place at different stages of ontogenesis. Development of sexual behavior in dogs. Characteristics of sexual behavior of males and females. Features of sexual behavior disorders caused by errors in education.

course work, added 08/12/2011

History and general characteristics of the group, description of its breeds, distinctive features and properties. Coloring of dogs and principles of its inheritance. Features of the genetics of colors and other selection-important traits of dogs of the "Bull" group, mental characteristics.

thesis, added 04/20/2012

Natural power and constitution of the dog. Criteria for the value of a service dog. Basic and intermediate types of constitution of dogs. Exterior and condition of the dog. Assessing the exterior of a canine in the correct way among a dog in Russia. The value of a dog’s age by teeth.

report, added 03/19/2010

History of the birth of the Akita Inu breed. Features of its distribution in Russia. The main disadvantages and advantages of Akita dogs. Characteristics and standards of the breed. Practice and prospects for the use of the Akita Inu breed. General appearance and temperament of Akita dogs.

About the behavior of feral and stray dogs

L.S. Ryabov

When writing the work, the author’s observations of predators in the Voronezh region, partly by I.G. Gursky (1975) in the Odessa region and A. Danilkin (1979) in the south of the Urals were used. The appearance of stray and feral dogs in nature is entirely caused by human activity. Abandoned, lost, but left without human care, animals are faced with a dilemma - to die or survive. Often they are forced to find enough food in nature. At the same time, dogs lost their attachment to humans, turning from domestic animals into animals of the local fauna. The following process happened to them. In most cases, homeless mongrels became such. Often among them there were crosses with a hound and a German shepherd, sometimes with a setter. In some packs there were single pure Russian piebalds and Russian hounds.
In the Voronezh region, two ecological groups of feral dogs were noted. One of them represented hunters for wild ungulates (mainly breeding without wolves for deer) and was located in forests abounding in them. Dogs in this case occupied the empty ecological niche of the wolf in the cenoses. Among the dogs there were also those who went hunting in the forest temporarily from adjacent villages; packs usually gathered in villages. The second (more numerous group of dogs) existed near landfills with food waste, birds and cattle burial grounds and usually stayed in the fields, along gullies and ravines near populated areas. If there was a forest nearby, predators hid in it and even hunted wild ungulates there. Apparently, they cannot live entirely from hunting. But not all the foci of dogs could be clearly distributed among the indicated groups, Among them there were those transitioning from garbage dumps to hunting.The number of predators in packs was calculated: in the forest from 2 to 10 (on average 5), in landfills and cattle burial grounds -12 (on average 7).
It is noteworthy that dogs that hunted deer, livestock and poultry in the forest rarely touched; by the way, wolves behaved the same way (Ryabov, 1974). Those that were associated with the corpses of domestic animals often attacked sheep, goats, and poultry. At the same time, dogs sometimes showed great insolence, caused damage to agriculture, and brought no less, but more, than wolves (Ryabov, 1979. , Solomatin, 1979). Like wolves, in packs; They attacked flocks of sheep in camps and meadows, wounding many of them, tearing their butts. And although, compared to wolves, dogs bit few sheep to death, the latter often strangled each other in panic in the pens. As a result, the loss to collective farms after only two raids by packs of dogs on flocks could amount to over 20 thousand rubles (Ryabov, 1979). Dogs usually stayed near sheep farms. During the day they could be seen running away from the flocks and resting in the bushes and weeds, and at night predators burst into the shed and tore the sheep. It is curious that at the time of one of these attacks in the Podgorensky district of the Voronezh region, a large guard dog guarding sheep broke loose from his chain and, instead of rushing at the dogs, he took the area into robbery.
In the past, when the number of wolves was low, “friendships” between single wolves and dogs began in landfills and cattle burial grounds, and pockets of wolf-dog hybrids arose in nature (Ryabov, 1973; 1978). Only occasionally in the Voronezh region and more often in the Odessa region did single male wolves enter into an “alliance” with dogs (Ryabov, 1973, Tursky, 1975), who later lived in mixed packs, which included a dog, a wolf and hybrids. In most cases, wolf-dogs appeared in nature from a she-wolf, and the packs subsequently consisted of a she-wolf (sometimes other wolves joined later) and hybrids or only hybrids.
The dogs that lived in the Usmansky forest and the forests of the Khopersky reserve showed a clear specialization in preying on sika deer, which was their main food (Zlobin, 1971, Ryabov, 1973, 1979, Kazansky). However, dogs could not reduce the number of multiplying deer. Their influence on prey populations was hardly positive due to the weak selectivity of animal removal. Data from G. Krieger (1977) indicate that there is no selectivity at all in a predatory pack of dogs. According to some data, “friendships” between such dogs and wolves were not observed. Feral dogs lived in the forest only in the absence of wolves, breeding at any time of the year (including) in abandoned beaver, badger, expanded Jurassic forests and under piles of brushwood. They hunted at night, usually resting on warm hillocks, sometimes on fresh roosts of wild boars. They walked through the forest confidently, were not afraid, and why, they often used trails when moving. They chased animals without a voice, sometimes one dog barked or several dogs in a pack barked. Often, wolf hunting techniques were also used: some of the predators ran ahead while cutting, others pursued the heels of stag deer and females, driving them onto the ice, where they usually killed them.
Sometimes animals fell through the ice, then the dogs sat around the hole and waited for it to sink. Sometimes deer specifically ran into the river to escape their pursuers. The dogs remained on the shore. Some stray and feral dogs knew well the autumn-winter feeding of deer and attacked them at the feeder. Often deer concentrated along the railway, the village of Ramon, Voronezh region, where they picked up beets during transportation. Dogs also came here to hunt. For a successful hunt, the dogs usually managed to finish off one deer.
True, they took emaciated animals relatively easily, unlike wolves, and stayed near the carcass until it was completely used up. When dogs attacked deer, they always tore the victim’s butt without touching the neck. Stray and feral dogs constantly prevented rangers from catching deer with the aim of distributing them throughout the country.
The post always treated hound dogs released for hunting in the forest aggressively: they attacked and chewed in that case, the hounds always chased them (in the forests near the village of Novovoronezh, Voronezh region, hound dogs hunted wild dogs better than other animals) or simply came into their possession. Feral dogs living in the forest west of the city of Kalach, Voronezh region, near a dump with waste from a meat processing plant (up to 10 heads), killed hunting dogs. The bitch of a yard dog, which raised puppies in the winter in a fox hole in the Mastyuzhinsky forest in the Voronezh region, also actively rushed at the hounds running nearby and chased them. At the same time, we know of cases when dogs living in the Khoper forests adapted to the rutting of hounds and chased the beast together.
Feral dogs were very afraid of a man with a gun in the forest and would not let him get close to them (Ryabov, 1973b, 1979a). They quickly understood the danger that threatened them from humans and skillfully avoided it. But some of them closely watched the hunters and picked up the remains of the butchered carcasses of wild ungulates. Sometimes, ahead of the hunters, they chased wounded animals. At the beginning of January 1975, in the Liskinsky district of the Voronezh region, hunters captured a one-year-old wild boar from stray and feral dogs, whose entire backside and legs were severely bitten, and the animal could barely move. Seeing the people, the predators immediately fled, but when the hunters began to track them, they tried to return to the wounded boar.
Moreover, dogs in the forest were sometimes capable of showing aggressiveness towards humans, some of them chased and bit cyclists, rushed near a hole with puppies at mushroom pickers. And one day a large dog from the pack even rushed at the hunter V.M. Fetisov (in the forest near the village of Novovoronezhsky), the other 5 dogs followed his example. And only after the shot they fled. Males from a rutting pack in the Usman forest rushed at the children. And wild dogs in the vicinity of the town of Kalach almost tore apart a heifer that was being led on a leash by a woman. They were destroyed here urgently by order of the district executive committee.
In the Pribityug forests of the Voronezh region, feral dogs sometimes surrounded a single cart and a passenger car parked in a wider circle in a tight ring. In the winter of 1973/74, a pack of 12 dogs, surrounding a driver in the morning near the village of Lebyazhye, Nizhnedevitsky district, Voronezh region, rushed by, the horse was running at full speed and the coachman could do nothing.
In recent years, multiplying wolves, as a rule, have driven dogs out of land near landfills and cattle burial grounds into forests, restoring their strong right to live and “command” in these places, since the distribution of predators is subject to the law of ecological substitutability. With a more or less normal structure of wolf packs, the latter are aggressive towards dogs. And they act as insurmountable competitors for them in nature. At the same time, the process of displacement does not always proceed quickly. Some packs of hybrids and wolves that survived in 1963-1972 in the Yablochinsky forest of the Voronezh region did not for a long time displace stray and feral dogs in the surrounding lands (there were even litters of dogs in the forest), and continued to feed with them at the same cattle burial grounds.
In the early 70s, in the forests near the village of Tyuzhovka, Voronezh region, there lived 18 feral shepherd dogs similar to German shepherds. Here, predators attacked collective farm sheep that ran into the property of hunting dogs, and chased hares. The wolves that occasionally passed through their property did not bother the dogs, but in 1976 they settled here themselves and the dogs immediately left the forest, again “snuggled up” to the village, and became; run through the fields.
It took the wolves who had come to the Khopersky Nature Reserve more than 5 years to finally displace stray and feral dogs from its small territory (16 thousand hectares) and the surrounding forests (Ryabov, 1979, Kaznevsky, 1979). Due to the high density of deer in the reserve, wolves had a relatively small hunting territory in the first years (Ryabov, 1974) and poorly developed the surrounding areas. The territory where wolves and dogs lived was divided mainly by the Khoper River. But in some years, on the left and right banks of the Khopra, areas were preserved where both wolves and dogs hunted simultaneously (Ryabov, 1974, 1976 b). During the period of already significant “dominance” of wolves in the reserve, there were also cases of dogs running in pursuit of deer in winter from the northern right-bank part of the reserve (the last refuge of dogs) to the left bank occupied by wolves, some to the Tikovnaya cordon. And all the dogs disappeared here under the “onslaught” of the wolves. Nowadays, stray dogs sometimes run in from
from the surrounding villages into the protected forests on the edge, but they do not stay in them for a long time. But sika deer, in the presence of wolves, greatly changed their behavior: they became much more “experienced”, faster and less accessible not only to dogs, but also to wolves (Pechenik, 1979). In some cases, stray dogs even bred offspring in lands reclaimed by wolves, which occurred in the Pavlovsky district (in and near the thorn forest) and the Bogucharsky district of the Voronezh region. But the dogs could not take root in these places.
Eight wolves, which appeared in 1977 after a long absence on the territory of the Educational Farm of the Voronezh Forestry Engineering Institute (19 thousand hectares of the Usman forest), quickly replaced the stray and feral dogs that had ruled for a long time, 2/3 of the territory, which was confirmed by the registration of animals in the snow in March 1978. There is a known case where wolves killed and ate a dog in the forest. And only in the Right Bank forestry (1/3 of the LGI territory), where wolves did not enter, was the “dominance” of dogs still noted (Ryabov, 1979a).
But in some cases, mainly during the breeding season, individual wolves can maintain “friendly” contacts with dogs and, in the present period, with a more or less normal structure of their populations. They behave interestingly; in this regard, the She-Wolf sought to meet a male similar to a German Shepherd who was guarding the sheep. They were seen together in the field in the evening and during the day. In the winter of 1974/75, in the Ostrogozhsky district of the same region, 2 wolves adopted a German shepherd bitch, who walked with them for a long time and visited cattle burial grounds together. But later wolves killed and ate stray dogs here. We believe that hybrids with high wolf blood and the appearance of wolves are currently more prone to “friendly” contacts with dogs.
Wolf-dog hybrids are animals with an undeveloped genotype, which is why there are many variations in their behavior towards the wolf and the dog. However, the heredity of the wolf, as a wild animal, prevailed in most cases. In addition, hybrids were more often born in nature as a she-wolf, which has the main influence on the behavior of children both by inheritance and during upbringing during the period of living together.
In the Voronezh region, we did not observe wolf-dog hybrids that exist in nature at the expense of wild ungulates. They appeared there when dogs came into contact with scavenger wolves and therefore themselves subsequently led a lifestyle similar to them. Regardless of any variations in parental pairs and blood, these were in most cases daring predators (more daring than wolves), often attacking domestic animals, including village dogs, whose meat they ate (Ryabov, 1973 a. 1978 a). Some of them lived primarily off dog meat. The proximity of people at the time of attack on the victim by wolf-dogs was not always embarrassing. We associate the tendency of hybrids, when choosing a victim, to give predominantly to domestic animals (small and medium-sized) to a large extent with canine heredity and with their insufficient physical perfection, since hybrids were born mainly from outbred dogs (Ryabov, 1973).
At the same time, A. Danilkin (1979) followed the life of such predators in the southern Urals in 1971-1976, where they hunted roe deer. Unlike real wolves, hybrids formed packs in the summer - up to 18 individuals. Individual predators with a voice like a hound dog chased the victim, others occasionally barked like a dog or ran silently (taken from the nature of the Zyryansk region, the first generation of wolf-dogs living in captivity and their children from dogs, very similar to the latter, were mainly capable of howl like a wolf). They sometimes chased roe deer over a long distance (up to 1-4 km), which is also not typical of a wolf, but typical of dogs in packs - like wolves, a “division of labor” was used: drives and ambushes along the victim’s likely escape route, etc. .d.
I.G. Gursky (1975) notes that hybrid wolves, feeding on cattle burial grounds in the Odessa region, in some places successfully hunted the numerous hares and foxes there. The predators ate the caught hares on the spot without any remains, less often they crushed them, sometimes eating the testes, less often the liver. And very rarely they ate it whole. When tracking wolf dogs in the Odessa region, the remains of roe deer torn to pieces by them were occasionally discovered. We noted the same thing here and there in the Voronezh and Belgorod regions.
In relation to humans, wolf-dog hybrids in most cases behaved bolder than wolves, which is confirmed by the appearance of predators near populated areas during daylight hours and attacks on domestic animals in the presence of people, sometimes aggressiveness towards humans, the choice of places for dens near human buildings, places for bedding in the buildings themselves (Ryabov, 1973 a, 19?8 a). In the Perm region, most likely not wolves, but wolf-dog hybrids were able to approach the forester’s house and eat from a dog bowl. There is a known case when near the village of Staro-Toluchevo, Petropavlovsk district, a flock of wolf-dogs. The female, at the time of her next attack on geese during the day, rushed at a man approaching her with an ax and was killed by him. In Berezovaya Balka, Buturlinovsky district, Voronezh region, hunter I. Banov tracked down 3 wolves -dog hybrids and seriously wounded one of them. At the same time, the rest of the predators did not run away, but rushed at the dying fellow and began to tear it. It was relatively easy to destroy wolf-dogs due to a lack of caution in the Bobrovsky district of the Voronezh region (Ryabov, 1973 a) . However, I.G. Gursky (1975) points to the very cautious behavior of wolf-dog hybrids in two packs that were under the supervision of hunters in the Odessa region: it was almost impossible to see them; neither adults nor “wolf cubs” responded to wabu, which is very puzzled the hunters who dealt with such “silent people” for the first time. The difficulty of catching wolf-dog hybrids was no different in comparison with those of wolves in the lands of the Petropavlovsk region. Hybrids, like wolves, were afraid of flags in one raid known to us.
Purebred wolves treated wolf-dog hybrids in nature in most cases as their own kind, freely entering into mating relationships with them. Because of this, now (with the increased number of wolves) and repeated crossings with them, many hybrids have been “absorbed” by wolves and have become generally similar to them in appearance and behavior. However, among wolf-like animals there are often individuals with features of canine behavior, which we have already discussed above and which in some cases makes hunting wolves now more difficult (Bibikova. 1979). However, we do not exclude the possibility of displacement of some of the hybrids (mostly living independently) by wolves who came to this area again, like feral dogs or coyotes. In this case, they were forced to move closer to populated areas and come into closer contact with dogs. As a result, during the absorption crossbreeding, the hybrids could partially “dissolve” among feral dogs.
Literature
1. Bibikova V. 1979. Letters about wolves. "Hunting and game management", No. 10
2. Gursky I.G. 1975. Wolf hybridization in nature. Department of Biol. "t.80, vkp.1.
3. Danilkin A. 1979. Hunting of wolf-dog hybrids for roe deer. "Hunting and game management", No. 3.
4. Zloyazh B. 1971. About stray dogs. "Hunting and game management", No. 9.
5. Kaznevsky P.F. 1979. Wolf in the Khopersky Nature Reserve, Sat. “Ecological foundations for the protection and rational use of predatory mammals,” Nauka publishing house, M.
6. Pechenik A.D. 1979. The influence of the wolf on the population of sika deer of the Khopersky Nature Reserve. On Sat. "Ecological foundations of protection and rational use of predatory mammals", publishing house "Nauka", M.
7. Ryabov L.S. 1973 a. Wolf-dog hybrids in the Voronezh region. "Bulletin of the Moscow Department of Biol.", vol. 78, VBI.b

FERAL DOGS AND THE FERALIZATION MODEL

Feral dogs are not a homogeneous category of animals. One of the major difficulties in conducting feral dog research is determining the true status of the dogs being studied, and several different definitions have been proposed (Cosey and Cude 1980; Boitany and Fabry 1983; Daniels and Bekoff 1989a, 1989b). The distinction between feral, stray and other stray dogs is sometimes a matter of degree (Nesbitt 1975).

Categories of dogs are classified based on behavioral and environmental characteristics(Scott and Causey 1973, Causey and Cude 1980); data on the origin of the dog (Daniels and Bekoff 1989a, 1989b); main habitat type (rural or urban stray: Berman and Duhaar 1983; dogs with unrestricted access to public areas: Beck 1973); the nature and degree of dependence of the dog on the person (WHO 1988). Boitani et al. (in press) defined feral dogs as animals living in a wild and free state, without food or shelter specifically provided by humans (Cosey and Cude 1980), and showing no signs of socialization towards people (Daniels and Bekoff 1989a), they are characterized, rather, by a long persistent desire to avoid direct contact with a person.

To avoid mixing feral dogs with other stray dogs, direct observations and radio tracking were used. The diversity of existing definitions adds to the difficulty of comparing results across studies. Another difficulty arises when considering feralization from an evolutionary perspective, when feralization is described as a reversal of the process of domestication (Hale 1969, Brisbin 1974, Price 1984) or as a behavioral ontogenetic process (Daniels and Bekoff 1989c): both interpretations consider different levels (population and individual) and involve different time scales as well as different theoretical and research approaches (Daniels and Bekoff 1989c).

In fact, most authors agree that “owned”, “stray” and “feral” dogs are not closed classes and that status may change over the course of a dog's life (Scott and Causey 1973, Nesbitt 1975, Hibata et al. 1987, Daniels 1988, Daniels and Bekoff 1989a), which supports the view of Daniels and Bekoff (1989c) that feralization is a behavioral ontogenetic (related to individual development) process that sometimes takes place throughout the life of one individual. Only three of the 11 adult dogs studied by Boitani et al. (in press) were likely born in the wild, while the rest were newcomers from village populations, transitioning from a stray state to becoming feral.

The change in status may depend on a number of natural or artificial reasons (Fig. 1): the dog may become a stray, avoiding human control; being thrown out or born to a wandering mother (Beck 1975). A stray dog may become feral by being removed from a human environment or by being co-opted or simply adopted by a group of feral dogs living nearby (Daniels 1988; Daniels and Bekoff 1989a, 1989c), like most members of the group studied by Boitani et al. (in press). The same study found that some stray dogs may exhibit behavior and attitudes that are intermediate to those expected based on the proposed classification.

This suggests that changes in status in dogs are not always radical and sudden: rather, depending on local stimuli and conditions, they can occupy a significant part of the individual's life. Changing local conditions can force an individual dog to radically change its own behavioral tendencies. A return to its former life (i.e., to the category of “ownership”) can be observed when a stray dog is picked up from the street by a person.

The next stage (i.e. the transition from a feral state to a wandering lifestyle or even to an owner), although generally unlikely, was observed by Boitani et al. (in press), and more recently experimentally demonstrated by one of us (P. Chiucci unpub.) on the example of the resocialization of a feral dog to a person and the restoration of its domestic status (in both cases we are talking about individuals who, although they lived as feral dogs, were not born in the wild).

However, the evidence collected so far suggests that when feral dogs live in socially independent groups (i.e. they are socially connected to other dogs) and there is no human interference in their lives, it is very unlikely that such dogs will seek change in their status (i.e. the process of savagery in new generations intensifies). From this perspective, our definition of feral dogs (see Boitani et al. in press) is consistent with the view of Daniels and Bekoff (1989c) that savagery is the development of a fear reaction to people and does not necessarily involve significant genetic variation from their domestic ancestors.

Almost all prospectors from the gold mining team hunted on weekends. And almost every one of them came with a dog. Grown-up puppies and adult dogs were bought for the purpose of real hunting; it is safer with a dog in the taiga. But prospectors rarely hunted, and a pack of dogs, made up of trained experienced huskies and mixed breeds of all stripes, without any training, without supervision or education, rushed around the area, grew fat on the miners' grub, squabbled among themselves, stole from the kitchen what was lying around, and I went completely wild over the summer.

One day, leaving the house, I found a completely fresh cow leg next to the porch - not scorched, but clean. I was delighted with such an unexpected “taiga gift”, brought the leg home and told my husband that I had hunted it myself. We laughed, then my husband went to the prospectors and found out that it was the dogs who stole the legs from the freshly skinned cow carcass. The miners had plenty of meat, and no one wanted to bother with the legs for jellied meat, and this theft was more for fun for the dogs - they dragged them away and scattered them around. The cook added three more cow legs that he found to “our catch.” We singed them and cooked a wonderful jellied meat from one, and left the other legs for later, which, given our meager food supplies, was a great success.

With the departure of the miners, in early November, the taiga surrounding the station completely died down. Snow quickly covered the roads and the gold mine. The presence of people in this wilderness was only indicated by the snow-covered roofs of prospectors' trailers and a couple of station houses with barely a glimmer of life.

The winter ahead was difficult - immediately after the miners left, through the efforts of my husband, the diesel generator unit was defrosted and the weather station was left without power. The small gasoline engine was started only to charge the batteries that powered the radio station—gasoline was scarce. Light at the station was provided by antediluvian kerosene lamps, which were fueled with diesel fuel.

A week after the miners left, it became clear that the people had left, but their dogs remained. Man so easily forgets about his responsibility for those he tames...

Deprived of stable food and at least some human attention, the hungry dogs rallied into a pack. They often disappeared for several days in the taiga, but invariably returned to the miners' housing, as if they hoped that people would return for them... After the miners left, there were about twenty dogs, but not all of them returned from the taiga. People at the station thought that dogs were becoming victims of wolves, until one of the passing hunters said that he saw how the dogs drove their weak brother and tore him to pieces.

There was nothing we could do to help the animals, maddened by hunger and fear; worse, the dogs soon became dangerous to us. Three kilometers from the weather station, on the bank of the Amyla, there was a post of a hydrologist, who lived there all year, occasionally coming to the station to buy food, and daily communication between us took place via walkie-talkie. One day, a hydrologist reported that he was attacked by three prospecting dogs, who started a real hunt for him. The old man was saved by a gun and the right reaction. After this incident, all employees were prohibited from leaving the immediate area of the weather station, and the hydrologist was evacuated from his post and taken for treatment by helicopter.

The dogs did not attack near the station, but there was no peace. A significantly thinned pack of feral dogs caused fear with their night howls. When a lot of snow fell in early December and running into the taiga became difficult for the dogs, they tried to get to the station supplies and to our pantry (I still had beef legs there, which I was saving for New Year's jellied meat). The neighborhood with hungry dogs became so dangerous that only two people and with weapons went to the weather site at night.

The hunters recommended shooting the dogs; there were no more than seven of them left, but no one dared to go far to look for them, and there was not much ammunition at the station. My husband decided to ward off the dogs with traps. They were openly placed on the porch as a warning of danger. For several nights the dogs did not approach the porch, but on the third night we woke up from a terrible roar and an angry howl. The husband thought that it would be easy to calm the exhausted dog with commands, immobilize it, and then free it from the trap. He hoped that after such a lesson the dogs would stop besieging our home. But the red dog, caught in the trap, was strong and snapped with terrible jaws, did not respond to commands, sparkled with crazy wolf eyes and rushed at her husband.

I felt incredibly sorry for this dog, which was betrayed by its owner and left to the mercy of fate, or rather, to certain death in the taiga wilderness. She had no choice, she survived as is inherent in the nature of any living creature. And only man was to blame for the fact that this dog turned into a dangerous and evil monster... I did not see how my husband killed this dog, I was hurt and ashamed. Was there another way out of that situation, was it possible to make the dogs remember that they are not wild animals, but man’s friends? I don't know.

After that incident, the remaining dogs disappeared forever from the vicinity of the station. This red dog was probably the leader of the pack, and without a leader, the dogs scattered and died in the taiga. At the station they breathed a sigh of relief, until next autumn, when the story of the abandoned miners’ dogs will repeat itself again...

Marianna Kamyshanskaya