Figure 2 - uploaded by Raymond Pierotti
Content may be subject to copyright.
Comparison of skulls of wolf (top), Shoshone ''Dog'' from Yellowstone dig (middle); domestic dog (bottom). Note the overall similarity of top and middle skulls, with similar proportions, pronounced sagittal crests, enlarged craniums, and teeth, especially canines. From Yellowstone Photo Collection, http://www.nps.gov/features/yell/slidefile/history/indians/Page-3.htm. NPS Photo by Larry Loendorf.
Source publication
We examine the historical relationship between humans and wolves as illustrated through stories of North American Indigenous Peoples, especially the Great Plains and Intermountain West, exemplified by Cheyenne, Lakota, Blackfoot, Pawnee, and Shoshone peoples. Indigenous stories have not been employed in scholarly examinations of the origins of ‘dog...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... accounts describe recently domesticated wolves, rather than animals domesticated several thousand years earlier, as indicated by lack of barking, combined with the overall physiognomy. They differ from wolves only in size and may simply represent one aspect of naturally occurring variation (Figure 2). As Allen (1920:436, emphasis added) has noted, ''in less modified breeds of dogs, e.g. the American Indian dogs, the free posterior palate ends on a line passing transversely through the middle of the last molar,'' a trait also found in wolves, but not in large breeds of European dogs. ...
Similar publications
This ground-breaking report is a first of its kind in Canada: an Indigenous-controlled assessment of the impacts of a major natural disaster that brings together First Nations and Métis governments, communities, and organizations from across an entire region. This project brought together 11 Indigenous communities/organizations and three regional I...
Although all minorities experience inequalities, indigenous peoples in the United States tend to experience the most severe violent victimization. Until now, an organizing framework to explain or address the disproportionate rates of violent victimization was absent. Thus, the purpose of this conceptual article is to (a) introduce the concept of hi...
Citations
... Mixed-species animal groups range from oceanic cetaceans, fresh and saltwater fish shoals, social mammals such as ungulates and primates, and flocks of birds (Goodale et al., 2020) which can be stable over decades, occupy fixed home ranges, defend common territory (Martínez & Gomez, 2013), and which enjoy higher survival rates than single-species bird flocks (Srinivasan, 2019). Some mixed-species groups include humans, as when humans and free-ranging animals such as dolphins, honeyguide birds, wolves, and orcas hunt and gather food together (Cram et al., 2022;Fogg, Howe, & Pierotti, 2015). Dog-human groups are perhaps most obvious when we think of pets, but they include street dogs who share spaces with humans, defending their territory from unknown individuals, and relying on social cues (Nagasawa, Kikusui, Onaka, & Ohta, 2009). ...
We embrace Moffett's call for more rigorous definitions of social organizations but raise two intersecting critiques: (1) The spaces controlled by societies are not exclusively physical, and (2) cooperation is required to maintain control over spaces, physical or otherwise. We discuss examples of non-physical societal spaces across species and highlight the top-down group cooperation challenge that is maintaining them.
... These events took place well before the time of permanent human settlements, which are necessary for the "scavenger wolf" hypothesis advanced by the Coppingers. More to the point, [12,23]. According to Indigenous peoples, the relationship with wolves began as mutualism and may or may not proceed to domestication, e.g., some Indigenous Americans produced dogs, e.g., the wool dogs of the Salish peoples, Alaskan Malemutes, Greenland and Eskimo dogs, the South American hairless breeds [24]. ...
... According to Indigenous peoples, the relationship with wolves began as mutualism and may or may not proceed to domestication, e.g., some Indigenous Americans produced dogs, e.g., the wool dogs of the Salish peoples, Alaskan Malemutes, Greenland and Eskimo dogs, the South American hairless breeds [24]. What is significant is that until about 200 years ago, most of the dogs found in North America were almost certainly wolves, living in a mutualistic relationship with Indigenous humans [12,23]. European explorers in North America consistently stated that dogs in Indian camps were indistinguishable from wolves. ...
... European explorers in North America consistently stated that dogs in Indian camps were indistinguishable from wolves. There are also numerous accounts of wolves that did not live with tribes, rescuing humans, providing food, and guarding them until they could safely return to a tribal encampment [23]. These are obvious mutualistic relationships, which tribes repay to this day by protecting wolves, creating sanctuaries for them on tribal lands [12], pp. ...
In this study, I discuss recent studies of human/wildlife mutualisms and suggest that several cases considered to represent domestication that has arisen through commensalism would be better considered as examples of mutualism between humans and various wild species. Species discussed include the only domesticated carnivores: cats (Felis sylvestris) and wolves (Canis lupus and C. dingo). I also discuss species over which there is considerable debate about whether they are domesticated or not: African (Loxodonta) and Asiatic elephants (Elphas). All of these species’ interactions include niche construction on the part of both species and influence human evolution at least a cultural level. I further argue that most contemporary domestic species currently exist in mutualistic relationships with humans because even though all of these species have been selected to benefit humans, all domestica species have also benefitted in terms of increased global and local population sizes and from more secure living conditions than can be found in their wild ancestors.
... Therefore, the conclusion of this article refutes the claims by Eurocentric scholars who assumed that Natives domesticated wolves and dominated them. It confirms the friendly relationship between Homo sapiens and Canis lupus which lasted until the arrival of settler colonizers (Fogg, Howe, & Pierotti, 2015). ...
... A diferencia de Europa, la relación entre humanos y lobos en Norte América seguía siendo armónica hasta antes de la llegada de los europeos a finales del siglo XV y durante el siglo XVI. Por ejemplo, en un estudio se encontró que todos los grupos humanos que aún existen en las Grandes Planicies (EE.UU.) tienen historias que describen a los lobos como guías, protectores, o entidades que enseñaron o mostraron directamente a los humanos cómo cazar (Fogg et al., 2015). Además, el mismo estudio indica que parecía haber existido una relación recíproca en la que humanos y lobos se proporcionaban o compartían comida. ...
After humans, the gray wolf is the mammal that had the largest known natural global distribution. Throughout it, while humanswere hunter-gatherers the gray wolf was a totemic animal, spiritual guide, and friend, but gradually, in Europe and Asia, thisperception changed to that of undesirable vermin that had to be eliminated, due to its predation on domestic animals. Europeansbrought that sentiment to the Americas and the gray wolf was persecuted until it was eradicated from most of its range, includingfrom all of Mexico. In this paper we review the history of its eradication in the southern part of the Mexican Plateau. In this region,the persecution that culminated in its extirpation developed from the 19th Century to the mid-20th Century. The history of the wolfin the region is not unique but it is shared with that of many species when two different cultures meet and capital has the last word
... Humans have an ancient and complex relationship with dogs, wolves, and wolf dogs (i.e., wolf hybrids; Fogg et al., 2015;Lescureux, 2018). A wolf dog is the offspring of a wolf and a domestic dog; wolf dogs are often called wolf hybrids. ...
Results of research with Indigenous (Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian) experts concerning the Alexander Archipelago wolves of southeast Alaska are reported here. The research was commissioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their Species Status Assessment of the wolf population in southeast Alaska under the Endangered Species Act. The research findings were incorporated into the Species Status Assessment that found the wolves not warranted for listing at this time. https://fws.gov/AAWolf-FinalReport
... While the conflict affects survival of humans, special attention on this relationship has been resulting human-carnivore culture in many parts of the world. For example, relationships between wolves and Indigenous people of North America was revealed that the carnivores not only are perceived as negative, but also figured as teachers and guides (Fogg et al., 2015). In other part of the world, the perspective on tigers as carnivores are differ among tribes; the conservation implications of these differences was well documented by Boomgard (2001). ...
... Ethno-conservation-based programs have been applied in conservation actions and programs for wolves in Yellowstone National Park (Fogg et al., 2015). Wolves and wild dogs made important contributions to the lives of Indigenous people by assisting with hunting, acting as sentinels, serving as beasts of burden, and offering companionship (Fogg et al., 2015). ...
... Ethno-conservation-based programs have been applied in conservation actions and programs for wolves in Yellowstone National Park (Fogg et al., 2015). Wolves and wild dogs made important contributions to the lives of Indigenous people by assisting with hunting, acting as sentinels, serving as beasts of burden, and offering companionship (Fogg et al., 2015). Indigenous American believes that the wolf plays an important role in the maintenance of the number of Bison and Deer in the wild, a controlled number of grazers have tight relation to water quality. ...
Interactions between humans and carnivores have been range from positive to negative, occasionally leading to human-wildlife conflict in many parts of the world. While dogs have roles to support humans, wild dogs such as wolf, dingoes, and singing dogs have both potential positive and negative roles for humans. We gathered knowledge among tribes in Pegunungan Tengah of Papua, Indonesia on their interactions with the New Guinea Singing Dog (NGSD) using an ethno-conservation approach. We conducted in-depth interviews using both emit and etic approaches with informants from the Amungme, Damal, Moni and Dani (Lani) tribes, who live in the habitat of the dog. Data were analyzed using phenomenological, content analysis, and analytical induction processes. The four tribes have traditional knowledge about the dog and its habitat, thus forming behavioral patterns, belief systems and cultural values toward NGSD. The ethno-conservation of these tribes is reflected in their culture as results from their ability to identify the dog’s sensitivity to the change of environment including human disturbances, water quality and food availability. The tribes also limit themselves to share information about NGSD to outsiders and respect the dogs as their ancestors. Residents of the four Indigenous tribes of Pegunungan Tengah believe that NGSD is the reincarnation and avatar of the dwelling spirits of their ancestors. We discuss the implications of these findings for the conservation of this non-protected species by the Indonesian government, but endemic to Papua.
... Dogs have held a close and important relationship with humans since prehistoric times (Radovanović, 1999;Perri et al., 2019). This human-dog interaction is a product of our coevolution with animals that was crucial to human evolution, e.g., they assisted humans with transport, hunting, and protection from other animals (Fogg et al., 2015). Despite this commensalism, some authors have stressed that dogs were also domesticated for their special role as ‗companion' animals (Messent and Serpell, 1981;Serpell, 1986;1995;Beck et al., 2000). ...
We aimed to examine the role of dog presence in modulating human affective reactivity and sense of safety in emotional urban public spaces. College women (n=296) assessed valence, arousal, dominance, and safety in pictures depicting a man or a woman alone or accompanied by a small- or medium-sized dog in aversive and positive contexts. The results indicated that both dog sizes produce better assessments (i.e., higher valence, dominance, and sense of safety, and lower arousal) than the alone condition in high- and low- aversive (i.e., aversive/man and aversive/woman, respectively) and low-positive (i.e., positive/man) contexts. In highly positive contexts (i.e., positive/woman), the alone condition produces a similar assessment to small-sized dogs on arousal and dominance scales and medium-sized dogs on dominance and safety scales. When comparing dog sizes, small dogs produce better assessments in most emotional contexts. Those results overall indicated that dog presence itself (regardless of dog size) affects participants’ assessment in aversive and low-positive contexts; however, specific dog features such as size, rather than dog presence itself, are more important in high-positive contexts, indicating a ceiling effect. This study highlights the need to consider the emotionality of public settings when assessing the positive dog effect in scenes in which people are portrayed.
... Domestic dogs Canis lupus familiaris regularly cooperate with humans for tasks including hunting, gathering, transport and protection (Dounias, 2018) (Fogg et al., 2015;Pierotti & Fogg, 2017). However, numerous accounts from indigenous groups detail important cultural attitudes towards wolves and close interactions that include cooperation. ...
... The role of social learning in the development of the skills involved in human-wildlife cooperation can also have consequences at larger scales, by creating geographic variation in the associated behaviours. For example, aspects of both human-honeyguide and human-dolphin cooperation vary with human culture, including the signals used to coordinate the interaction (Laltaika, 2021;Simões-Lopes et al., 2016;Spottiswoode et al., 2016;Wood et al., 2014), the tools used by humans to access the resource (Laltaika, 2021), the prey species targeted (Fogg et al., 2015;Simões-Lopes et al., 1998;Spottiswoode et al., 2016), whether humans reward the animal (Laltaika, 2021;Neil, 2002;Nelson, 1983;Spottiswoode et al., 2016;Wood et al., 2014), and human sentimentality towards the animal (Pierotti & Fogg, 2017;Silva et al., 2021). The result is a geographical mosaic of behavioural variation propagated by (potentially social) learning in participants of the two species. ...
... Reciprocally, the interaction may alter the human culture within which it operates, by generating new customs and beliefs. For example, in some groups that report cooperating with orcas or wolves, the animal became a 'cultural keystone species', vital to the community's sense of identity and cultural integrity (de Castro, 1998;Fogg et al., 2015;Holzlehner, 2015;Pierotti, 2011). The affectionate relationships developed with individual animals can lead to people ascribing them names and personalities, which in some cases invoke a belief in reincarnation of ancestors as cooperative animals (da Rosa et al., 2020;Neil, 2002;Peterson et al., 2008;Silva et al., 2021;Tun, 2004). ...
Human‐wildlife cooperation is a type of mutualism in which a human and a wild, free‐living animal actively coordinate their behaviour to achieve a common beneficial outcome.
While other cooperative human‐animal interactions involving captive coercion or artificial selection (including domestication) have received extensive attention, we lack integrated insights into the ecology and evolution of human‐wildlife cooperative interactions.
Here, we review and synthesise the function, mechanism, development, and evolution of human‐wildlife cooperation.
Active cases involve people cooperating with greater honeyguide birds and with two dolphin species, while historical cases involve wolves and orcas.
In all cases, a food source located by the animal is made available to both species by a tool‐using human, coordinated with cues or signals.
The mechanisms mediating the animal behaviours involved are unclear, but they may resemble those underlying intraspecific cooperation and reduced neophobia.
The skills required appear to develop at least partially by social learning in both humans and the animal partners. As a result, distinct behavioural variants have emerged in each type of human‐wildlife cooperative interaction in both species, and human‐wildlife cooperation is embedded within local human cultures.
We propose multiple potential origins for these unique cooperative interactions, and highlight how shifts to other interaction types threaten their persistence.
Finally, we identify key questions for future research. We advocate an approach that integrates ecological, evolutionary and anthropological perspectives to advance our understanding of human‐wildlife cooperation. In doing so, we will gain new insights into the diversity of our ancestral, current and future interactions with the natural world.
Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
... Several other cases of human-wildlife cooperation are inactive, including human-dolphin cooperation in Australia and at two sites in Brazil (Table S1), as well as human-orca cooperation in Australia and Russia (Neil, 2002), which involved cooperation between human whale-hunters and orcas (Orcinus orca) to hunt marine mammals (Box 1; Figure 1). Human-wolf cooperation, in which Indigenous peoples and wolves (Canis lupus) coordinated while hunting large ungulates, is thought to have occurred in North America (Fogg et al., 2015;Pierotti & Fogg, 2017) (Box 1; Figure 1). Candidate forms of human-wildlife cooperation are outlined in Box 1. ...
... Honey from human-honeyguide cooperation is also used as medicine, in ceremonies, and to brew alcohol (Isack, 1987(Isack, , 1999Laltaika, 2021). In many human communities that engage in humanwildlife cooperation, the interaction itself is also of cultural value (Clode, 2002;Fogg et al., 2015;Gruber & Sanda, 2019;Isack, 1987;Laltaika, 2021;Neil, 2002). Engaging F I G U R E 1 Active and inactive forms of human-wildlife cooperation known to the scientific community or reported in detail by Indigenous peoples, and their locations (see Table S1 for references and Table S2 for additional potential cases). ...
... Moreover, the wholesale slaughter of baleen whales likely caused orcas to move to more productive hunting grounds (Clode, 2002). When European settlers moved to the Great Plains of North America in the 19th century, they killed wolves, ungulates, and displaced or killed Indigenous people, eliminating all components of the human-wolf relationship (Fogg et al., 2015;Pierotti & Fogg, 2017;Standing Bear, 1978). Advances in human technology may also have contributed to cessation of human-wildlife cooperation (e.g., Clode, 2002). ...
Human–wildlife cooperation occurs when humans and free-living wild animals
actively coordinate their behavior to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome.
These interactions provide important benefits to both the human and wildlife
communities involved, have wider impacts on the local ecosystem, and represent
a unique intersection of human and animal cultures. The remaining active forms
are human–honeyguide and human–dolphin cooperation, but these are at risk of
joining several inactive forms (including human–wolf and human–orca cooperation).
Human–wildlife cooperation faces a unique set of conservation challenges,
as it requires multiple components—a motivated human and wildlife partner,
a suitable environment, and compatible interspecies knowledge—which face
threats fromecological and cultural changes. To safeguard human–wildlife cooperation,
we recommend: (i) establishing ethically sound conservation strategies
together with the participating human communities; (ii) conserving opportunities
for human and wildlife participation; (iii) protecting suitable environments;
(iv) facilitating cultural transmission of traditional knowledge; (v) accessibly
archiving Indigenous and scientific knowledge; and (vi) conducting long-term
empirical studies to better understand these interactions and identify threats.
Tailored safeguarding plans are therefore necessary to protect these diverse and
irreplaceable interactions. Broadly, our review highlights that efforts to conserve
biological and cultural diversity should carefully consider interactions between
human and animal cultures.
... Domestic dogs Canis lupus familiaris regularly cooperate with humans for tasks including hunting, gathering, transport and protection (Dounias, 2018) (Fogg et al., 2015;Pierotti & Fogg, 2017). However, numerous accounts from indigenous groups detail important cultural attitudes towards wolves and close interactions that include cooperation. ...
... The role of social learning in the development of the skills involved in human-wildlife cooperation can also have consequences at larger scales, by creating geographic variation in the associated behaviours. For example, aspects of both human-honeyguide and human-dolphin cooperation vary with human culture, including the signals used to coordinate the interaction (Laltaika, 2021;Simões-Lopes et al., 2016;Spottiswoode et al., 2016;Wood et al., 2014), the tools used by humans to access the resource (Laltaika, 2021), the prey species targeted (Fogg et al., 2015;Simões-Lopes et al., 1998;Spottiswoode et al., 2016), whether humans reward the animal (Laltaika, 2021;Neil, 2002;Nelson, 1983;Spottiswoode et al., 2016;Wood et al., 2014), and human sentimentality towards the animal (Pierotti & Fogg, 2017;Silva et al., 2021). The result is a geographical mosaic of behavioural variation propagated by (potentially social) learning in participants of the two species. ...
... Reciprocally, the interaction may alter the human culture within which it operates, by generating new customs and beliefs. For example, in some groups that report cooperating with orcas or wolves, the animal became a 'cultural keystone species', vital to the community's sense of identity and cultural integrity (de Castro, 1998;Fogg et al., 2015;Holzlehner, 2015;Pierotti, 2011). The affectionate relationships developed with individual animals can lead to people ascribing them names and personalities, which in some cases invoke a belief in reincarnation of ancestors as cooperative animals (da Rosa et al., 2020;Neil, 2002;Peterson et al., 2008;Silva et al., 2021;Tun, 2004). ...
1. Human-wildlife cooperation is a type of mutualism in which a human and a wild, free-living animal actively coordinate their behaviour to achieve a common beneficial outcome. 2. While other cooperative human-animal interactions involving captive coer-cion or artificial selection (including domestication) have received extensive
