Free-ranging dogs that associate with human settlements (hence village dogs) all share similar behavioural-ecological characteristics. They live mostly unre- strained, roving through the streets of villages, towns or cities, feeding mainly on human refuse and garbage, and using buildings, porches, vehicles or other human-built structures for shelter. Researchers who studied them in different parts of the world found that many village dogs actually have owners (Beck, 1975; Daniels, 1983a; Boitani and Racana, 1984; Brooks, 1990; DeBalogh et al., 1993; Butler and Bingham, 2000; Ortolani and Coppinger, 2005), although they are not family pets, as we might think of by a Western concept. These dogs tend to associate with particular households (Boitani and Racana, 1984; DeBalogh et al., 1993), even when the home-owners claim that the dogs don’t belong to them (Ortolani and Coppinger, 2005). Most of them are solitary, although pairs or trios are not unusual, while large groups are fairly uncommon (notable exceptions are temporary gatherings of males around an oestrous female (Pal et al., 1999) or dogs gathering at a common food source (Macdonald and Carr, 1995)) (Beck, 1975; Berman and Dunbar, 1983; Daniels, 1983a; Boitani and Racana, 1984; Hirata et al., 1986; Daniels and Bekoff, 1989b; Macdonald and Carr, 1995; Ortolani and Coppinger, 2005). They are mainly active in the early hours of the morning and in the evening (Beck, 1975; Berman and Dunbar, 1983; Daniels, 1983a; Boitani and Racana, 1984; Hirata et al., 1986); periods that often coincide with cooler temperatures of the day, especially in tropical regions. The majority of them are likely to be males, as the adult sex ratio is skewed in their favour, often in a ratio of two males for each female, but sometimes males can be as much as five times more abundant than females (Beck, 1973; Daniels, 1983b; Boitani and Racana, 1984; WHO, 1988; Daniels and Bekoff, 1989b; Brooks, 1990; DeBalogh et al., 1993; Macdonald and Carr, 1995; Pal et al., 1998a, b; Butler and Bingham, 2000; Ortolani and Coppinger, 2005).
Village dogs may have been the earliest canines to associate with people in a permanent way. Some 15,000 years ago, when humans traded a nomadic lifestyle for a sedentary one and the first villages were built, human-generated refuse began piling up around them: leftovers of family meals, butchering scraps,
carcasses, by-products of farm animals, as well as human excrement. This newly created resource, the garbage dump, opened up a niche appealing especially to scavenger-prone carnivore species, with one caveat: tolerance to human proxim- ity would have been the price to pay for admission. As Coppinger and Coppinger (2001) have suggested, dog domestication might indeed have taken this route: individuals who displayed lower flight distances towards humans around garbage dumps would have been selected to exploit this resource, and dogs’ long-lasting co-existence with people would have thus begun (see also Chapters 2 and 3 in this volume for a further, in-depth, discussion of the timing and process of dog domes- tication). There is plenty of evidence today that village dogs gain food benefits by associating with humans (Beck, 1973; Daniels, 1983a; Boitani and Racana, 1984; Pal et al., 1998a, b; Brooks, 1990; Macdonald and Carr, 1995; Butler and Bingham, 2000). In fact, village dogs may depend entirely on human garbage for survival, as their hunting skills are not very effective (see Boitani and Ciucci, 1995). The reward for trading a hunting life for one of scraps may be that village dogs are rarely found in poor body condition (DeBalogh et al., 1993; Ortolani and Coppinger, 2005).
Shelter is another benefit supplied by villages, either intentionally or unin- tentionally provided by people, which dogs require for protection against harsh climatic conditions, aggressive conspecifics or carnivore competitors, and/or for hiding young from danger. But sharing a niche with humans has its costs. One characteristic shared by village dog populations around the world is a high rate of infant mortality: as many as 75% of litters can be destroyed by people (Macdonald and Carr, 1995) and often less than 20% of pups reach adulthood (WHO, 1988; Pal et al., 1998a). Selective culling of female pups in litters is another common practice (A. Ortolani, 2003, personal observation; Daniels and Bekoff, 1989b), which most likely causes the biased sex ratio in the adult popula- tion. Finally, human culling, disease and car accidents together can cause more than 80% of adult mortality in some areas (DeBalogh et al., 1993). Although these figures seem high and might give the impression that the costs outweigh the ben- efits for village dogs, similar mortality rates have also been reported for feral dogs (Boitani and Ciucci, 1995). More importantly, recorded population densities of village dogs range from 68 dogs/km2to 3700 dogs/km2in different parts of the world (WHO, 1988; Brooks, 1990), suggesting that high mortality rates are not putting these canines at risk of extinction. Although the diversity of dog–human relationships may mask the adaptive value of several dogs’ traits, it appears that, at the population level, the costs of living with humans are probably negligible.
The association of village dogs with human households, although driven by the presence of a food source, might predispose them to become adopted and eventually become ‘family dogs’. However, it does not imply that village dogs seek companionship with people, as in the popular image of a stray looking for an owner, nor does it imply that all village dogs could become family pets. In a recent study of human–dog interactions in Ethiopia, Ortolani and Coppinger (2005) found that most dogs avoided humans by fleeing when approached and that only a small minority (4%) would approach an observer. Moreover, many dogs (22%)
displayed alert/alarm behavioural responses, such as barking and growling, upon seeing an unfamiliar person, while some (11%) were downright aggressive, attempting to attack the observer. Dogs were more likely to vocalize if they were found near a household, suggesting that they might have been defending a resource or territory. Boitani and Racana (1984) also reported that village dogs barked near houses and livestock. Most Ethiopian village dogs could only be approached at a distance of 5 m or more, after which the majority either fled or displayed aggressive behaviour (Ortolani and Coppinger, 2005). Interestingly, such dogs tended to be alone or in pairs, while dogs encountered in small groups displayed mainly neutral, or indifferent, behaviours towards the observer. All aggressive dogs vocalized towards the observer before reacting, suggesting that, even though they might just have been bluffing, it is a wise person who pays atten- tion to dogs’ warning signs!
The majority of village dogs studied in different surveys were usually encoun- tered in the streets and their main activity was either lying down resting or travelling around the village (Beck, 1975; Berman and Dunbar, 1983; Ortolani and Coppinger, 2005). Intraspecific agonistic interactions were not common but they appeared to peak during the oestrous season and usually between males (Daniels, 1983b; Pal et al., 1999). Studies of dog–human interactions are scarce, and they are likely to be influenced by the general experience that dogs have formed with people habitually encountered in their environment. People’s attitudes towards dogs vary widely among cultures, individual predispositions and even religious beliefs (Wandeler et al., 1993). Curiously, in Ethiopia, Ortolani and Coppinger (2005) found that in predominantly Muslim towns the majority of dogs tended to avoid or have aggressive reactions towards an unfamiliar observer, while in predominantly Christian Orthodox villages the majority of dogs showed neutral reactions towards the same observer. Obviously, there are many factors, other than religion, that could be involved in explaining differences in dogs’ reactions to people in those villages, but these results do suggest that people’s attitudes may influence village dog behaviour.
Clearly, more studies quantifying behavioural responses of village dogs towards people in different areas of the world are needed, as well as more refined measures to quantify people’s attitudes towards dogs in different cultures. Such studies would be particularly important in areas where potentially fatal dog-transmitted diseases, such as rabies, are still prevalent (see WHO, 2001). Although data are limited, village dogs may be the most abundant category of dog in the world (Beck, 1975; WHO, 1988) and, so far, they have been the most overlooked of all canines. Yet they hold the key to understanding how a predator evolved into the most faithful human companion. Studying the behaviour of village dogs is of critical importance to shed light on the complexities of human–dog interactions in our society.