Wild dogs myths
Numerous tenacious but misinformed or misleading myths persist about wild dogs. Most of these derive from early, usually inaccurate, accounts of the species by natural historians which were likely to have been at least partially supplemented by accounts from local folklore. These myths persist primarily because of the difficulty in acquiring detailed information about wild dogs in their natural habitat, but also because of the widespread and deeply rooted predisposition among people almost everywhere in the world to vilify wild large canids. However, there is often some thread of reality, some aspect of the natural behaviour of wild dogs, that make the beliefs seem credible. Therefore, it is worthwhile to attempt to identify and explain their derivation.

"Wild dogs kill more than they can eat (called 'surplus killing') and their method of killing is slow and cruel" MITH.
The myth of surplus killing can be explained by a misinterpretation of hunting success. Typically, several of the pack members opportunistically chase different individuals from a herd of antelope. With numerous simultaneous chases occurring, occasionally more than one hunter succeeds in capturing prey. And occasionally more prey is caught than the pack can eat. The perception that they are vicious killers is unfounded since few predators can be said to dispatch their prey faster or with more efficiency than wild dogs. This myth is clearly derived from a lack of accurate information and possibly anthropocentric value judgements regarding what is considered in nature to be 'humane', or not cruel.

"Wild dogs will consume wounded or injured members of their own pack" MITH.
Quite contrary to this, it has been observed that wounded and badly injured dogs are not only tolerated but cared for by members of the pack. The myth of wild dogs cannibalising members of their species probably derives, at least in part, from local fears and consequent folklore about wild dogs. Stories that are entirely analogous with European children's stories about wolves such as Little Red Ridding Hood and Three Little Pigs are found in local rural perceptions and knowledge of the natural history of wild dogs. The myth of wild dog cannibalism may be derived from a similar story intended to portray wild dogs as vicious. Actual behaviours that may influence this myth include rare, but aggressive and sometimes fatal fights between wild dogs, especially in territorial conflict between packs or over access to mates. Also linked to this myth might be the behaviour of dogs responding to a returning hunter. Subsequent to a successful hunt, a hunter will return to the pack with fresh blood matting its fur. In the ensuing excitement the rest of the pack will seemingly mob the bloody dog and hungry juveniles will whine obsequiously, begging for regurgitated food. Perhaps this behaviour has been observed and misinterpreted as aggressiveness toward the hunter, thereby accounting for the cannibalism myth.

"Wild dogs will attack and prey on humans" MITH.
This myth is simply not true. Never, throughout history, has there been a confirmed report of a wild dog attack on a human being.

Myths or beliefs such as these that find their way into 'scientific literature', in the absence of strong contrary evidence, are like permanent scars on the animals described. When myths are character damaging, especially if they are in some way consistent with components of human value systems, they are difficult to overcome. It is hoped that the knowledge gained through the Botswana Wild Dog Research Project will dispel many if not most of these myths so that we can begin to understand and appreciate the wonder of African wild dogs and ensure their survival as a species.