Dogs, Animal Domestication And Other Silliness

[Yehecatl Quipol]

Interesting conversation continued from the T Chat subforum.

Your first post in this thread was nothing more than to bash dogs.

You caught me, I totally seized this platform as a soapbox to espouse my unpopular view of "man's best friend." :sarcasm:

If you were trying to be tongue in cheek about it and get a rise, that's trolling - thus my comments to that end.

Is it impossible nowadays to have any sort of debate, dialogue and so on anymore? Is it possible to present unfavorable views or opinions without again being charged with trolling? 'Trolling' is more about being consciously dickish with the purpose of disruption and so on, which wasn't my intent. I should have fleshed out my point instead of posting something short and in haste where my point was probably not apparent or ambiguous and I can see how it might be construed as trolling however I wasn't. Had I truly been trolling, it would be much more apparent.

A lot of what you have stated above is flat out wrong - it has been extensively studied and documented.

Like what? What specifically was 'wrong' and has been 'extensively studied and documented'?

But it doesn't mean that your opinion and/or emotional and religious beliefs make the data wrong.

You assume my opinions are based solely upon the subjective, emotional and religious and not all three combined with logic, reason and objective data as well.

I understand what you are saying perfectly, however - my point is that you are doing exactly what the OP was complaining about. It bothers the OP when people make harsh statements about the animals he loves (in this case spiders/other arachnids) based on emotional bias and fear. You just did the exact same thing in regards to dogs.

In my OP, perhaps but I have since clarified and fleshed out my point and assertions of which aren't based solely upon 'emotional bias' and 'fear.'

I am also challenging the notion of 'wild'/'domesticated' animals vs socialization/non-socialization. I assert all animals are 'wild' and should be treated as such and examples of harmless socialization of animals doesn't and shouldn't negate this natural fact/reality.

 

[Niffarious]

Your first post to me seemed like it was just to get a rise out of people, which would be trolling. That's how it read to me - if that was not the intent, then no it wouldn't be, but it's how it came across.

There has been a lot of research done re: domestication, dogs, and the domestication of dogs. Dogs have been fundamentally altered, it is NOT just socialization. It is genetic. Domestication is a different process. Dogs are domesticated, NOT just socialized wolves. If you take a wolf cub and raise it you still get a wolf (and they can be dangerous, I would NOT want one). A puppy, even if poorly socialized, fundamentally understands humans in ways that are astounding. There has been a lot of research to this end. You may hate dogs, you might disagree with every researcher and geneticist, but there is a clear cut difference between domesticated and wild animals, and the proof is in the genes. It doesn't get any deeper than that, so yes - I am certain your are wrong in your opinions about domestication because there is a difference between genetically altered (the definition of domestication) and socialization.

I would highly suggest watching the documentary Dogs Decoded (a Nova special). Heck, I think it's on Netflix, should you have access to that.

Our history with dogs goes back tens of thousands of years. The genetic evidence is that it might be hundreds of thousands of years, and they may have played a pivotal role for humans in ways as important as being able to start agriculture.

Can you tell me what your job is that you meet so many aggressive dogs? My family is mostly police, they meet a LOT of bad dogs as a direct result. If you can't discuss that I understand - but it seems to me you've met an unusually large population of aggressive and untrained dogs/guard dogs/etc.

You should also know that dogs can innately sense fear/anger. Your own body language may be triggering behavior from dogs you don't like.

I can understand you don't like dogs, but you should also understand that you may be coming at this from a severe bias. That doesn't mean you have to like them, but you can't acknowledge what is already known about them.

 

[Moonfall]

I would also like to direct you to the domesticated fox project. It has been shown that it is possible to domesticate a fox through breeding WITHOUT them ever seeing a human being. This was done in just a few generations. Also, they have started to display new colors, including spots, floppy ears, and curled or shortened tails.

This was done in part to make it easier to handle furbearing animals and partially to study how wolves were domesticated. They started by picking up meat scraps from primitive humans, and as those wolves were around eachother, they bred. The pups were raised around people, and also bred. Eventually the wolves were friendly enough to become primitive pets, and were taken in by tribes. The tribes then crossed them and continued the cycle, until we ended up with dogs.

The experiment is very interesting and I suggest that you read about it.

 

[SamuraiSid]

Is it impossible nowadays to have any sort of debate, dialogue and so on anymore? Is it possible to present unfavorable views or opinions without again being charged with trolling?

*

Not impossible, but increasingly difficult. Personally I save all my trolling for co-workers. Im a hoot

 

[Yehecatl Quipol]

There has been a lot of research done re: domestication, dogs, and the domestication of dogs. Dogs have been fundamentally altered, it is NOT just socialization. It is genetic.

Again, this is what I'm challenging, the "it's all in the genes, it's genetic," assertion.

Domestication is a different process. Dogs are domesticated, NOT just socialized wolves. If you take a wolf cub and raise it you still get a wolf (and they can be dangerous, I would NOT want one). A puppy, even if poorly socialized, fundamentally understands humans in ways that are astounding. There has been a lot of research to this end. You may hate dogs, you might disagree with every researcher and geneticist, but there is a clear cut difference between domesticated and wild animals, and the proof is in the genes. It doesn't get any deeper than that, so yes - I am certain your are wrong in your opinions about domestication because there is a difference between genetically altered (the definition of domestication) and socialization.

On a genetic level any 'domesticated' dog shares roughly 99.8% of it's DNA with that of a wolf. In every physiological sense dogs and wolves are virtually identical to the point where domesticated dogs have been used as physiological models in the studies of wolves in terms of wolf bodily processes. Dogs have also been classified as Canis lupus familiaris, the same species as wolves. By every scientific, physiological, genetic, anatomical and evolutionary standpoint, dogs are merely 'domesticated' or socialized wolves. Also, when wolf and dog genomes have been compared, there has appeared to be a link to a gene called WBSCR17 which causes Williams-Beuren syndrome in humans, which is characterized by "elfin features" and abnormal behavior described as being "overly friendly and trusting of strangers." I'm not really seeing how exactly domestication, truly, on a genetic level, differentiates itself from socialization or 'taming.'

I also disagree that all researchers and geneticists assert your argument as if they were some homogeneous entity. That's borderline argumentum ad populum and ad verecundiam.

I would highly suggest watching the documentary Dogs Decoded (a Nova special). Heck, I think it's on Netflix, should you have access to that.

It sounds vaguely familiar but I might give it a look over.

Can you tell me what your job is that you meet so many aggressive dogs?

I'm a door-to-door salesman.

Your own body language may be triggering behavior from dogs you don't like.

Valid point.

I can understand you don't like dogs, but you should also understand that you may be coming at this from a severe bias. That doesn't mean you have to like them, but you can't acknowledge what is already known about them.

I fully admit and understand this and have probably stated as such previously, though I'm not entirely sure if I did or not. Anyhow, I do.

I would also like to direct you to the domesticated fox project.

So, essentially what these "researchers," are trying to do is create/replicate behavioral disorders? Am I understanding this correctly? I don't really see how this negates my point. I also would like a link to such studies and or analysis of this 'project.'

This was done in part to make it easier to handle furbearing animals and partially to study how wolves were domesticated. They started by picking up meat scraps from primitive humans, and as those wolves were around eachother, they bred. The pups were raised around people, and also bred. Eventually the wolves were friendly enough to become primitive pets, and were taken in by tribes. The tribes then crossed them and continued the cycle, until we ended up with dogs.

The above seems to mainly be describing and dealing with socialization and not something genetically that differentiates X from it's 'wild' counterparts. I also talk about the connection between dogs and wolves as well in the above portion of this post. If you put a 'domesticated' dog breed into the wild, let it be raised in the wild, it will be 'wild' and we call such dogs 'feral' or 'strays.' Why is this? They will be virtually identical to other breeds of dog whom are classified as being 'wild.' It's even been documented that stray dogs will even form packs and behave the exact same as their 'wild' counterparts.

 

[ShredderEmp]

Can you tell me what your job is that you meet so many aggressive dogs? My family is mostly police, they meet a LOT of bad dogs as a direct result. If you can't discuss that I understand - but it seems to me you've met an unusually large population of aggressive and untrained dogs/guard dogs/etc.

I get his fear if he's from Detroit because from my understanding parts of Detroit have ferrel dogs that have cases where they are responsible for killing people. I'm not sure if it still exists, but that was once the case.

 

[1Lord Of Ants1]

From what I've seen from the first few posts, I would think it's a no-brainer that the OP is just here to blow off some steam, or to prove some unseen personal point. This person obviously has some sort of beef with "man's best friend", probably because said OP already stated having been bitten by dogs several times. You don't just join an arachnid-based forum, to end up bashing dogs on your very first post minutes later. If you're here to have a civalized, decent chat with others about the topic of domestication and how drastic/not drastic of a difference a dog is from a hyena/wolf, than this is the place. If you're simpy here to shove your opinions in others' faces about how horrible dogs are, that they bite, are stupid, smell, with little fact or reason to back up your statments (Which is certainly the vibe I got from your first few posts) than I suggest you leave.

Otherwise, this would be an interesting topic to keep posted too.

 

[Yehecatl Quipol]

I think it's a no-brainer that the OP is just here to blow off some steam, or to prove some unseen personal point. This person obviously has some sort of beef with "man's best friend", probably because said OP already stated having been bitten by dogs several times. You don't just join an arachnid-based forum, to end up bashing dogs on your very first post minutes later. If you're here to have a civalized, decent chat with others about the topic of domestication and how drastic of a difference a dog is from a hyena/wolf, than this is the place. If you're simpy here to shove your opinions in others' faces about how horrible dogs are, that they bite, are stupid, smell, with little fact or reason to back up your statments (Which is certainly the vibe I got from your first few posts) than I suggest you leave.

Apparently you've read none of the above, at all, whatsoever. My first post was my intro, if I'm not mistaken. Also, it was in one thread in which in said thread I also then elaborated upon and clarified my OP. I have posted in other non-related threads since. Had you been following the conversation, you would have seen this. I don't have a 'beef' with dogs, I simply don't like them. I'm not here to 'blow off some steam' (within the context of which your speaking about, if I'm reading you correctly) and I've already stated my point and we've moved on from said point on to the topic at hand which was somewhat related but not really, hence it's own thread. If you have something to contribute other than ad hominems then by all means, if not, then don't derail. Also, my opinions are based upon objective data, reason and simple logic, again, had you been following the conversation, you would have seen this.

I understand the knee-jerk "he hates puppies!" reactions tho. I'm just sayin

 

[Niffarious]

So there are a few important points here. I initially thought you might be in repo or something like that, but the reactions you get based on your profession make sense. I would react the same way, or stronger, to a salesman at my door as compared to a telemarketer. A person's dog is going to react strongly to the fact that their owner is upset or unsettled, and upset due what they are now perceiving as an unwanted intruder - who is showing signs of being hostile to them, the dog. It's an unfortunate mix.

If people come up to me while I am walking my dogs, they are happy to meet a new person if I am relaxed. If I am tense and clearly troubled, they bark at that person. I don't even have to give a command. This is not just because they know me either - when I first adopted my second whippet, I took my dogs for a walk. Flint, the adopted dog, was happy to meet all my friends in the neighbourhood. As it fell dark, someone who was either on drugs or mentally troubled started to come at me. Flint was instantly protective, and drove him off.


I can't argue the genetics any further. If you choose not to believe the science, that is up to you. It's the 0.02% that makes the difference. The very definition of domestication is changing the animals/plants genetically. To tame is simply to make them used to humans. The difference is huge. Domestication is selective breeding, essentially forcing evolution. You can argue that this isn't true, but it's proven - much like we know grass is green. To be clear, I'm not trying to be snide - just illustrate the fact that this science is known and well studied. You say your opinions are based on objective data, however: You do not seem to understand what domestication actually is compared to taming/socialization, or the genetics at work and how they work. Your experiences with dogs are also situational, and going to lead you to vastly more negative situations than most of the population due to your occupation.

Dogs have been our companions, guards, workers, and fellow hunters for tens of thousands of years - if you still think that is just 'tamed beats' we unfortunately don't have much more to debate.

However, to help you with your situation, it might be worth reading up on dog body language and perhaps even talking with a dog behavioural therapist or trainer so that they can see how you are around them and give you pointers on how to alter your own body language/cues so that you can avoid further altercations in the future on the job. Might even be handy if fido starts to wag instead of bark.

 

[The Snark]

Animals sense something. Far beyond body language. Many of us have seen a dog take a dislike to a person that has given the dog no reason to act that way.
But what exemplifies the sense factor for me was with horses. I had 26 head, geldings and mares in a main corral and 3 stallions in their own corrals on the far side. The stallions would of course fight with each other and act like knotheads, bully the geldings and so on.
One day I had to bring my partner, a mustang stallion, into the pack station. He was still wild and he and I worked together would best describe. About 5 seconds after he came out of the trailer ALL the horses, including the stallions nearly 100 feet away, had backed up against the far side railings of the corrals. What they picked up on, sensed, saw, smelled, whatever, I have no idea but they innately knew my pard was the equine equivalent of a homicidal maniac.

 

[Moonfall]

Snark, sounds like my horse. He's a proud cut stud (the other testical is retained in the abdomen so he is sterile) and he is a jerk. We make a lovely team though and I adore him. But he can sense from a mile away when someone means harm and he's extremely aggressive. Like, takes the bit out of my hands, rears, and attacks aggressive. He's protected me a number of times from people who might otherwise have hurt me or a mounted friend. (my friends all ride mares who, although they might kick and bite, are nothing like my horse when it comes to protecting us.) He's also aggressive with other males, he's gotten into fights a few times and he breeds mares if given half a chance.

My other pets are the same. If my dog, cats, ferrets, chickens, or bird are hostile, I know there's a reason for it, although I trust the horse above all else because we are so close. I listen to them because they know better than I do whether I am in danger or not, and they are GOOD at it.

If you are hostile dogs (or anything else) will be hostile back. Also, don't make eye contact, it's a challenge.

Most people don't like salesman, I don't. Our dogs know and they want them gone because we do. Soften yourself. Learn to not give off an "I hate dogs" vibe. You might have better luck.

I do know that not a single animal here is anything less than my partner, my friend. Most of them would kill or die for me. They are not monsters or tamed beasts (okay a few are definitely tamed beasts), they are like family, an army of things that love me. They are loyal, intelligent, and the single most powerful force I will ever have in terms of protection. There is no one, NO ONE, who would ever stand up to my horse when he rears up, screams, and charges with intent to kill, believe me he did it to me once as a challenge to my dominance, and I never want to see it again. Or my rooster (8 pounds of get the heck away, no one else can open the door to his pen without injury, fun fun!), or anything else that came at them, likely as a herd of angry beasts, to get rid of them. I have never seen such loyalty from a human, and I value their friendship above all else. You don't have to like my dog. But he won't like you either.

 

[Tarac]

Agree with Niffarious 100%. You can hate dogs and have bad interactions with them, that's fine. But there is no way to argue with data regarding domestication as an entirely genetic process. For dogs specifically it relates to flight-or-fight mechanism and the gene which regulates the output levels of adrenaline and associated hormones. It also happens to be on a locus that controls several other qualities that turn the wolf into what we know as a dog, and foxes for that matter- change in ears, coat color, tail conformation, a whole host of behavioral qualities like vocalization, the ability to "triangulate" using ocular cues, on and on. A very famous Russian experiment which is long term and still going on today, with an extremely thorough and well documented dataset using foxes exists, I think you should familiarize yourself with it before jumping to conclusions about what researchers say. They do indeed ALL agree on the controls domestication in dogs, it's not even a debatable issue. Dogs are one of the best studied animals on earth, because unlike chimps and parrots and all other "interactive" animals (and of course animals that don't interact at all) they are very willing to participate in whatever their owner's want to do. Basically what fundamentally happens when a wolf is domesticated is that it becomes less excitable (i.e. less violent of an adrenaline response, so takes more to evoke bite or run response). They are more or less permanent puppies relative to their wolf counterparts. It is predictable by looking at genetics, 100%, not just nurture or even in utero conditions. All of this has been tested and verified over and over. The dismissal of this indicates a lack of understanding or lack of exposure to this information, regardless of whether or not you like dogs. Liking them is one thing, understanding what happens when you domesticate an organism and why that warrants a new specific epithet is a whole other beast, pun intended. 0.02% genetic difference can have profound effects. Look at how many types of disorders people get that completely change they way they are able to function socially due to a single small mutation in genes. They are still people, but there are fundamental differences in the way they are capable of interacting. Add a little more difference and you go from human to non-human primate, right?

The show mentioned, dogs decoded, and a series of other good programs can explain in layman's terms very quickly what that all entails. Or you can look up the literature, it graces the pages of a great deal of highly reputable and technical journals spanning many decades. Wolf pups are almost immediately different than dog puppies- they are self interested, aggressive, disobedient, almost un-trainable. They don't make eye contact, they fight over anything they want, they do not have a range of vocalizations that characterize their intent, on and on and on. All of this happens when a single gene is selected for, it's really quite astounding and at the same time verifiable. The puppy and then the dog will always look to numero uno (be it other dog in feral populations or the human "master") for directional cues, are eager to please the alpha and will self-sacrifice to the benefit of that social unit- something unheard of in wolves, who will kill and eat their own if they are given the opportunity to usurp authority or somehow gain an advantage over resources, mating rights, etc. Dogs are social to an extent that wolves can never be, regardless of how extensive the training is.

This is why they are "man's best friend." Maybe not all man's best friend, but the potential exists and as such they were integral to our own evolution and success as a species. The dog is no small thing, just like the banana or milk from domestic cattle. They literally changed in a very dramatic way due to their usefulness to us and in turn we changed dramatically. That's what people are taking issue with- you can dismiss them as your best friend, but you cannot ignore the potential which is there whether or not you choose to be involved with them personally.

I did also think maybe you were trolling in the other forum and didn't bother to respond at the time because of that. To say inverts are cooler and smarter than "man's best friend" can ever seemed completely out of nowhere in the discussion and is a strange assertion considering that, no matter how you think of them, a dog at least has a brain where tarantulas do not. Dogs are trainable, tarantulas are not. Etc. etc. Anyway, it's not a good comparison because they are completely different organisms that cannot be measured with the same tests. They are both fascinating animals for their own reasons. I respect all orders of life and find them all fascinating if you investigate hard enough, even centipedes which give me the creeps . But you have to open to the possibility that the behavior you are encountering might be a result of your presence or carefully tailored evolution or something outside of "animal tries to bite me, therefor it must be dumb." Maybe dog sees you as invader/threat to owner and is willing to take you on, risk life and limb, because it has such regard for its owner- because its genetics have created such a strong social tendancy that its loyalties can and will cross species.

 

[The Snark]

Or another inexplicable aspect of animals. Sense of direction. And, as others have mentioned, this applies to only certain animals.

My ex's dog had been driven in a vehicle ONCE out to the stables. Several months later he was removed with the family to Claremont Calif. He escaped that night and turned up at the stables the next morning in Simi Valley. 50 miles of Los Angeles suburbs. How?

I rode my horse out in a giant loop from near Whitney portals to near Yosemite swinging on back on the western side of the Sierras where we had never been. 4 days and 150 miles out I gave the horse it's head in the evening. In complete darkness it picked out the trails, even breaking into a trot and canter. Come dawn I was completely lost and just let him do his thing. Come noon we cut through a canyon and suddenly were were back at a familiar trail with Whitney to the left. He didn't head back to the origin trail head but cut south 20 miles to trails we knew. 75 miles in 18 hours mostly in the dark on strange trails. How?

 

[ShredderEmp]

My cats would constantly cross town while our house was being renovated. They would cross the busiest road in town also. They always ended up back at our house. They are outdoor cats though.

 

[Louise E. Rothstein]

Farley Mowat reports that wolves do have highly expressive voices...but not with us.
They employ their voices with each other.

Why? They are social.
They are very social.
But not with us.

Lois Crisler reports that wolves do make eye contact: but they do it so briefly that humans miss it who do not know.

It is difficult for people to "link eyes" in the way that wolves will.

Dogs are much easier for people to talk to.

They do adapt to eye contact our way.

So dogs do appear to be more "social" to people.

And the right word IS "appear."

It is not the whole truth.