The truth about dogs....

[DryCreek]

Though an older article (1999), I feel it's worth sharing. It's 5 pages long but worth the read in my opinion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199907/dog-genetics

Enjoy I did

[Amstaffer]

Starts out by using the word parasite....A parasite has no return and often harms the "host". The dog is no parasite, they do a bunch of jobs for us and give us much needed mental health help in the form of companionship.

I also think that much of the explaining away (of behaviors) is done by Academics that wish to discount a Dogs intentions to remove some of their nobility and thus continue to justify their inferiority and maintain humans right to exploit.

You can use all the same Psychological babble (I teach Psychology) to explain away and positive or negative human behavior. We all do what we do because of past or present stimulus, it doesn't matter if you are dog or human. Both of us are social creatures and many of the positive things we are because social creatures need to help each other to survive. This should not distract from the nobility of man or DOG.

The rest of the story is very good, especially the end about genetics and how to "fix" problems.

[Boemy]

Amen, Amstaff.

Also, pet dogs with no "job", far from being "parasites", clearly do fulfill needs in their owners. They entertain us. Is entertainment worthless? Let's ask the multi-billion dollar movie industry. They play with us. Is playtime worthless? Let's ask the multi-billion dollar video game industry. They love us. Is love worthless? I invite the writer to tell his wife so. I'm sure he'll enjoy sleeping on the couch. After all, a couch has a solid, concrete worth, unlike entertainment, play, or love.

[jason_els]

I just wrote this in another post. I know it's bad form to cross-post but the term, parasite is used incorrectly in this article. Parasites do nothing for their host. The more appropriate term would have been, symbiant.

Dogs were the very first animal to partner with humans, probably over 12,000 years ago.

Dogs guard our homes.
Dogs nanny our children.
Dogs pull our carts.
Dogs guard our livestock.
Dogs herd our livestock.
Dogs retrieve our game.
Dogs help us chase our game.
Dogs help us find our game.
Dogs help us lure our game.
Dogs help us hear when we cannot.
Dogs help us see when we cannot.
Dogs help us diagnose disease before any doctor can.
Dogs help us know when we are about to have seizures.
Dogs help us have hands when ours do not function.
Dogs help us fight in war.
Dogs help us in scientific research.
Dogs help us explore space.
Dogs help us explore new lands.
Dogs help us feel loved when no person will.
Dogs help us rid our homes of vermin.
Dogs help us kill animals dangerous to our livestock.
Dogs help us keep from being lonely.
Dogs help us feel like we have children when we do not.
Dogs help us find the lost, the injured, and recover the dead.
Dogs help us search for drugs.
Dogs help us search for explosives.
Dogs help us police our towns and cities.
Dogs help us compete in sports.
Dogs help us look and feel better about ourselves.
Dogs help us win contests.
Dogs help us earn money.
Dogs help us perform and entertain.

Dogs do not care if we are disabled or deformed.
Dogs do not care what color we are.
Dogs do not care about our religion.
Dogs do not care about what we wear.
Dogs do not care about our sexual orientation.
Dogs do not care about our politics.
Dogs do not care about our nationality.
Dogs do not care about our ethnic origin.

Dogs have rescued, with no thought to their own safety or mortality, more human lives than any other animal. In recognition of this, many countries have instituted civic and military awards for dogs, have erected monuments in their memory.

No animal deserves to be treated badly, however I believe dogs deserve a special consideration for all they have done and continue to do for us.

[Boemy]

*applauds!*

Here's something I specifically take issue with from the article:

Or consider the countless stories about dogs that have "saved" people. In fact dogs have no particular instinct to save people and no particular understanding that that is what they are doing even when they do it. Search-and-rescue dogs are trained by exploiting the instinct to retrieve thrown objects. They are trained to fetch. And they are trained to fetch one toy only. Once they master that, they are ready for the next step: A person takes the toy and hides; the dog is encouraged to find—well, his toy. When he finds the "victim," the dog is rewarded by getting his toy. At actual disaster scenes trainers get someone to go and hide with the dog's toy several times a day, so that the dog can score a few successes and not become frustrated.

Basically he's saing "dogs don't 'rescue' people we just exploit their retrieving instincts ololol!"

Well . . .

"Worf" located the bodies of two missing firefighters on the first day. Overwhelmed, he lay down and curled up on the spot. The dog began shedding profusely, quit eating and refused to play with other dogs. His partner Mike Owens made the decision to retire the 12-year-old German Shepherd from search-and-rescue duty permanently. They are now back at home in Monroe, Ohio, where the entire town takes turns petting and playing with Worf.

Wow, if only his partner had known that the dog wasn't depressed because he was finding cadavers, he just wanted to play with his toy. *sarcasm*

We do ascribe human motivations to animals and sometimes we're wrong . . . like the crazy lady with the pittie who said he was "protecting her" from strange dogs when he was actually just dog aggressive.

But sometimes it's because humans and animals ARE very similar. Duh, we're all related, we're all mammals, it would be more surprising if we didn't have any common ground. Anyone who thinks a dog doesn't have the capacity to think, feel, or love . . . well, those people must be stupid. Anyone who thinks dogs haven't been a great benefit to humanity to a whole . . . they must be even dumber, as there are clear, quantifiable ways that dogs have helped us. If they hadn't helped us to begin with we wouldn't have domesticated them. Our ancestors way-back-when were in a struggle for survival; they were neither frivolous nor sentimental. They wouldn't have any truck with an animal that wouldn't be useful--either to eat or to fill some other need. (Who knows, maybe we started eating dogs first and then found other uses for them.)

Thus dogs were domesticated while we were still hunter gatherers while cats and ferrets were domesticated much later, after the beginning of agriculture, when ratters were needed. People probably always found kittens cute, but they didn't start keeping cats around until they served a purpose.

Just because modern, Western society goes "dogs, awww" does not mean that cavemen would react the same way. That is not the BASIS for our relationship with dogs. It is a RESULT of our relationship with dogs.

If dogs are "parasites" because they live comfortably without working, I wonder how the author feels about the severely mentally retarded? Or, indeed, babies? Boy, those babies are awful. They cry and wake us up and use up our resources and eventually we have to pay for their schooling, braces, doctor bills . . . They don't pay the bills, they just generate bills. Stupid babies.

[Groch]

Perhaps I am giving the author credit he does not deserve, but I thought he used the term parasite tongue-in-cheek - in the context of his own dog sleeping on the heater and stealing his morning toast, so my take was he meant it the same way our kids are "parasites". In any event, the phrase was a very minor point in a thorough, interesting and probably controversial article. Thank you very much for referencing it (it is probably more apt as a Dog Breeding topic than news).


His point that many dog behaviors that we think of as indicative near human emotions and intelligence (guarding and owner, saving a child) are better explained as gene driven behaviors is facinating.

He also makes a strong case that hybrid vigor really does exist (in the larger scale if not at the individual puppy level) and that it is not so much breeding for a particular trait that causes so many health problems with pure bred, but instead breeding from a tiny pool of "champions".

I thought his remark that the gene that causes show dogs to hold their heads and tails up in the ring could well be the same gene that causes aggression makes an interesting point.

The converse of that argument...I thought it was fantastic that the Westminster Best in Show this year is also a registered therapy dog. Perhaps we would have fewer dog aggression issues if they added a "talent" portion of the Westminster show, just like they do for Miss America

[jason_els]

I posted an article here about a Newfie that spontaneously rescued another dog trapped in a well. This dog wasn't trained in rescue and indeed wasn't being called upon do anything. The Newfie just bolted from his owner and ran to the other dog's aid. He had never met the other dog before and neither the Newfie nor his owner knew there was another dog in trouble.

I don't know how else to describe this behavior other than as altruistic. I'm not an animal behaviorist though I do know Newfies were bred to enhance the omega behaviors and perhaps this had a hand in things. I don't know, but I do know that given our thousands of years of mutual interaction I wouldn't be surprised that dogs have become attuned to our behaviors better than other animals. I worked in a zoo and, other than the primates and some of the birds, the animals just don't have the same connection. That in itself says something. We think we're handicapped when it comes to communicating with dogs. I'm reading books on canine behavior and for as much as behaviorists believe we don't communicate well with dogs, I have to say they're light years closer than with just about any other animal save other primates. If we think communicating with dogs is tough, try convincing just about any other animal to do on command what we ask our dogs to do. We have a huge array of duties for them to perform requiring them to be aggressive or passive, independent or surrendered. Yes we can train horses and pigs and other domestic animals, but none to such a varied extent. We communicate very well with dogs on an interspecies level.

[Groch]

Originally Posted by jason_els

I posted an article here about a Newfie that spontaneously rescued another dog trapped in a well. This dog wasn't trained in rescue and indeed wasn't being called upon do anything. The Newfie just bolted from his owner and ran to the other dog's aid. He had never met the other dog before and neither the Newfie nor his owner knew there was another dog in trouble.......I don't know how else to describe this behavior other than as altruistic......

Coincidentally, the author of this article provides another explanation for this exact behavior in Newfies...that is, rescuing things from water (in your example an abandoned water tank)

He writes: Other "rescuing" behavior in dogs is an even simpler matter. Newfoundlands and other water retrievers will bring anything they can out of the water. Often Newfoundland owners cannot swim with their dogs, because the dogs keep pulling them to shore.