Can Man Be A Dogs Best Friend

[Sarah L]

What have we learned about dog behaviour? Is it solely that we own dogs and so thus have the right to impose upon them what we wish, because we think they are there to serve some purpose for us. Or is it that they joined us in domestication to provide something we lacked in our own survival instincts. In so doing this did they join us to teach us something but we have not listened.?

I have asked these questions because I am very interested in what people get dogs for and what they think is right for the dog. Would you ever consider a dog may know what is right for you?

[Erny]

I'm not sure what you're trying to ponder here.

Evolution?

Habituation and survival?

Something spiritual?

Perhaps if you explain further, Pinnacle?

Edited July 31, 2007 by Erny

[Staranais]

Why did dogs get domesticated? Apparently the best accepted recent theory is that in the beginning dogs actually started to domesticate themselves (certain brave or desperate wolves attached themselves to the perimeter of human settlements so they could scavenge around our rubbish dumps) and we completed the domestication process after noticing how useful they were (watchdog barking, help with hunting, etc). Which sounds plausible to me.

What have we learned about dog behaviour? I think we have learned quite a lot over the years just from observation and interaction with dogs. But more importantly I think our two species naturally get on rather well simply because we are very similar - early humans and wolves had similar social structures, similar foraging patterns, communicate in similar ways - so it's not too big a stretch to learn to communicate with each other. Plus from what I've read during domestication dogs have also changed genetically so that they're keen to make contact with humans and better at recognising human expressions than wolves are (read a study about that once but seem to have lost it, sorry!)

Don't understand the rest of your post, sorry.

[Vickie]

What have we learned about dog behaviour?

I think we have learnt that dogs behaviour is a combination of genetics & environment. As time goes by we (as humans) are changing both these aspects of the species. Through our selective breeding we are changing the makeup of dogs both physically & emotionally. Attributing human emotions to a dog can only be a bad thing. Dogs are dogs & think very differently to us & lots of people find it hard to accept this. I don't think they have the complex reasoning ability that many people seem to think they have.

Is it solely that we own dogs and so thus have the right to impose upon them what we wish, because we think they are there to serve some purpose for us.

In reality, I think the answer is Yes. I don't think this necessarily should be the answer but I don't see how we could go back either. We do own our dogs & what they do IS dependent on what we wish. They serve many purposes both as companions and as workers, but I do not see how they could exist now if not for their dependence on us & ours on them.

Or is it that they joined us in domestication to provide something we lacked in our own survival instincts. In so doing this did they join us to teach us something but we have not listened.?

I think we have a lot to learn from dogs, but don't really subscribe to the "higher purpose thing" (I never believe in that kind of stuff). Saying that, my dogs have taught me a lot about being a better (human) parent, I am learning to dedicate myself to a task to achieve goals, I am learning that subtlety is often more effective than the alternative. I want to be as forgiving as my dogs and I envy them their ability to judge character. I want to take simple joy in simple things as they do & not overthink everything. I would love to live my life with the same set of basic rules that they do theirs.

I have asked these questions because I am very interested in what people get dogs for and what they think is right for the dog. Would you ever consider a dog may know what is right for you?

I got my dogs as companions. I like to train & compete in sports/activities with them & they like it too. I try to do the best I can for them in terms of nutrition, physical & mental needs. No I don't think a dog knows what is right for me in general terms, but I do think they are more perceptive about us than we give them credit for.

Hope this makes sense, it's a very philosophical set of questions.

[Sarah L]

Hi All,

Thank you for your posts so far, the reason I started this topic was for people to post what they think about dog behaviour and to get more opinions on why people have dogs what they do with them and what lessons we can learn from each other on how dogs live together and how we live together. I would like this thread to be an open discussion on what we have learned and how we have applied what we have learned to living with dogs, and not on one particular method, tool or belief. You never know we might learn more from it. This topic is not for getting into an argument about one way being better than another.

Vickie and Amahailte, your posts were just the kind of posts I was hoping for Thanks.

I hope this makes things clearer as it was late last night when I had this idea

[Lablover]

Ray Coppinger's book covers this topic very well. Fills many chapters.

[sidoney]

Thanks for the name, Lablover. I had a quick read of a couple of items after Googling including this interview. I noticed a reference on that page to Marc Bekoff - recently I attended a public lecture of his, in Hobart, and had a conversation with him on the following day - I was attending a conference, the main focus of which was human-animal relations. It was a very stimulating conference.

As far as why people have dogs goes, I was just having a discussion about this today (in part). I think there are a number of reasons why people have dogs and a number of things that they want to get out of it. I think that it's likely that they fall into some patterns of ideas, clusters of ideas and practice if you like, that include why have a dog, what they do with it, the care (or not) they take of it, and so on.

I know why I have them - for companionship, I consider them a part of the family, I consider them as creatures with needs beyond the physical, I try to understand them, I try to help them to understand me. That's a part of it.

As to why people have dogs who just chuck them out the back and ignore them thereafter, apart from feeding them (usually not healthily), I don't know that.

I hope to learn more over the next couple of years as these sorts of questions are relevant to my doctoral research topic.

Edited August 2, 2007 by sidoney

[Rom]

Ok, if you really want to be bored by some phylisophical wanderings of an idle mind (I don't have T.V. :D ), I'll take us a little off topic but I promise I'll wander back on track.

When many people ponder on dog behaviour, they cite references from wolf behaviours or as I've learned recently from DOL, Jackal behaviours.

Sometimes I think its easier to understand the mind of a dog if you go back way further than that. The single celled amoeba (here in after referred to as SCA) that mutated and started crawling out of the pond at the dawn of time. (Did I just hear some chuckles of disbelief ) By the way, I hope the Creationists on DOL don't take offense at this post.

So....dogs and humans have a common ancestor.

One of the things that I find interesting is that while dogs and humans have both grown brains and developed central nervous systems, psychologically dogs have remained similar to the SCA in that they survived by being reactive to the environment and how changes in the environment affected the pressure for survival. The mind of the dog is similarly reactive today.

While humans have developed an analytical mind, they still have the remnants of the primitive reactive mind. This is evident in modern day humans who still live in primitive human tribes and is evidenced by their highly suspicous nature. One story I remember reading was of a tribe that ventured to the sea for the very first time and caught and ate fish. At the same time there was an outbreak of leprosy in the tribe. To them, the fish caused the leprosy. To a reactive mind, all the things that happen together are equal. So to this tribe fish = leprosy=threat to survival.

Humans that live in modern societies who have had the benefit of education to help develop the analytical mind would question the above and test their theories.

However, educated humans in modern societies are not totally free of the effects of the primitive reactive mind. We revert to the reactive mind during times of great stress, shock or trauma. Its a survival mechanism. To a child that is abused by someone wearing a particular scent, the reactive mind might record scent=abuse=threat to survival to memory and they may have stressed reactions to the scent alone because all the elements are equal in the reactive mind. The analytical mind can separate the elements and deal with them individually, but the analytical mind is like a powerful and fragile super computer and the reactive mind is its protection or safety cut off switch during traumatic times.

The reactive mind can work in the positive sense too in that all things that promote survival and that happen at the same time can be recorded as being equal.

I think that understanding how the reactive mind works really helps to understand the mind of the dog. Not only that, but since humans have remnants of the reactive mind, perhaps thats is why we are so attracted to dogs as well as the fact that they have similar social behaviours and like similar pack structures to us? Perhaps we see something of ourselves in them? Maybe somewhere deep in our genetic code there are memories of times when our mind was just as primitive and we only had a reactive mind too? I wonder if dogs and our human ancestors started to come together when we were more of a similar mind so to speak? And while we have developed in the mental sense, they have stayed the same?

I wonder if the point at which man stops being dogs best friend is when we mistakenly believe or expect that somewhere in there is an analytical mind?

Edited August 2, 2007 by Rom

[Erny]

I wonder if the point at which man stops being dogs best friend is when we mistakenly believe or expect that somewhere in there is an analytical mind?

Which is often where we 'humanise' them.

Great post, Rom.

I love phylosophy :D

[Sarah L]

I was talking to some friends the other day, who told me a story about what one of their dogs did one day. Firstly it had me :p

What happened was my friends went out one day and were always leaving the back door open with the screen door shut but not locked. When they got back home and went outside to see the dogs, greeted them normally, but one of them sluncked away you know the way a dog does when someones says, (he/she knew they did wrong). Well my friend could not understand why the dog had done this. When they went back inside they noticed that the meat they had left to defrost on the kitchen bench for dinner that night was gone and the wrapping was no where to be found. They went back out side and looked everywhere. They found the wrapping hidden behind a bush in the garden

The dog had opened the screen door gone in got the meat from the kitchen bench taken it out side, either eaten the meat and then put the wrapper behind the bush or eaten the meat behind the bush so no one could see. We will never really know which. My friends never used corrections with their dogs, which is why they did not understand the dogs sluncking away in the first place.

This got me thinking was this purely a reactive mind or was there some reasoning on the dogs part to be able to do what it did. If it was purely reactive why did the dog not eat the meat and leave the wrapper on the kitchen floor.

Either way I hope you all find this story as funny as I did. ;)

[Erny]

This got me thinking was this purely a reactive mind or was there some reasoning on the dogs part to be able to do what it did. If it was purely reactive why did the dog not eat the meat and leave the wrapper on the kitchen floor.

Could it be that this dog was still 'in the act' of going to eat the meat behind the bush when he heard the owner come home?

[Tapferhund]

Well I have been living with dogs for thirty years now and been witness to many amazing things and I'll say this.....dogs are far more knowing and far more intelligent than we humans give them credit for.

Good topic Pinnacle and I did enjoy your story.

[Rom]

I wonder if the point at which man stops being dogs best friend is when we mistakenly believe or expect that somewhere in there is an analytical mind?

Which is often where we 'humanise' them.

:p Great post, Rom.

I love phylosophy

Thanks Erny :-)

Thanks too for pointing me in the right direction as to the spelling of phylosophy!

I was talking to some friends the other day, who told me a story about what one of their dogs did one day. Firstly it had me ;)

What happened was my friends went out one day and were always leaving the back door open with the screen door shut but not locked. When they got back home and went outside to see the dogs, greeted them normally, but one of them sluncked away you know the way a dog does when someones says, (he/she knew they did wrong). Well my friend could not understand why the dog had done this. When they went back inside they noticed that the meat they had left to defrost on the kitchen bench for dinner that night was gone and the wrapping was no where to be found. They went back out side and looked everywhere. They found the wrapping hidden behind a bush in the garden

The dog had opened the screen door gone in got the meat from the kitchen bench taken it out side, either eaten the meat and then put the wrapper behind the bush or eaten the meat behind the bush so no one could see. We will never really know which. My friends never used corrections with their dogs, which is why they did not understand the dogs sluncking away in the first place.

This got me thinking was this purely a reactive mind or was there some reasoning on the dogs part to be able to do what it did. If it was purely reactive why did the dog not eat the meat and leave the wrapper on the kitchen floor.

Either way I hope you all find this story as funny as I did.

Plenty of things could cause the 'sluncking'....

How do we know that it was actually the dog displaying this body language that actually ate the meat? Maybe it was actually one of the other dogs, and the other dog was giving the slunking dog the 'eye' to stay away from the 'treasure' and the slunking dog is offering appeasement?

Maybe there had been a challenge over the meat or licking rights to the left over packaging?

My dog slinks...bridging, tail btn legs etc when she's been bitten by a green ant.

Perhaps the meat ended up behind the bush instead of being eaten in the kitchen because the dog that originally took it was trying to keep it away from the other dogs and there was a bit of a chase?

Or maybe the meat was eaten in the kitchen, and another dog carried the packaging out to give it a good licking over?

Too many possibilities for me to attribute the dogs actions to reasoning.

EFS

Edited August 4, 2007 by Rom

[Erny]

Thanks too for pointing me in the right direction as to the spelling of phylosophy!

Yeah - well it would have been good had I been right!!! Been making a few errors of late. And too lazy to go check first. Naughty .... and not like me because I really dislike spelling errors.

Philosophy is the correct spelling.

Now - thanks for picking me up on it. :p

[Rom]

Thanks too for pointing me in the right direction as to the spelling of phylosophy!

Yeah - well it would have been good had I been right!!! Been making a few errors of late. And too lazy to go check first. Naughty .... and not like me because I really dislike spelling errors.

Philosophy is the correct spelling.

Now - thanks for picking me up on it.

Ok...but since its about dogs, I've decided to go with Philospuppy ;)

[Tonymc]

There is always the old Debate about whether we adopted Dogs or they adopted us.None of us can go back and see so it remains open ended.On another line of thought it may also have been a simultaneous adoption by both Parties.

We all know there was benefit for both sides.Food and Shelter for the Dog and a Hunting Aid for Man.I can see how the channeling of Prey Drive began.This Channeling led to formation of types and or Breeds further down the Track.Early Man would have noticed with the Wolves the common ground amongst the pack and yet at the same time the many differences between Pack Members.I am sure Man noticed how every Pack Member whilst acting in unison whilst Hunting, still had their own individual specialised role to play.Some of the Wolves to use an example would have been more adept at retrieving small Game and thus further down the Track evolved into retrieving Breeds.

An ironic part of the whole situation is that, yes Early Man was not as evolved as much as the Human of today.Despite early Mans level of Evolvement he would have lived with and participated in many Dog activitys related to hunting and survival.The Ironic part is I am sure some Early Humans due to their hands on involvement with Dogs,had more knowledge of Dog behaviour than some that I encounter in the Present Day.

I am sure if a group of Humans from that early came for a Visit to modern Day Society they would shake their Heads and or grunt in dismay!!!!!They would be looking at some of the Dogs that are being bred today and wonder why the Hell!!!!I could imagine them thinking why would you breed Dogs that cannot Breathe,are not sound and could not survive without being propped up by Humans.

Early Man had the best Breed standard I have ever seen and one that will never be surpassed!!!!Early Man used Natures breed Standard to brilliant effect.Early Man continually tested his Dogs in the natural World and this ensured the best survived to continue evolving.Sadly Natures Breed Standard is now paid very little attention to.Many modern Day dogs if shown in the Showring of Nature,would be culled.

Man and Dog have lived side by side now for along time and will continue to do so.One would have expected over time for Mans knowledge of Dogs to expand and in my eyes did so up to a cetain time.Now though I see a decline in true knowledge of Dogs as less and less People have hands on involvement and or less and less work or utilise Dogs as part of their livelyhood. Tony

[Sarah L]

Tony, I would like to say thanks for a great post. When I started this topic, what you have said is what I had at the back of my mind, I do feel the breeding standard of dogs today has declined dramatically, which was my point about do we have dogs today to impose upon them what we wish. I wish this could change but not sure it ever will.

I feel their is one glamour of hope in this area and it lies with the breeding of dogs to be able detect, cancers, epilepsy, dogs for the blind which we know is vital to that person haveing quality of life, dogs for the disabled and deaf and so on. Because less people own farms today in which to utilise dogs in there livly hood, then this I feel would be a good alternative. There are so many areas today in which dogs are utilized in the professional services, search and rescue and so on just goes to show that they are still a vital part of our lives. Also the companion dogs who's owner do some sort of sport, eg... agility, tracking, game sports and so on, this may not be vital to their lively hood but it sure gives the dog a better standard of life. As far as breeding dogs for the show ring as an end to just simple breeding dogs to sell I have never seen the point in this. I do feel this has been detrimental to the standard of dogs, but this is just my opinion and I am sure plenty of people would disagree with

There is always the old Debate about whether we adopted Dogs or they adopted us.None of us can go back and see so it remains open ended.On another line of thought it may also have been a simultaneous adoption by both Parties.

We all know there was benefit for both sides.Food and Shelter for the Dog and a Hunting Aid for Man.I can see how the channeling of Prey Drive began.This Channeling led to formation of types and or Breeds further down the Track.Early Man would have noticed with the Wolves the common ground amongst the pack and yet at the same time the many differences between Pack Members.I am sure Man noticed how every Pack Member whilst acting in unison whilst Hunting, still had their own individual specialised role to play.Some of the Wolves to use an example would have been more adept at retrieving small Game and thus further down the Track evolved into retrieving Breeds.

I am not sure but we will never know if it was a simultaneous adoption, I think early man would have been to wary of other animals. As far as we know, firstly dogs scavenged the camps of the nomads as easy feeding. Then the nomads recognised the dogs hunting skill in being able to back track an animal that changed direction, this was something early man did not know how to do. I agree that from there on the formation of breeds further down the track. The sharing of shelters between man and dog I also think happened at a later stage, as early man became more comfortable with the dogs around it would have been a natural progression towards the dogs sharing mans shelter as the nomads would have recognised the dogs defending capabilities and so then allowed then to share shelter, this could have been the first early protection dogs so to speak.

An ironic part of the whole situation is that, yes Early Man was not as evolved as much as the Human of today.Despite early Mans level of Evolvement he would have lived with and participated in many Dog activities related to hunting and survival.The Ironic part is I am sure some Early Humans due to their hands on involvement with Dogs,had more knowledge of Dog behaviour than some that I encounter in the Present Day.

Never a truer word spoken.

I am sure if a group of Humans from that early came for a Visit to modern Day Society they would shake their Heads and or grunt in dismay!!!!!They would be looking at some of the Dogs that are being bred today and wonder why the Hell!!!!I could imagine them thinking why would you breed Dogs that cannot Breathe,are not sound and could not survive without being propped up by Humans.

Early Man had the best Breed standard I have ever seen and one that will never be surpassed!!!!Early Man used Natures breed Standard to brilliant effect.Early Man continually tested his Dogs in the natural World and this ensured the best survived to continue evolving.Sadly Natures Breed Standard is now paid very little attention to.Many modern Day dogs if shown in the Showring of Nature,would be culled.

I have a friend in her 70's who has worked with dogs all her life and she is continually saying what you have written

Man and Dog have lived side by side now for along time and will continue to do so.One would have expected over time for Mans knowledge of Dogs to expand and in my eyes did so up to a cetain time.Now though I see a decline in true knowledge of Dogs as less and less People have hands on involvement and or less and less work or utilise Dogs as part of their livelyhood.

We can only hope that this will one day change, and that people give back to the dog a purpose in its day to day life again.

[Erny]

...do we have dogs today to impose upon them what we wish.

IMO, this is how and why the whole dog/man relationship has evolved. It is still evolving and will continue to evolve as our desires and reasons for requiring dog companionship/interaction also evolve.

I won't enter the working dog -vs- show/pet dog debate here. There are threads on that already and it is a different topic than what I think this thread's topic intention is. Although it's your thread, Pinnacle, so you can lead this in whichever direction you chose if I've misunderstood the original objective .

Edited August 6, 2007 by Erny

[Tonymc]

Pinnacle,thank you for your kind words.

Now Erny, this is not directed at you but you did bring it up in your post above.I find Human Nature fascinating with all its twists turns,desires,hopes,dreams,fears,doubts,self deciet and so on.Any Human intereacting with a Dog involves of course Human Nature.The quality or lack of quality of the relationship goes back to how honest,how rational,how aware,how knowledgeable and how balanced the Human involved atually is.A Human struggling with Human issues will bring those to the relationship with the Dog.One classic example of course is Humanising Dogs.

Back to the point Erny brought up and again Erny no disrespect towards you is intended.Erny made mention of the Working versus Showing Debate in her Post.Yes I have heard the tired old line of thought many times.Humans are somewhat like Dogs in the fact that we need to read them,see where they are going and respond accordingly.I have had a number of conversations with Dog People of various Breeds and the working versus showing debate was used as a Smoke Screen,manipulation and or diversion of the conversation.The People I was having the conversation with did not want to honestly look at the true reality, hence their effort to divert the Topic.

Many times in many Fields not just dogs,we have to put aside our Egos,our self beliefs and look at the greater reality.Many of course do not want to look at the true reality as they may be fearful of what they see,may have to admit they are wrong,may have to concede to somebody else"s Idea,may be having a big struggle with ego and may be always having to be right.

Unfortunately most People will not make change till the Pain is great enough.With some its take a long time to get to the required level of Pain to make change.Many plod along living in denial that there is indeed a problem.This of course happens in all aspects of life not just the World of Dogs.

Inorder to be objective and realistic we need to rise above tired old statements of Working versus Show and so on.We need to rise above diversions,egos,false beliefs for a greater good.If we do not then we had all better read the story"The Emperor"s new clothes"

Lets for at least a little while forget the silly Working versus Show line of thought.Lets look outside the Box for a change.Lets look at the Dog himself.Any Dog of course is much better with a higher level of health and soundness.The higher his soundness and health is the more efficient he is able to be as a Dog.The same goes for any Species.now basically we say we have three groups of Dogs,Working,Showing and Pet or companion.Now forget about Working and Showing briefly and look at the Pet or Companion dog.The Companion Dog even though not showing or working still has to function as a Dog.The point I am making is that the companion Dog needs a good level of health and soundness to be a Dog and a companion.Sadly though I have seen many that did not have the level of health required to be a companion Dog. Tony

[Erny]

Hi Tony

Don't see anywhere there where there would or could be any disrespect to me .... don't even see where what you write (much of which I agree with, as you know from past 'conversations') argues or debates what I wrote (above).

I am actually confused somewhat with what the main agenda of this thread is meant to be. ;)