The Great Debate

[The Spotted Devil]

I take your point - I haven't seen the science to back up either argument so will remain on the fence until then

However, there seems to be a focus on what dogs like to eat as opposed to what they are capable of digesting and processing - so perhaps we are coming at this from 2 different perspectives and are simply at cross-purposes (not uncommon in science!!!) Preferentially, a dog may be a carnivore but biologically, they are an omnivore

[The Spotted Devil]

Everybody makes a great point on this thread, but as the matter stands they are scientifically classified as carnivores, so it really doesnt matter what we believe, the fact is they are carnivores.

Exactly!

Actually, not quite! They belong to the order Carnivora.....which includes carnivores, omnivores and herbivores.

ETA: Science itself is not set in stone either - there are disagreements, changes in direction etc. Unfortunately, just because it's published in a scientific journal doesn't mean it's good science either!!!!

Edited May 12, 2008 by The Spotted Devil

[sas]

What physiological changes could there have been? I don't think individual eating habits really says much about a whole species? There are plenty of vegeterian humans but it doesn't make us herbivores as a species.

Even if dogs are partial to some vegetation because they are natural scavengers, to me it's irrelevant. Unless a dog is suffering severe allergies to meat, they should be given meat based diets. Their teeth and their jaws and their stomachs are all built to consume animal parts like any other similar predator. The majority of standard, healthy dogs would thrive on natural diets because they *are* carnivores and ripping and tearing meat is an intrinsic part of their makeup as a species.

Dogs aren't wild and they get fed a different diet so therefore evolution as smart as it is would have to start changing to digestive system to cope with these changes.

Wonder why humans aren't always born with wisdom teeth these days....the wonder of evolution.

Tess, no one is saying to remove meat from a dogs diet, but I think some people need to open their minds to including some vegetable matter into a dogs diet, it's been in our dogs diet for so long that if evolution works the way the smarty pants people say then the digestion system should be undergoing changes as we speak if it hasn't lready occured, however seeing that scientists lack a number of good quality samples of the digestive system of early canines it can be kinda tricky to see the difference.

Even if a dog gets some veggie matter that doesn't mean they can't use those wonderful jaws for ripping the flesh off a nice tasyy bone as well.

I don't know about anyone else, but jesus come on already, the dog has been domesticated for how many thousands of years, it's not a wild dog anymore!

[Guest Tess32]

With the minimal amount of people really feeding smushed up vegetables to their dog (a minority), I honestly doubt much evolutionary change has taken place. There aren't that many vegetables in kibble.

If anything it would be how they process grains that would have changed due to the majority of people feeding kibble. But dogs still don't seem to do well on grains and excess carbs....?

I feed two of mine vegetables, but I don't think they need them.

[espinay2]

Dogs aren't wild and they get fed a different diet so therefore evolution as smart as it is would have to start changing to digestive system to cope with these changes........I don't know about anyone else, but jesus come on already, the dog has been domesticated for how many thousands of years, it's not a wild dog anymore!

Evolution does not work that quickly (unless we are talking mutations, but even they don't work on such a grand scale). Dogs have actually not been domesticated that long - merely a blip on the screen in terms of evolution. Enough to make phenotypic changes, but not enough for substantial genotypic ones.

While some dogs may have been domesticated for a few thousand years, we also have to remember what that meant in real terms. For the most part dogs were not confined. They were able to hunt for themselves to supplement anything they were given. And if they were confined, they were often kept in hunting kennels, for example, that did feed raw meat (horse meat was popular, particularly with the hound packs in the UK for instance. It was freely available when horses were commonly used for trandport, and it was actually considered a fitting and honourable end for a hunter to be fed to the hounds at the end of its usefulness). Suburbanisation of cities is also a fairly new thing and basically correlates to the rise in popularity of dogs as pets over the last 100 years or so only. It is only with the rise in suburbanisation that we begin to see the general confinement of dogs and less ability for them to hunt for themselves over the last 50 years or so.

Cooking food for dogs is also a relatively new phenomenon. Even up till the introduction of commercial dog foods - which only really began to be developed around WWII (when there were edicts that food fit for human consumption was not to be fed to dogs during this time of shortages and rationing) and came into general popularity in the 1970's - a large percentage of dogs even in western nations were fed mostly on raw meat (a lot of old books make this clear). We also have many breeds which until recently were for all intents and purposes 'wild'. The Australian Cattle Dog was developed in recent times using the Dingo. The Basenji has only been introduced to the west very recently. And then there are wolf/dog hybrids that are reasonably common in the US. So when you talk about a dog not being 'wild' any more, which dogs are you talking about? Does a Dingo or ACD or wolf/dog hybrid have a different digestive system from an anatomical point of view from, say, a Golden Retriever?

[Danielle]

I must agree with the above post, you really pointed out a good argument in regards to new breeds.

I own a Smithfeild. The Smithy or Timmins Biter was only developed in the 1890's I think (dont quote me!).

The ancestry of this dog goes back to the Smithfield Bobtail Sheepdog in the Smithfield meatworks area in london. They brought these bobtailed dogs out, crossed them with a dingo and there ya go, a Smithfeild Stumpy Tail Cattle dog. Now considering these dogs along with the ACD have dingo in them, this MUST affect the evolution of the digestive tract.

Just to make a quick point also, the dingo is not classified as a dog. Dogs are under the classification of Canis Familiaris. Dingos are Lupus (wolf) Dingo. The dingos direct ancestry relates back to the Pale (white) Footed Wolf of South East Asia.

Would this affect it as well? What are everyone elses thoughts?

[espinay2]

They are ALL Canis Lupus. Domestic Dog is actually classified as Canis lupus familiaris. The Dingo is Canis lupus dingo. The Eastern Timber Wolf (probably the one most people think of when they think of a wolf) is Canis lupus lycaon. The Arctic wolf is Canis lupus arctos, Mexican Wolf is Canis lupus baileyi. There are many other subspecies. www.wolf.org is a good place to start reading up on them.