Wolves Make Dog's Dinner Of Domestication Theory

Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#1
Is this a shaggy dog story?

Wolves make dog's dinner out of domestication theory
by Ewen Callaway

Wolf

Dogs are no better than wolves at picking up on human cues. That's the conclusion of animal psychologists who have compared the ability of the wolves and dogs to understand human hand signals.

When tasked with choosing between two paint cans based on a trainer's hand signal, tamed wolves actually proved more adept at picking the right can.

This casts doubt on the idea that domestication some 15,000 years ago imbued dogs with a window into the human mind, says Clive Wynne, an animal psychologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

Rather, dogs – and tamed wolves – probably learn to associate human arm movements with treats, play and affection. Researchers who argue for a dog "theory of mind" are overlooking this obvious explanation, Wynne says.

"I think what's going on here is straightforward conditioning," he says. "Have they forgotten about Pavlov?"

Clever wolves
Wynne's study is a rebuttal to a string of headline-grabbing papers that used similar approaches to demonstrate that dogs read humans better than wolves, and even chimpanzees. He says those reports used different environments and conditions for tests on wolves and dogs.

To level the playing field, Wynne – along with UFL colleagues Monique Udell and Nicole Dorey – worked with tame wolves that have received near constant human exposure since birth. The researchers also tested both wolves and dogs under the same conditions: with familiar trainers and in outdoor enclosures.

Standing 2.5 meters from an animal, a trainer signalled one of two sand-filled paint cans placed on either side of the trainer. If the animal moved toward the correct can, it received a treat and heard a click.

Wolves picked the right pail about seven times out of 10, on average, while dogs tested under identical conditions did slightly better than chance.

Dogs that performed the same test in their homes, though, equalled the wolves' performance, while shelter dogs picked the correct pail in only three of every 10 attempts.

Learned tricks
Rather than argue for a wolf theory of mind, Wynne says animal learning explains his team's results.

"These limbs of the human have been useful to pay attention to. In the past they have delivered good things," he says. "Every time you throw a ball for a puppy you are offering your limb as a conditioned stimulus."

While domestication has made dogs more trainable, it hasn't offered them insight into our wants and needs, he says. "Any idiot can tame a dog. If you want to have a tame wolf, you're going to have to invest much, much more energy."

However, Brian Hare, an animal behaviourist at Duke University in Durham North Carolina and author of several studies pointing to a dog theory of mind, isn't yet ready to concede.

"I think there is so much data from other labs pointing to the previous finding of dogs being unusually skilled at using human cues that it will take extraordinary findings to argue against it," he says.

"I would not yet say these are extraordinary in terms of being conclusive, but they do suggest that we need to take another close look."

Journal reference: Animal Behaviour (DOI: 10.1016/j.anabehav.2008.07.028)

Related Articles

Foxes make better dogs than wolves do
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 524865.400
12 February 2005

Mind of a dog
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 522284.300
04 March 2000

Dogs 'evolved from handful of wolves'
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3099
22 November 2002

Weblinks

Clive Wynne, University of Florida
http://www.psych.ufl.edu/~wynne/

Brian Hare, Duke University
http://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/BAA/faculty/hare
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#2
Origin of Domestic Dogs
New analysis suggests that domestic dogs evolved from European wolves that interacted with human hunter-gatherers.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles. ... stic-Dogs/

By Ed Yong | November 14, 2013

Gray wolf
WIKIMEDIA, MARTIN MECNAROWSKI

Domestic dogs evolved from a group of wolves that came into contact with European hunter-gatherers between 18,800 and 32,100 years ago and may have since died out.

This origin story comes from a new study that compares DNA from dozens of dogs and wolves, including 18 ancient fossils. The results, published today (November 14) in Science, provide the clearest picture yet of where, when, and how wild predators came to be man’s best friend.

“It really is a sea change from the little bits of fragmentary DNA that have been reported in the past,” said Gregor Larson from Durham University in the U.K., who was not involved in the study. “It includes really old material from a wide range of sites.”

The new paper follows two earlier studies that looked at the genetic signatures of domestication in dogs, and came to differing conclusions about canine origins. One group suggested that dogs were domesticated around 10,000 years ago during the Agricultural Revolution, when wolves started scavenging human scrap heaps. Another concluded that wolves and dogs split 32,000 years ago, somewhere in East Asia.

Both studies compared the genes of a wide variety of living dogs and wolves, but modern samples can be deceptive. Dogs and wolves diverged so recently that many of their genes have not had time to separate into distinct lineages. They have also repeatedly hybridized with each other, further confusing their genealogies.

To deal with these problems, a team led by Olaf Thalmann from the University of Turku in Finland analyzed mitochondrial DNA from 18 fossil canids. They compared these ancient sequences to those from 49 modern wolves and 77 modern dogs, and built a family tree that charts their relationships.

The tree conclusively pinpointed Europe as the major nexus of dog domestication. It identified four clades of modern dogs, which are all most closely related to ancient European canids rather than wolves from China or the Middle East. “We didn’t expect the ancestry to be so clearly defined,” Thalmann told The Scientist.

“This suggests that the population of wolves in Europe that gave rise to modern dogs may have gone extinct, which is plausible given how humans have wiped out wolves over the centuries,” he added.

According to this new tree, the largest clade of domestic dogs last shared a common ancestor 18,800 years ago, and collectively, they last shared a common ancestor with a wolf around 32,100 years ago. They must have been domesticated at some point during this window.

These molecular dates fit with fossil evidence. The oldest dog fossils come from Western Europe and Siberia, and are thought to be at least 15,000 years old. By contrast, those from the Middle East and East Asia are believed to be 13,000 years old, at most. “The archaeologists would be happy,” said Larson.

The dates also make it unlikely that dogs were domesticated during the Agricultural Revolution, which took place millennia later. Instead, they must have first associated with European hunter-gatherers. They may have assisted humans in bringing down large prey, or could simply have scavenged leftover carcasses. Either way, their association with humans grew stronger and stronger, until they eventually evolved into domestic dogs.

However, Thalmann acknowledged that his team’s analysis does not include any ancient DNA from the Middle East or China, nor nuclear DNA from any of the fossils. In other ancient DNA studies, nuclear DNA sequences have revised the evolutionary stories told by mitochondrial ones.

“Who knows what we would find if we had ancient canid samples from East Asia or elsewhere, or were successful in amplifying nuclear DNA from ancient canids,” said Adam Boyko from Cornell University, who was not involved in the study, via email. “But that shouldn't detract from the great work they were able to do here,” he added.

Larson cautioned that the paper is not the final word on canine origins. “It would be a mistake to jump and say that dogs were domesticated in Europe and not anywhere else,” he said. “We know pigs were domesticated independently in China and Turkey, so there’s no thinking that dog domestication had to happen in just one place.”

Indeed, Thalmann’s team showed that the famous Goyet dog—a 36,000 year old Belgian skull, supposedly belonging to the oldest known dog—is not directly ancestral to modern dogs. Instead, it represents an ancient sister lineage that died out. The same is true for other old specimens from Belgium and Russia’s Altai Mountains. “Maybe they were trial domestications that were not successful,” said Thalmann.

O. Thalmann et al., “Complete mitochondrial genomes of ancient canids suggest a European origin of domestic dogs,” Science, doi:10.1126/science.1243650, 2013.
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,252
Likes
8,933
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#3
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#5
Full text, maps & image at link.

Domestication of dogs may explain mammoth kill sites and success of early modern humans

A fragment of a large bone, probably from a mammoth, Pat Shipman reports, was placed in this dog's mouth shortly after death. This finding suggests the animal was according special mortuary treatment, perhaps acknowledging its role in mammoth hunting. The fossil comes from the site of Predmosti, in the Czech republic, and is about 27,000 years B.P. old. This object is one of three canid skulls from Predmosti that were identified as dogs based on analysis of their morphology. Credit: Anthropos Museum, Brno, the Czech Republic, courtesy of Mietje Germonpre

A new analysis of European archaeological sites containing large numbers of dead mammoths and dwellings built with mammoth bones has led Penn State Professor Emerita Pat Shipman to formulate a new interpretation of how these sites were formed. She suggests that their abrupt appearance may have been due to early modern humans working with the earliest domestic dogs to kill the now-extinct mammoth—a now-extinct animal distantly related to the modern-day elephant. Shipman's analysis also provides a way to test the predictions of her new hypothesis. Advance publication of her article "How do you kill 86 mammoths?" is available online through Quaternary International.

Spectacular archaeological sites yielding stone tools and extraordinary numbers of dead mammoths—some containing the remains of hundreds of individuals—suddenly became common in central and eastern Eurasia between about 45,000 and 15,000 years ago, although mammoths previously had been hunted by humans and their extinct relatives and ancestors for at least a million years. Some of these mysterious sites have huts built of mammoth bones in complex, geometric patterns as well as piles of butchered mammoth bones.

"One of the greatest puzzles about these sites is how such large numbers of mammoths could have been killed with the weapons available during that time," Shipman said. Many earlier studies of the age distribution of the mammoths at these sites found similarities with modern elephants killed by hunting or natural disasters, but Shipman's new analysis of the earlier studies found that they lacked the statistical evaluations necessary for concluding with any certainty how these animals were killed.

Domestication of dogs may explain mammoth kill sites and success of early modern humans

These maps show the locations of collections of mammoth bones at the archaeological sites that Pat Shipman analyzed in her paper that will be published in the journal Quaternary International. Credit: Jeffrey Mathison
Surprisingly, Shipman said, she found that "few of the mortality patterns from these mammoth deaths matched either those from natural deaths among modern elephants killed by droughts or by culling operations with modern weapons that kill entire family herds of modern elephants at once." This discovery suggested to Shipman that a successful new technique for killing such large animals had been developed and its repeated use over time could explain the mysterious, massive collections of mammoth bones in Europe.

The key to Shipman's new hypothesis is recent work by a team led by Mietje Germonpré of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, which has uncovered evidence that some of the large carnivores at these sites were early domesticated dogs, not wolves as generally had been assumed. Then, with this evidence as a clue, Shipman used information about how humans hunt with dogs to formulate a series of testable predictions about these mammoth sites. ...
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-domesticat ... ss.html#ms
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#6
More on Predmosti, dogs and mammoth kills.

P?edmostí I is an exceptional prehistoric site located near Brno in the Czech Republic. Around 30,000 years ago it was inhabited by people of the pan-European Gravettian culture, who used the bones of more than 1000 mammoths to build their settlement and to ivory sculptures. Did prehistoric people collect this precious raw material from carcasses -- easy to spot on the big cold steppe -- or were they the direct result of hunting for food? This year-round settlement also yielded a large number of canids remains, some of them with characteristics of Palaeolithic dogs. Were these animals used to help hunt mammoths?

To answer these two questions, Tübingen researcher Hervé Bocherens and his international team carried out an analysis of carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes in human and animal fossil bones from the site. Working with researchers from Brno and Brussels, the researchers were able to test whether the Gravettian people of P?edmostí ate mammoth meat and how the "palaeolithic dogs" fit into this subsistence picture ...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 074841.htm
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#7
And now domesticated wolves as guard "dogs".

Villagers in Kazakhstan are increasingly turning to an unusual animal to guard their land - wolves, it's been reported.

"You can buy a wolf cub for just $500 (£320), they say, and hunters are adamant that if treated well the wild animal can be tamed," the KTK television channel reports. Nurseit Zhylkyshybay, from the south-eastern Almaty region, tells the channel he bought a wolf cub, Kurtka, from hunters three years ago, and the animal is perfectly happy wandering the yard of his house. "He's never muzzled, I rarely put him on a chain and do take him for regular walks around the village. Our family and neighbours aren't scared of him at all," Mr Zhylkyshybay insists. "If the wolf is well fed and cared for, he won't attack you, although he does eat a lot more than a dog." ...

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-30515646
 

marion

Ungnoing.
Joined
Nov 3, 2001
Messages
1,574
Likes
172
Points
94
#9
That guard wolf is just part wolf at best, you can tell by the features like the eyes, they are typical dog eyes not wolf eyes.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#10
And the dogs followed later.

Study of ancient dogs in the Americas yields insights into human, dog migration
Date:
January 7, 2015

Source:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Summary:
A new study suggests that dogs may have first successfully migrated to the Americas only about 10,000 years ago, thousands of years after the first human migrants crossed a land bridge from Siberia to North America.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150107123932.htm
 

Loquaciousness

The misuse of the word "fact" annoys me
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
1,353
Likes
1,188
Points
159
#11
I would hazard a guess that the domesticated cat has been around for much longer.... they are never ones to miss an opportunity...
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#12
Give a dog a bad name...

Dogs are regarded as more tolerant and less aggressive compared to their ancestors, the wolves. Researchers from the Messerli Research Institute at the Vetmeduni Vienna question this image. They show in a recent study that wolves interact with conspecifics in an even more tolerant way than dogs, suggesting that dogs have a steeper dominance hierarchy than wolves. The results will be published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

The good relationship between humans and dogs was certainly influenced by domestication. For long, it was assumed that humans preferred particularly tolerant animals for breeding. Thus, cooperative and less aggressive dogs could develop. Recently, however, it was suggested that these qualities were not only specific for human-dog interactions, but characterize also dog-dog interactions. Friederike Range and Zsófia Virányi from the Messerli Research Institute investigated in their study if dogs are in fact less aggressive and more tolerant towards their conspecifics than wolves.

They carried out several behavioural tests on dogs and wolves. The animals were hand-raised in the Wolf Science Center in Ernstbrunn, Lower Austria, and kept in separated packs of wolves and dogs. Range and her colleagues tested nine wolves and eight mongrel dogs. ...

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-myth-tolerant-dogs-aggressive-wolves.html
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#13
A prehistoric dog is about to go to the dentist. Ardern Hulme-Beaman, a lanky 27-year-old Irish postdoc, pulls on a white facemask and lifts a small 5000-year-old jawbone from a cardboard box. He places a gloved hand over one of the molars and gently tugs from side to side until it pops out. The jagged top of the tooth is yellowish white, but the roots are dirty brown. Hulme-Beaman powers on a drill, and a circular blade screeches into a root. The scent of burning hair fills the air. “That's a good sign,” he says. “It means there's DNA here.”

Hulme-Beaman has spent the past 6 months traveling the world in search of ancient dog bones like this one. He's found plenty in this Ohio State University archaeology laboratory. Amid boxes stacked high with Native American artifacts, rows of plastic containers filled with primate teeth, and a hodgepodge of microscopes, calipers, and research papers, a few shoe and cigar boxes hold the jigsaw pieces of a dozen canines: skulls, femurs, mandibles, and vertebrae. ...

http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2015/04/feature-solving-mystery-dog-domestication

 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#14
Dogs became man’s best friends somewhere in central Asia close to Nepal and Mongolia, according to the largest genetic study yet. The work looked at DNA from thousands of living dogs to piece together their ancestry and geographical origins.

“This is the first global study of genomic patterns of dog diversity,” says Adam Boyko of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, who led the team. “We find a clear pattern of genetic diversity focused on central Asia, suggesting the first domesticated dogs came from this region.”

That departs from earlier studies that pinpointed Europe as where dogs were domesticated, although more recent work puts the location in southern China, just 1000 kilometres from the area Boyko’s team proposes.

The team broke new ground by analysing DNA samples from so-called “village dogs”, which have lived alongside humans throughout the world since dogs first evolved from wolves and were domesticated around 15,000 years ago. “Although they associate with humans, village dogs are more or less expected to make it on their own,” says Boyko.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...t&cmpid=SOC%25257CNSNS%25257C2015-GLOBAL-hoot
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#15
Anyone who owns a dog is familiar with the "gaze"—that hypnotic, imploring stare that demands reciprocation. It can seem to hold a world of mystery and longing, or just pure bafflement at what makes humans tick.

It turns out that the look of mutual recognition between human and dog reflects thousands of years of evolution, a bond programmed into our very body chemistry. Last spring a research team in Japan discovered that both species release a hormone called oxytocin when they look into each other's eyes—the same hormone released when a human mother beholds her baby.

What's more, the Japanese study showed that higher levels of oxytocin were released during that gaze than during petting or talking. It seems that for dogs, at least where humans are concerned, eyes really are windows to the soul.

"It's a very compelling study, that even on a chemical basis we get this kind of biological impulse to bond, and animals have the same impulse to bond with us," says University of Alberta anthropologist Robert Losey, who studies the historical relationship between dogs and humans.

But where does that unique symbiosis begin, one that has long involved even the sharing of parasites and certain diseases? According to Losey, the biochemical bonding impulse is only one part of the story. His own research is focused on teasing out the cultural forces over time that have made dogs and humans such a good fit.

Best friends forever?

One of Losey's projects involves the excavation of dog remains between 5,000 and 8,000 years old at Lake Baikal, Siberia, the deepest freshwater lake in the world. What's striking about the find is it reveals dogs were buried alongside humans in cemeteries, pointing not only to some of the earliest evidence of dog domestication but also suggesting dogs were held in the same high esteem as humans.

"The dogs were being treated just like people when they died," says Losey. "They were being carefully placed in a grave, some of them wearing decorative collars, or next to other items like spoons, with the idea being potentially that they had souls and an afterlife." In one instance a man was found buried in the same grave as his two dogs, one on either side. ...

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-explores-prehistoric-relationship-humans-dogs.html
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#21
A dog bone found at an Irish Stone Age tomb has helped to shed new light on the possible dual origins of pet dogs.

The dog bone, believed to date back almost 5,000 years, was unearthed at Newgrange in County Meath - an ancient monument built by Stone Age farmers.

Scientists at Trinity College Dublin used it to sequence the dog's genome.

The research suggests that modern dogs may have emerged from two separate domestications of wolves, on opposite ends of the Eurasian continent.

It challenges previous theories that man's best friend originated from a single domestication of wolves in Asia.

The DNA analysis conducted in Dublin formed part of a major international study of dog domestication, led by Oxford University in the UK.

The Newgrange dog's genetic blueprint was compared to that of 59 ancient dogs, some dating from as far back as 14,000 years.

It was also contrasted to the DNA of 2,500 modern dogs. ...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36450258
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#23
Ancient Dog Graveyard Found at Siberia’s Lake Baikal

While dogs have been following humans for about 40,000 years, the practice of respectfully burying them after death is relatively recent. A new study suggests it may have developed 8,000 years ago at the mysterious Lake Baikal in Siberia where an unusual canine graveyard was recently discovered.

Lake Baikal in south-east Siberia is Earth’s oldest and deepest freshwater lake and has long been the location of UFO sightings and alien encounters, with recent rumors persisting that Steven Spielberg may produce a UFO documentary there. It also has a long history of humans domesticating dogs.


Dog skull buried at Lake Baikal in Siberia

University of Alberta anthropologist Robert Losey studies the history of human and dog relationships and recently visited Lake Baikal where he led the excavation of dog remains dating back 5,000 to 8,000 years. The manner in which they were buried was unusual, says Losey. ...

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2016/07/ancient-dog-graveyard-found-at-siberias-lake-baikal/
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#25
How farming changed the dog
By Elizabeth PennisiNov. 8, 2016 , 7:15 PM

Farming didn’t just revolutionize human society—it transformed the genome of our oldest friend, the dog. A new study reveals that by 7000 years ago, our canine companions were eating so much wheat and millet they made extra copies of starch-digesting genes to help them cope. And this adaptation is what allowed them to stay by our sides, even as our world changed.

The genetic evolution in dogs parallels what others have found in humans, says Peter Savolainen, an evolutionary geneticist at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, who was not involved with the work. "With farming we started to eat starch, and both we and dogs had to adapt to this change."

Some of the first insights into how farming changed the canine genome came 3 years ago. That’s when evolutionary geneticist Erik Axelsson of Uppsala University in Sweden and his colleagues discovered that dogs have four to 30 copies of a gene—Amy2B—that helps digest starch, whereas wolves typically only have two. Morgane Ollivier wanted to know just when that genetic change happened. A paleogeneticist at Ecole Normale Supéieure de Lyon in France, she teamed up with Axelsson and others, who extracted ancient DNA from the bones and teeth of 13 wolf and dog specimens collected from archaeological sites throughout Eurasia. Four of the ancient dogs—from a 7000-year-old site in Romania and 5000-year-old sites in Turkmenistan and France—had more than eight copies of Amy2B, Ollivier and her colleagues report today in Royal Society Open Science. They do not yet know how many copies ancient wolves had. ...

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/how-farming-changed-dog
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#26
Wolves are more logical and philosophical than dogs.

Domestic dogs may have lost some of their innate animal skill when they came in from the wild, according to new research conducted at the Wolf Science Center in Austria.

In a study comparing wolves and dogs living in near-identical environments, wolves were better at working some things out, particularly at grasping the notion of cause and effect.

The research, by an international team in Austria, the Netherlands, Germany and England, is published in Scientific Reports.

Recently graduated lead author Michelle Lampe, of the Radboud University, in the Netherlands, said: "Children learn the principle of cause and effect early on, that if you touch a hot stove you will get burned, for example. Our study has shown the wolf also understands such connections, but our four-legged domesticated companions don't.

"It seems wolves are better at working some things out than dogs, which suggests domestication has changed dogs' cognitive abilities.

"It can't be ruled out that the differences could be due to wolves being more persistent in exploring than dogs. Dogs are conditioned to receive food from us, whereas wolves have to find food themselves in nature."

Michelle Lampe, Dr Zsófia Virányi, of the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna, Dr Juliane Bräuer, of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Germany, and Dr Juliane Kaminski, of the University of Portsmouth, UK, investigated the reasoning abilities of 14 dogs and 12 human-socialised wolves.

The tests included the animals having to choose between two objects, one containing hidden food and the other empty to see whether the animals could make use of communicative cues, such as direct eye-contact and pointing gestures to choose the correct container. ...

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-wolves-effect-dogs.html
 

Fluttermoth

Mrs Treguard
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
842
Likes
682
Points
109
#27
Usually, when I look at a dog's eyes, that seems to be a signal to the dog to spring forth, teeth bared.
I tend not to look a dog in the eye these days.
Dogs that don't know you don't like being looked straight in the eye, it's seen by them as very threatening, whereas the article in the post above is referring to looking into the eyes of a dog you know.

It's the difference between looking at your lover and at a skinhead in a pub in the Goebbels :)
 

RaM

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 12, 2015
Messages
1,319
Likes
1,986
Points
154
Location
NW UK
#28
Some years ago I was walking round a part of a zoo that will remain nameless
that was not often visited by the public, all there was there were some wolves
in big outdoor runs, anyway as I decided to head back to the more populer
parts of the zoo a chap was coming the other way, it turned out he was one
of the zoo managers.
He said it's not often anyone comes this way but a few weeks ago one of
the wolves got out so I came looking for it and met some bloke like you
on his own, so not wanting to frighten him I asked "have you seen a dog
knocking about?" bloke obviously in a rush did not stop but shouted back
" dog my arse it's a bloody Wolfe and it's down there", He knew and was
not hanging about to argue the point.
 

henry

still speeding
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
3,703
Likes
891
Points
0
#30
Dogs that don't know you don't like being looked straight in the eye, it's seen by them as very threatening, whereas the article in the post above is referring to looking into the eyes of a dog you know.
i pretty much always look unknown dogs in the eye when i come across them and almost always get a friendly response ... dogs never growl or show anything other than friendship to me, at least i cant recall an occasion when that wasnt the case ... we always had a dog when i was growing up but i dont consider myself a dog-person
 
Top