Pariah dogs

[Christiaanistan]

Here is an interesting subject, and it's so obscure that I wonder whether it will even capture anybody's interest.

You see, a lot of people have a strong distinction, in their minds, between a "domesticated animal" and a "wild animal," which is peculiar because, until not too long ago in our history, we ourselves (or at least many of us) were somewhere between domesticated and wild, meaning that we were savages (or barbarians).

Essentially, a pariah dog is an animal that has never truly been domesticated by humans, but they have been associated with humans for a long time, although with varying levels of welcome. Examples are the Australian dingo, the Carolina dog, the basenji, and the Thai ridgeback, although there are others. The way I like to say it is that they are "breeds of dog whose ancestors have known very little interaction with humans other than having various things thrown at them, including rocks, sticks, pine cones, shoes, bones, scraps of meat, or whatever seemed most appropriate at the time."

The question is, since these animals have had a long history with human beings, should they be considered to be a neglected "domesticated animal" or a "wild animal"? Consider this: the Carolina dog has roamed the savannahs of the US state of Georgia and all over the American southeast for thousands of years, and they often live as an effectively wild animal...yet, as a pet, they seem to be essentially just an unusually clever, playfully mischievous dog and essentially tame...even "terrific with children."

http://www.carolinadogs.com/faq.html

To emphasize the fact that they are not just mongrel descendants of European dogs, they actually exhibit some very unique behavioral traits. Here is a good write-up on the animal:

http://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theoth ... m-behavior

Now, part of why I thought to post this was a rather peckish but I would say productive and enjoyable exchange that I had with a longtime member of this site. One of the topics that I attempted to touch on was the fact that humans have not always had the same relationship with domesticated animals that they do now, and really a lot of modern attitudes are relatively new ideas (although not bad ones!).

Therefore, do you think, after reading this OP and at least taking a glance at the materials that I cited, that the Carolina dog is a domesticated animal, a wild animal, or...well, something uniquely different from either?

[Pope Joan]

Throughout the history of the Mideast, dogs have been reviled. It is still an insult to compare someone to a dog. There are few domesticated canine pets. Now, the Greeks had hunting dogs which were beloved pets, but this attitude does not seem to have traveled further south.

I wonder whether we have replaced children, which the middle class produces in declining numbers, with dogs and cats?

[Margno]

Like crows and sewer rats, I wouldn't call them domesticated. They just coevolved with us, along with lots of animals.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I wouldn't call that domesticated.

[Christiaanistan]

Well, I like the comparison of crows. Really, crows tend to thrive on their relationship with humans, and they seem to be mostly commensal parasites. It's hard to say whether they are outright parasites or not because, for every crow, there is no telling how many smaller animals with bigger aggregate appetites they keep away. I would say that our relationship with the crow may or may not be a complex one.

In any case, I tend to think that black-and-white distinctions tend to miss a lot of detail, and I think that cases like the Carolina dog tend to challenge these black-and-white distinctions. If they are raised as domesticated animals, they are more than serviceable as pets within only a few generations, and they are becoming a popular, if hard-to-find, breed.

On the other hand, perhaps you would have something more like a true Carolina dog if you were to adopt any random stray. What makes them special is that they are a landrace animal, bred by natural selection in a harsh environment. If I wanted to find a true landrace animal, I would try the local animal shelter before a breeder.

[Cetacea]

Dingoes are considered wild dogs not a feral pariah breed and they provide an interesting study of the early wild animal-human interactions that lead to domestication of the neotenic wolf. I like the co-evolved scavengers theory of self-domestication due to humans providing wolves with a new habitat (ie the midden pile) in which the more friendly canids were able to thrive to eventually become "mans best friend".

[Baltenstein]

I sure hope Infected Mushrooms doesn't find this thread.

[Great Kleomentia]

Like crows and sewer rats, I wouldn't call them domesticated. They just coevolved with us, along with lots of animals.

This. Perhaps we should refer to them as urban animals?

[Sygneros]

The question is, since these animals have had a long history with human beings, should they be considered to be a neglected "domesticated animal" or a "wild animal"? Consider this: the Carolina dog has roamed the savannahs of the US state of Georgia and all over the American southeast for thousands of years, and they often live as an effectively wild animal...yet, as a pet, they seem to be essentially just an unusually clever, playfully mischievous dog and essentially tame...even "terrific with children."

emphasis mine

I think it may be interesting to point out that most dogs in this group have similarly described temperaments; intelligent, energetic, and protective. These dogs are perhaps more 'feral' or 'wild' in a sense that they represent a group of dogs that are more similarly related to breeds of old than most of the breeds you see today. These are the animals that our ancestors would have ran and hunted with, or at least very similar. They have not undergone the intensive selective breeding process that other breeds (for example, most in the AKC) have gone. Thus they retain more of their 'wolfish' traits if you will.

But any animal that reproduces under man invariably goes through some sort of artificial selection - man's grasped the basics of it for millennia; cull (either actively or passively) the ones that are defective or cruel and keep the ones that work hard and are loyal. Thus, these are still dogs. Feral dogs, mind you, and smart and strong ones at that, but still dogs nonetheless.


Also, to add, you mentioned amazement that it only took 30 years to make the Carolina dog a family-friendly breed. Artificial selection can work incredibly fast - it only took Russia 50 years to domesticate the silver fox, and that was working with a true wild animal

[Cetacea]

But any animal that reproduces under man invariably goes through some sort of artificial selection - man's grasped the basics of it for millennia; cull (either actively or passively) the ones that are defective or cruel and keep the ones that work hard and are loyal. Thus, these are still dogs. Feral dogs, mind you, and smart and strong ones at that, but still dogs nonetheless.

Also, to add, you mentioned amazement that it only took 30 years to make the Carolina dog a family-friendly breed. Artificial selection can work incredibly fast - it only took Russia 50 years to domesticate the silver fox, and that was working with a true wild animal

Actually it only took 10 generations (just over 10 years?) for the true domestic fox to emerge, at that stage 18% of the silver foxes actively sort out human attention and had fully overcome the flight distance response. Now its something like 80% which are fully domestic.

It makes perfect sense that neotenic wolves would follow early humans and scavenge the midden but that the humans would either kill or chase away any that showed aggression thus leaving the 'tamer' ones around to breed. Thus 'human selection' pressure over a few generations resulted in wild dogs and eventually true domestic dogs who not only lived alongside humans but actively sort out human attention as fellow pack-mates (which is how dogs view humans).

[Costa Fierro]

There is a word for them. It's called "feral".

[Margno]

There is a word for them. It's called "feral".

I don't think he's talking about feral dogs so much as dog-relatives that have never been domesticated.

[United States of The One Percent]

There is a word for them. It's called "feral".

Yes, but "feral" more properly would refer to a once-domesticated animal that has been released or escaped into the wild and lost some of its domesticated nature. imo the offspring of such an animal would be wild, however domesticable it might be.

Basically the process of domestication involves wild animals hanging around human rubbish piles. Those more likely to welcome, or at least not run from, novel experiences hang around more, interbreed, and -- at least in the case of dogs -- in a very few generations become tractable enough for humans to tame. The offspring of a feral animal could be expected to inherit the trait of being amenable to domestication.

[Sygneros]

It makes perfect sense that neotenic wolves would follow early humans and scavenge the midden but that the humans would either kill or chase away any that showed aggression thus leaving the 'tamer' ones around to breed. Thus 'human selection' pressure over a few generations resulted in wild dogs and eventually true domestic dogs who not only lived alongside humans but actively sort out human attention as fellow pack-mates (which is how dogs view humans).

Correct. And once some of these breeds were already dogs, they were then 'abandoned' by humanity, either because their fostering culture died or moved or because they simply became less useful (or any number of other possible scenarios), they were left to once again roam the wild - as dogs.

To reiterate my point to the OP: these animals do not occupy any new niche. They are simply feral.

There is a word for them. It's called "feral".

Yes, but "feral" more properly would refer to a once-domesticated animal that has been released or escaped into the wild and lost some of its domesticated nature. imo the offspring of such an animal would be wild, however domesticable it might be.

This is an incorrect definition. From Wikipedia (because I'm too lazy to pull up something else):
According to dictionary definitions[1] a feral animal is one that has itself escaped from a domestic or captive status and is living more or less as a wild animal, or one that is descended from such animals

See, domestication isn't just learning a set of actions that please humans. It changes an animal at a genetic level, altering their appearance and behavior. These of course persist through generations. If you are a domesticated dog, your offspring are still domesticated - even if they grow up out of the domain of humanity.

[United States of Cascadia]

Throughout the history of the Mideast, dogs have been reviled. It is still an insult to compare someone to a dog. There are few domesticated canine pets. Now, the Greeks had hunting dogs which were beloved pets, but this attitude does not seem to have traveled further south.

I wonder whether we have replaced children, which the middle class produces in declining numbers, with dogs and cats?

That's not entirely true. The Bedouin loved there Saluki, and treated them very much like family.

[Costa Fierro]

Yes, but "feral" more properly would refer to a once-domesticated animal that has been released or escaped into the wild and lost some of its domesticated nature. imo the offspring of such an animal would be wild, however domesticable it might be.

Most feral animals are wild in nature and behavior. What the OP says is basically animals that take the opportunities to exploit the food generated by humans. For example, I feed wild ducks all the time but I would not call them domesticated.

[Cetacea]

Correct. And once some of these breeds were already dogs, they were then 'abandoned' by humanity, either because their fostering culture died or moved or because they simply became less useful (or any number of other possible scenarios), they were left to once again roam the wild - as dogs.

To reiterate my point to the OP: these animals do not occupy any new niche. They are simply feral.
.

Not entirely, there is still a difference between Wild dogs and feral domestic dogs which is evidenced by their reproduction cycles. Dingoes and most wild canids only breed once per year whereas fully domestic dogs can breed twice per year.
Its the only significant difference I can think of at the moment but it is a very significant one. I believe the same trait (2 litters per year) appeared in the domestic silver foxes too.

Anyway the divide between Wolf- Wild Dog and Feral Domestic Dog is in no way clear but it does seem likely that the evolving Wild Dog and Humans separated before they became fully domesticated - the why is what we may never know.

[Margno]

It makes perfect sense that neotenic wolves would follow early humans and scavenge the midden but that the humans would either kill or chase away any that showed aggression thus leaving the 'tamer' ones around to breed. Thus 'human selection' pressure over a few generations resulted in wild dogs and eventually true domestic dogs who not only lived alongside humans but actively sort out human attention as fellow pack-mates (which is how dogs view humans).

Correct. And once some of these breeds were already dogs, they were then 'abandoned' by humanity, either because their fostering culture died or moved or because they simply became less useful (or any number of other possible scenarios), they were left to once again roam the wild - as dogs.

To reiterate my point to the OP: these animals do not occupy any new niche. They are simply feral.

Do you have proof of that claim? Because OP mentioned the dingo, Carolina dog, basenji, and Thai ridgeback, and wha Wikipedia has to say on those is:
(Dingo) Their exact descent, place of origin and date of arrival in Australia were not identified, nor whether they had once been domesticated or half-domesticated and had gone feral, or whether they had already existed as truly wild animals.
(Carolina Dog) The Carolina Dog, or American Dingo, was originally a landrace or naturally selected type of dog which was discovered living as a wild dog or free roaming dog by Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin.
(Basenji) Originating on the continent of Africa, basenji-like dogs have lived with humans for thousands of years... Dogs of this type were originally kept for hunting small game by tracking and driving the game into nets.
(Thai Ridgeback) The origin of the Thai Ridgeback is undocumented, but the breed was developed in eastern Thailand. The history of the breed is the subject of numerous hypotheses.
(Pariah Dogs Generally) Pariah dogs are canids that have kept close to the original form and have evolved with little or no purposeful human intervention.
Which only supports your assertion in the case of the Basenji.

[Christiaanistan]

Yay! Some actual argument has materialized, and so far civilized, which is...pretty much the holy grail of all debate, frankly. Argument on civil terms between mutually respecting equals.

Anyway, I really think that this is one of the best examples of how nature itself really falls into a grey area that is neither a mixture of white and black nor a "shade of white" nor a "shade of black" but something that is neither between them nor of them nor outside them but simply...what it is.

The thing is, when we are thinking about modern species, we have to consider a few different variables, including a few things about ourselves. For one thing, there are still enclaves of humanity today that are barely more than animals, much less a special entity that has godlike status over animals. They are animals, interacting with animals.

Secondly, we have to understand, acknowledge and internalize that our ancestors were barely more than animals. In fact, it has been only within the past century, which is an astonishingly short amount of time, that we have made two important accomplishments, as a species: we have realized that women are just as much "people" as men, and we have realized that homosexuals are, in spite of apparently serving no singular purpose aside some genetic epiphenomena, just as human and ordinary as the rest of us and generally individuals who have the same goals and desires as the rest of us.

Essentially, the real state of affairs, for any species, I think, is more fluid than most of us appreciate.

But it is very good to see discussion on the matter.

[Sygneros]

Correct. And once some of these breeds were already dogs, they were then 'abandoned' by humanity, either because their fostering culture died or moved or because they simply became less useful (or any number of other possible scenarios), they were left to once again roam the wild - as dogs.

To reiterate my point to the OP: these animals do not occupy any new niche. They are simply feral.

Do you have proof of that claim? Because OP mentioned the dingo, Carolina dog, basenji, and Thai ridgeback, and wha Wikipedia has to say on those is:
(Dingo) Their exact descent, place of origin and date of arrival in Australia were not identified, nor whether they had once been domesticated or half-domesticated and had gone feral, or whether they had already existed as truly wild animals.
(Carolina Dog) The Carolina Dog, or American Dingo, was originally a landrace or naturally selected type of dog which was discovered living as a wild dog or free roaming dog by Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin.
(Basenji) Originating on the continent of Africa, basenji-like dogs have lived with humans for thousands of years... Dogs of this type were originally kept for hunting small game by tracking and driving the game into nets.
(Thai Ridgeback) The origin of the Thai Ridgeback is undocumented, but the breed was developed in eastern Thailand. The history of the breed is the subject of numerous hypotheses.
(Pariah Dogs Generally) Pariah dogs are canids that have kept close to the original form and have evolved with little or no purposeful human intervention.
Which only supports your assertion in the case of the Basenji.

No and I hoped my parenthesized statement would make evident I was not trying to make any real claim towards when these dogs were domesticated. I was simply giving an easy-to-conclude scenario that showed the possibility of dog groups splintering from humanity and going from feral to wild. However, I do think you will find that most of these breeds do go back to antiquity, thought.

[United States of Cascadia]

Like crows and sewer rats, I wouldn't call them domesticated. They just coevolved with us, along with lots of animals.

I actually find that to be an interesting comparison, because it reminds me of the domestication of cats. Most evidence seems to indicate that they co-evolved with humans, eating the rodents and other pests that were attracted to humans, which in turn benefited us, it would be interesting to see what happens with Corvids as time advances more. Perhaps we'll get to a point when they to will domesticate themselves similar to how cats are believed to. Pariah Dogs are an interesting topic of study because they seem to be following the path that cats did as opposed to the rest of dogs.

[United States of The One Percent]

there are still enclaves of humanity today that are barely more than animals

I nominate Israel and the Gaza Strip.

[United States of The One Percent]

I feed wild ducks all the time but I would not call them domesticated.

Yes, but if you fed them a couple times a day I'd bet you'd be able to get some of them to follow you home, where some of those might remain in your yard long enough to make a tasty meal like the rare duck breast with cherry gastrique and roasted peaches I enjoyed the other day, and their offspring might never leave. Now those ducks, they would be domesticated.

[United States of Cascadia]

I feed wild ducks all the time but I would not call them domesticated.

Yes, but if you fed them a couple times a day I'd bet you'd be able to get some of them to follow you home, where some of those might remain in your yard long enough to make a tasty meal like the rare duck breast with cherry gastrique and roasted peaches I enjoyed the other day, and their offspring might never leave. Now those ducks, they would be domesticated.

It'll take more than one generation to hit domestication, tamed maybe, but as can be seen from the Silver Fox, domestication can take decades to achieve.

[Margno]

Like crows and sewer rats, I wouldn't call them domesticated. They just coevolved with us, along with lots of animals.

I actually find that to be an interesting comparison, because it reminds me of the domestication of cats. Most evidence seems to indicate that they co-evolved with humans, eating the rodents and other pests that were attracted to humans, which in turn benefited us, it would be interesting to see what happens with Corvids as time advances more. Perhaps we'll get to a point when they to will domesticate themselves similar to how cats are believed to. Pariah Dogs are an interesting topic of study because they seem to be following the path that cats did as opposed to the rest of dogs.

I hope we could domesticate them, seeing as
1. They're currently total nuisances, and
2. They're among the most intelligent species on the planet, which could make them pretty damn useful to us if they ever got to the point of following our instructions.