Gosh no, you've missed the point! The urban fox is just an illustration of how adaptations work, and this is all without the power of domestication which further speeds it up.

The wolf is not just the closest living relative of the dog, it is the direct ancestor. The fox is related but less so, being of the same family but a differrent genus.

Since the <15k years of domestication the dog has adapted to many different types of diets and this would have been initiated by those wolves that had the genetic capacity to survive in close proximity to humans, which would have involved scavenging off human waste. Need I go on.......

Did you not just answer that yourself?

No you don't need to go on at all. We are going to disagree whichever way you look at it.

I give up, have waited long enough for some evidence other than theory and speculation.

Sure urban foxes may now be living on leftover macdonalds etc but is it BETTER for them than their natural carnivorous diet?

They, like dogs, are opportunists so are going to eat what is available to them. I'm sure if we left loads of tins of chappie on the streets or handfuls of dry dog food they would eat that too, but is it good for them?

Are they in better health now that they live in the cities and eat our leftovers than when they caught their own? Who knows, but I highly doubt it.

So the way the world evolves may change what is available for all animals to eat and therefore change their habits but has it benefited them? Would they all do better being put back on their original diet? We can only speculate.

You're probably right in that some foxes in the early days of this adaptation would have fared better on the diet of their rural cousins but this isn't something that would have happened overnight.

A gradual process, much like that of wolf domestication, where those with the genetic capacity, in temperament as well as digestion, best coped with living in close proximity to humans. Those that didn't cope simply didn't survive to pass on their genes.

I would think it very unlikely that the urban fox has evolved so far that it could no longer thrive on a rural diet, but the fact alone that the urban fox is such a success story in terms of adaptation, is proof enough that he is thriving on his new diet.

It may not suit our romantic vision of wild animals hunting in the countryside, but there's no room for romanticism in the harsh world of survival-of-the-fittest.

This thread has swung way off topic long ago.

Am I to assume noone can rise to Zuba's challange to provide evidence that dogs require veg in their diet?

just what i found from "Foraging and Feeding Ecology of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus): Lessons from Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA":

"The prevalence of vegetation found in summer scats indicates that consumption of these food types is intentional; it has been suggested that this may serve as an added source of vitamins or may aid in eradicating intestinal parasites."

"In addition, plant matter is prevalent in wolves' summer diet, with 392 (74%) of 530 scats analyzed containing some type of plant material, largely grass (Graminae). This is consistent with summer observations of wolves consuming grass and other plant material."

however, it only gives a vague speculation as to a reason why, and i can't get the study it references! vaguely interesting all the same!

o well done mse2, that's really interesting

Yeah is interesting.

I believe that it is already well documented that wolves (roll eyes) eat berries/bark etc.

We could turn the arguement around so you can find evidence (not hearsay) that they don't need veg in their diet.

A friend of mine, whose dogs have been eating a natural diet from pups, frequently reports that her goldies jump up to take berries off the bush and pick up apples from the lawn. I don't know if you feel that is relevant, but that is their choice, it's not like they have to eat that. The same dogs turn their nose up at kibble, as they don't know what it is.

Many dogs, given the opportunity will also eat chocolate or drink antifreeze; doesn’t mean we need to start adding those to their diet though.

The evidence that they don’t need veg is in their anatomy;
Carnivorous teeth, no saliva enzymes to start off the digestion process for CHO (burden is then on the pancreas to produce large amounts of amylase to deal with the starch, cellulose, and CHO in plant matter), short smooth gut aiding quick digestion (which doesn’t facilitate the long time veg and fruit need to be digested), none of the bacteria in the gut that breaks down cellulose and starch.
Result: Much of the “goodness” in veg is unavailable to dogs; wether they be processed or not.

That’s enough evidence for me.