Well see again, thats what wrong with todays children. i wasnt rasied like that, my parents werent strict , they did have a sense of humour, never the less, we were well behaved when it was appropraite. this is where it gets confusing, todays children seem to know their 'rights' and are brats (no offence to anyone with lovely kids) but i am sure you know what i mean. Teachers are driven mad, as they cant even tell them off anymore. What i meant was a good old fashioned clip around the ears (er backside for dogs) when they are doing wrong (whilst in the act).
How about treating them like 3yr olds 50 years ago ! (nowadays parents let them off with too much!) (i am sure the same could be said for some people with dogs) -she says, looking skywards, and whistling-

i agree with the thing about kids. some of the kids in my kids school i would like to get hold of and give them mopre than a clip round the ear. we have a boy who is just living with his mum as his dad left which is a shame but not uncommon these days and he is a bully and he controls everyone and everyone is scared of him. the teachers will regularly say oh but he has it hard at home! so what! i dont think that gives a child the right for 6 years to terrorise 30 kids! if my husband left me or something bad happened to us of course i would be kind to my children but i wouldnt let them get away with murder people still have to behave in a decent way no matter whats happening at home and kids these days are always seen as victims if they are violent or a bully well its my son and all the other class members that are the victims having to put up with the little s**t! sorry i will get off my soap box now and apoligise for hijacking the thread but when jess emntioned about kids i thought yes! kids are allowed to get away with murder these days!

lol! sorry from bringing it up.... but its true, then its the parents to blame for being 'slack'. Round here there are alot of 25 year old grannys! which says it all really! kids raised by kids raised by kids. people will be there own downfall.

Katy and Jess, I totally agree with you both! I guess I am old-fashioned that way. I don't believe in any of that 'children should be seen and not heard' rubbish, but I didn't have a particularly pleasant childhood, but I didn't bully, didn't hang out in large groups near lamp-posts, and the only contact I've had with the police is the work I do with them!!

I watch these child psychology programmes and constantly think I bring my dogs up better than these people do their children, and my dogs don't have the capacity to influence the world and their environment the way these kids will be able to!

Back on topic - I don't see my dogs as children, but I think the same thing applies to both of them. I never ask my dogs to do anything uncomfortable, that would endanger them, that they don't understand, or that would cause them pain, so in this house, if I ask Satch to leave something alone, I expect him to do it. Nine times out of ten he does. He's still growing up; he's something like the equivalent of a 9-10 year old little boy, so of course he's naughty and pushes his boundaries, but when he does he's not just allowed to get away with it.

There's a terrier up our road who flies at the gate, snapping and growling, whenever me and Satch walk past. Satchmo just looks at it with amusement, but the terriers owner actually stands there and praises it! She coos over it, pets it and laughs while her dogs snarling away at mine. I asked her about her dog one day and during the conversation she told me to do has to be shut in the kitchen when her grandkids come over, and he aggressively snaps whenever anyone tries to get him off the sofa so they can sit down. Is it any wonder, methinks, when his behaviour is rewarded??

Katy, I've hijacked this thread far more LOL - sorry everyone!! ops:

Becs

"...the capacity to influence the world and their environment the way these kids will be able to!"

THIS is the reason i dont want kids. because its your responsibility to 'make' a wonderful person to contribute to the world and pass on your genes. I think my genes and beliefs are valuable enough to pass on, but i dont want the responsiblity of making something that could potentially go very very wrong.
Its not like baking, where you can chuck it out and start over. Imagine being responsible for making a paedophile (sp?) or mass murderer. Scares the pants off me....er maybe that should read "on me" (tuttut)
At least i amn't releasing the dogs out into the world to cause mayhem!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

I get the feeling that they may well be some serious dissent about what I am about to say.

The latest thinking is that Dogs are parasites! A bit harsh I agree but that is what they are, it is not just my view but also the contention of Copinger and Budianski's both leading ethologists and scientists in the canine world plus many other ethologists anthropologists and behaviourists.

They effectively cannot live without us but we can live without them. We wouldn't want to, but we could if we had to.

Some 40,000 years ago a strain of wolf gradually mutated over a period of time so that it became what is now known as Village Dogs. You can partly train a Wolf but only if you start to rear it before its eyes open and before 8/9 days have elapsed, then you must stay with it almost 24/7 up to about 16 weeks. But then if that part tamed Wolf bred either to another part tamed or wild one then the offspring would be totally wild unless the same hand rearing and time frame ensued.

Effectively the old idea that man tamed the Wolf for his own ends by getting young cubs and rearing them and teach them to be human social is nonsense and I agree with Copingers and others findings.

The reason they couldn't live without us is, contrary to popular belief they are not a Wolf, they are a Wolf mutation that came about because of man, they have filled a parasitical niche for themselves . I believe it was a mutation that lost it fear of man during Neolithic and Mesolithic periods and lived on the refuse and detritus of mans dumps. Exactly how we see with the many millions of wild/feral/village dogs today.

They do not have the correct motor responses/ brain shape to become truly wild dogs and hunt game. Which to some extent also throws out the argument for BARF? All feral dogs live near villages and do not hunt in packs as Wolves do. They cannot survive on their own without our waste because they have never really had the full motor responses to hunt. That is why many dogs may kill but would rarely consume, some will hunt but not kill and some will guard but not attack the animal they are guarding or consume the animal the are guarding against.

Dogs to all intents and purposes are not loyal they are ingratiating themselves, because its in their best survival instincts. Let’s take the service dogs, Dogs do not seek out earthquake victims because they have a moral sense to do that and are happy to save people, they do it because they are trained that some people they are hunting for jump up and play a game with them. If these live play people were not interspersed in the dogs working day the dogs just would not do it.

Dogs do not search for drugs because it is illegal they search because when they find them they get a game, they do not tell us when we are getting an epileptic fit out of kindness or concern but because they will get a treat when they do.

There are no Lassies out there that warn us of dangers, by the way Lassie was mainly a Laddie. They bark if there is a fire because of their own safety and want to get out, they don’t drag us to safety out of water we grab on to them because they want out and are legging it. There are more people killed by dogs climbing up on their owners trying to get out the water than vice versa. The don’t keep us warm if we are injured and cold they cuddle up to get our heat purely out of instinct and a necessity to keep warm themselves. Skippy the kangaroo really doesn’t say that Granny has fallen down the mineshaft. And what was she doing near a mineshaft at her age anyway.

I am not trying to be as some may say to be contentious this is the latest thinking and studies using DNA and more recently the mapping of the canine genome has thrown up new knowledge.

I love and adore dogs but I am also a realist and am aware that they are the greatest advantage takers and freeloaders in the whole animal kingdom.

I will just sit back and await the response. Hard hat on son is it fitting comfortably."Good"

Stan

the advantage taker and freeloader bit does ring a few bells actually Stan, you may have a point
I can think of more than a few people whos dogs are pampered to extremes, they most definately couldnt survive without humans.

From my own dogs point of view, I think they would probably do pretty well, but they would prefer human compnay to being on their own in the wild Im sure.

How do you feel about the studies done in the 60s where they raised pups in fields and brought them in to be tested every few weeks to detrmine the critical socialisation periods?

Do you not think the fact that the study showed the older puppies remained wild and fearful is evidence that if not properly socialised as pups, dog are quite capable of reverting back to wild behaviour?

If a feral bitch gives birth and the pups have no human contact, they will be wary and distrutful of humans, each further generation will be the same. I have very mixed feelings about your theory Stan, would be interested if you can provide some links or references to the studies which have led you to this conclusion. I like to read up on anything to do with dogs so it would be interesting.

I do agree with you about wolves being different to dogs, and the taming aspect, wolf trainers have always maintained that even a wolf reared from a cub will never be 100% trustworthy in comparison to a dog and that you have to be very careful.

I know in the horse world, the primitive horse prezswalski (sp) is untameable and cannot be broken or ridden the way a normal wild equine such as a mustang can be, and even plains zebra have been caught and broken to ride within a short space of time (Kiley worthingtons work is extremely interesting on this topic) so perhaps you have a point and there are some animals which will always remain truly wild and independant of man.

Hi CBT

The 60s research you spoke about was the Bar Harbor project in Maine by Scott and Fuller their study was probably one of the most important this century and mapped the critical periods in a dogs psychological growth.

I would agree that the pups became fearful aggressive and difficult to handle if not socialised at the correct times, but they did not become wild or feral whereby they hunted for themselves they became anxious of human contact and in particular, strangers. They became almost like the Village dogs of Pemba and Chake Chake.

However they were able to be trained to a certain level but only up to a point, they never made good pets and were aloof and fearful of most situations.

Currently the Wolf is struggling to survive. There is an estimated 400,000 Wolves in the whole world against 400 Million dogs. Therefore the lifestyle and ability to predate on our waste and enveigle there way into our lives has made the dog a very successful species.

The thing that our pamperd pooches is that there brainshape and motor responses which are very different from their wild cousins such as the Wolf, Dingo and Jackel. And therefore cannot follow through all the responses needed to hunt effectively to survive.

Stan


With regard to further information on the latest scientific studies Copingers book called "Dog's" is an excellent book and has been hailed as a breakthrough in understanding how dogs evolved and how they think. I also like Stephen Budiansky "if a Lion Could Talk" and "The Truth about Dogs"

Definately worth a read.

Stan

once again statements are made that your applying to dogs, but it has a wider meaning that NOBODY yet FULLY understands.

"That is why many dogs may kill but would rarely consume"

your emplying that dogs are sooo mutated, that they arent wild anymore... tut tut tut.
i suppose foxes arent wild either... because its an unexplained fact that foxes go into chicken runs kill all the chickens yet dont eat them.

Dogs arent mutated enough not to survive on their own, i have utmost confidence that my dogs would find a way to survive without people. one of my rescue dogs ran away for two weeks after being homed. she was found healthy but scratched, no one knows what she ate.... but she did.
To say that dogs are parasites would be a false statement; a parasite by definition can only complete its lifecycle by using a host. dogs can live free, they are not parasites. also dogs are NOT a different species from the wolf, if you mate the two, you get fertile offspring... the definition of a species. wolves and dogs can and do survive by hunting, and can and do survive on good soild raw red meat.

i agree with the theory that dogs evolved to live side by side for humans. instead of parasitic, can we not think of them as symbiotic? they get a 'free' ride for expending less energy than they would hunting, and we got detritus cleaners, a 'working' animal, and now companions that give us nothing but comfort.

thankyou Stan, I will take a look at the books you mention. I find your posts a lot easier to read now that you have toned them down a little, and I think some of the points you make are very valid. The majority of pampered pooches wouldnt know what to do if they were abandoned in the wildnerness, but I still think a small percentage of working dogs used to killing and eating animals, and living outdoors, would possibly adapt. I must admit I find reading about any kind of canine studies fascinating, especially the Scott and Fuller one, I think that has really helped dog breeders today understand the critical fear and socialisation periods. Look forward to hearing more of your comments on this issue