|
Post by mln59 on Jan 13, 2020 20:47:19 GMT -5
Any good dog-related books you read recently? The ones I read I can recall recently are Dog Sense by John Bradshaw and Inside of a Dog by Alexandra Horowitz, both are science-based interpretation of dog behaviour, their history and how they see the world, while debunking some myths along the way. Further back, I also recall a book by psychologist Stanley Coren titled "How Dogs Think". As for fiction, there are the classics I read long ago, like Jack London's White Fang and Call of the Wild. There is also James Herriot's Dog Stories and Marley & Me, A Dog's Purpose. What about you? I have a bunch of dog-training books. But I don't need them anymore. I'm a master at dog training. I've read both White Fang and The Call of the Wild. Loved them. are you a dog whis-per-er?
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Jan 13, 2020 20:53:35 GMT -5
I have a bunch of dog-training books. But I don't need them anymore. I'm a master at dog training. I've read both White Fang and The Call of the Wild. Loved them. are you a dog whis-per-er? The smart ones. The dumb ones don't listen to me.
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Jan 13, 2020 22:42:47 GMT -5
Any good dog-related books you read recently? The ones I read I can recall recently are Dog Sense by John Bradshaw and Inside of a Dog by Alexandra Horowitz, both are science-based interpretation of dog behaviour, their history and how they see the world, while debunking some myths along the way. Further back, I also recall a book by psychologist Stanley Coren titled "How Dogs Think". As for fiction, there are the classics I read long ago, like Jack London's White Fang and Call of the Wild. There is also James Herriot's Dog Stories and Marley & Me, A Dog's Purpose. What about you? I have a bunch of dog-training books. But I don't need them anymore. I'm a master at dog training. I've read both White Fang and The Call of the Wild. Loved them. Same (on the reading, not the training).
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 14, 2020 21:16:12 GMT -5
Now here is a fascinating little tidbit for dog lovers. Ever wonder why dogs have that "sad" look sometimes? Scientists discovered that many dog breeds have a unique eye muscle to covey this expression that is absent from wolves, only relatively ancient breeds like Siberian Huskies do not have them. Scientists speculate that this is used to mimic human emotion and foster bonding between dogs and humans: www.livescience.com/65738-how-dogs-evolved-sad-eyes.htmlSo when your dogs does something bad, like stealing food off the kitchen table, they will give you that sad look to try and escape the consequences! Haha.
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Jan 15, 2020 12:02:34 GMT -5
Now here is a fascinating little tidbit for dog lovers. Ever wonder why dogs have that "sad" look sometimes? Scientists discovered that many dog breeds have a unique eye muscle to covey this expression that is absent from wolves, only relatively ancient breeds like Siberian Huskies do not have them. Scientists speculate that this is used to mimic human emotion and foster bonding between dogs and humans: www.livescience.com/65738-how-dogs-evolved-sad-eyes.htmlSo when your dogs does something bad, like stealing food off the kitchen table, they will give you that sad look to try and escape the consequences! Haha. OMG I KNEW IT! My dog is so gonna pay. lol Fun read. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Jan 15, 2020 12:05:24 GMT -5
My dog doesn’t steal food or chew on shoes. He’s more of an archeologist, if you know what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Jan 15, 2020 12:32:34 GMT -5
My dog doesn’t steal food or chew on shoes. He’s more of an archeologist, if you know what I mean. Mine doesn't either, but she has the sad eyes mastered. They work, but she gets things like broccoli and bell peppers, her faves.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Jan 15, 2020 13:24:51 GMT -5
My dog doesn’t steal food or chew on shoes. He’s more of an archeologist, if you know what I mean. Mine doesn't either, but she has the sad eyes mastered. They work, but she gets things like broccoli and bell peppers, her faves. ...yeah...you must not realize you have a rabbit, not a dog.
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Jan 15, 2020 16:24:23 GMT -5
Mine doesn't either, but she has the sad eyes mastered. They work, but she gets things like broccoli and bell peppers, her faves. ...yeah...you must not realize you have a rabbit, not a dog. HAHAHA so cute. You surprise me sometimes. Even in your snark, you are adorable.
|
|
|
Post by mln59 on Jan 15, 2020 17:13:44 GMT -5
Mine doesn't either, but she has the sad eyes mastered. They work, but she gets things like broccoli and bell peppers, her faves. ...yeah...you must not realize you have a rabbit, not a dog. trainermch is a rabbit whis-per-er-er-er
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 15, 2020 21:34:38 GMT -5
And another interesting tidbit. One of the unresolved but fascinating scientific debate is the origin of the dog. Where and when was it domesticated from wolves. Traditionally, it was believed that human nomadic hunter-gatherers would collect wolf pups from a den when the wolf mom was away, as a curiosity, then raised them as companions. This theory has now been debunked by scientists. Human hunter-gathers's priority was survival, finding enough game animals to hunt and kill, constantly moving from place to place. In such hand-to-mouth circumstances, they simply did not have the time or need for pets, never mind actively going to potential threats (wolves) to look for companions. Directly using random untamed wolves to hunt game is also not very feasible, as wolves consume a lot of meat, and neither are they easy to train or obedient, in short, they are unreliable, and the human-gathers simply cannot devote such time to train wolves for such meagre returns. Instead, it is now believed that dogs self-domesticated themselves. Exactly where, how and by what means they did so is debated. But the general idea is that there was a select and very particular group of wolves, ones who were neither aggressive or fearful of humans, who would approach human campsites to scavenge for food as an easy meal than go hunting themselves. Aggressive wolves would be killed or driven away as a threat to the humans. Fearful wolves would naturally keep their distance from humans. So it was left with wolves that were curious and friendly to humans. Gradually, over time, the human hunters found that these wolves that linger among them serves some useful purpose, barking to warn of intruders. Helping to chase prey for the humans to make it easier to kill and so on. These wolves also change form over time. The genes that result in their more receptive behaviour to humans also result in changing their shape, creating flopping ears, curled tail, different coat colors and short or long legs. Their skull size was also reduced, a sure indication of domestication. This does not mean that they got stupidier, but natural selection for friendliness, playfulness and affection to humans, in short neoteny, has this effect. Dogs' behavior was arrested in wolf puppyhood in essence. Then starting in the 18th and 19th century, natural selection was replaced by artificial human selection in Europe, as official breeds were developed to conform to certain standards as dog clubs were established. The select group of wolves that gave birth to dogs alas, is no longer with us. Some people assume that existing grey wolves are dog's ancestors, but that is not so. There has certainly been admixture between dogs and present-day grey wolves (cross-breeding between them, some scientists argue that black wolves resulted from earlier breeding with dogs), but the grey wolves today should not be seen as dog ancestors. Modern wolves descended from a lineage that were actively hunted or chased away by humans, their fear of humans were one primary selection trait. Hence this is why it is not a good idea to take modern wolves as pets like dogs. www.livescience.com/42649-dogs-closest-wolf-ancestors-extinct.html
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 16, 2020 1:56:15 GMT -5
And another interesting tidbit. One of the unresolved but fascinating scientific debate is the origin of the dog. Where and when was it domesticated from wolves. Traditionally, it was believed that human nomadic hunter-gatherers would collect wolf pups from a den when the wolf mom was away, as a curiosity, then raised them as companions. This theory has now been debunked by scientists. Human hunter-gathers's priority was survival, finding enough game animals to hunt and kill, constantly moving from place to place. In such hand-to-mouth circumstances, they simply did not have the time or need for pets, never mind actively going to potential threats (wolves) to look for companions. Directly using random untamed wolves to hunt game is also not very feasible, as wolves consume a lot of meat, and neither are they easy to train or obedient, in short, they are unreliable, and the human-gathers simply cannot devote such time to train wolves for such meagre returns. Instead, it is now believed that dogs self-domesticated themselves. Exactly where, how and by what means they did so is debated. But the general idea is that there was a select and very particular group of wolves, ones who were neither aggressive or fearful of humans, who would approach human campsites to scavenge for food as an easy meal than go hunting themselves. Aggressive wolves would be killed or driven away as a threat to the humans. Fearful wolves would naturally keep their distance from humans. So it was left with wolves that were curious and friendly to humans. Gradually, over time, the human hunters found that these wolves that linger among them serves some useful purpose, barking to warn of intruders. Helping to chase prey for the humans to make it easier to kill and so on. These wolves also change form over time. The genes that result in their more receptive behaviour to humans also result in changing their shape, creating flopping ears, curled tail, different coat colors and short or long legs. Their skull size was also reduced, a sure indication of domestication. This does not mean that they got stupidier, but natural selection for friendliness, playfulness and affection to humans, in short neoteny, has this effect. Dogs' behavior was arrested in wolf puppyhood in essence. Then starting in the 18th and 19th century, natural selection was replaced by artificial human selection in Europe, as official breeds were developed to conform to certain standards as dog clubs were established. The select group of wolves that gave birth to dogs alas, is no longer with us. Some people assume that existing grey wolves are dog's ancestors, but that is not so. There has certainly been admixture between dogs and present-day grey wolves (cross-breeding between them, some scientists argue that black wolves resulted from earlier breeding with dogs), but the grey wolves today should not be seen as dog ancestors. Modern wolves descended from a lineage that were actively hunted or chased away by humans, their fear of humans were one primary selection trait. Hence this is why it is not a good idea to take modern wolves as pets like dogs. www.livescience.com/42649-dogs-closest-wolf-ancestors-extinct.htmlSeveral things there sound wrong. Let's start with the most basic: hunter-gathers did not live desperately busy lives. We know in fact, that hunter-gatherers tended to have more free time than many people do today. In many places food was plentiful (and of course free). Their biggest concerns really were with other people. Modern day hunter-gatherers usually don't have a big surplus of food available to them, but remember that modern day hunter-gatherers are remnant tribes that were forced out of all the best areas and have to live in the most marginal of places. So anyway, people probably did have the time and the resources to domesticate wolves if they wanted to. That doesn't prove that they did it that way, but the argument that "in such hand-to-mouth circumstances, they simply did not have the time or need for pets" doesn't hold up.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 16, 2020 2:48:14 GMT -5
And another interesting tidbit. One of the unresolved but fascinating scientific debate is the origin of the dog. Where and when was it domesticated from wolves. Traditionally, it was believed that human nomadic hunter-gatherers would collect wolf pups from a den when the wolf mom was away, as a curiosity, then raised them as companions. This theory has now been debunked by scientists. Human hunter-gathers's priority was survival, finding enough game animals to hunt and kill, constantly moving from place to place. In such hand-to-mouth circumstances, they simply did not have the time or need for pets, never mind actively going to potential threats (wolves) to look for companions. Directly using random untamed wolves to hunt game is also not very feasible, as wolves consume a lot of meat, and neither are they easy to train or obedient, in short, they are unreliable, and the human-gathers simply cannot devote such time to train wolves for such meagre returns. Instead, it is now believed that dogs self-domesticated themselves. Exactly where, how and by what means they did so is debated. But the general idea is that there was a select and very particular group of wolves, ones who were neither aggressive or fearful of humans, who would approach human campsites to scavenge for food as an easy meal than go hunting themselves. Aggressive wolves would be killed or driven away as a threat to the humans. Fearful wolves would naturally keep their distance from humans. So it was left with wolves that were curious and friendly to humans. Gradually, over time, the human hunters found that these wolves that linger among them serves some useful purpose, barking to warn of intruders. Helping to chase prey for the humans to make it easier to kill and so on. These wolves also change form over time. The genes that result in their more receptive behaviour to humans also result in changing their shape, creating flopping ears, curled tail, different coat colors and short or long legs. Their skull size was also reduced, a sure indication of domestication. This does not mean that they got stupidier, but natural selection for friendliness, playfulness and affection to humans, in short neoteny, has this effect. Dogs' behavior was arrested in wolf puppyhood in essence. Then starting in the 18th and 19th century, natural selection was replaced by artificial human selection in Europe, as official breeds were developed to conform to certain standards as dog clubs were established. The select group of wolves that gave birth to dogs alas, is no longer with us. Some people assume that existing grey wolves are dog's ancestors, but that is not so. There has certainly been admixture between dogs and present-day grey wolves (cross-breeding between them, some scientists argue that black wolves resulted from earlier breeding with dogs), but the grey wolves today should not be seen as dog ancestors. Modern wolves descended from a lineage that were actively hunted or chased away by humans, their fear of humans were one primary selection trait. Hence this is why it is not a good idea to take modern wolves as pets like dogs. www.livescience.com/42649-dogs-closest-wolf-ancestors-extinct.htmlSeveral things there sound wrong. Let's start with the most basic: hunter-gathers did not live desperately busy lives. We know in fact, that hunter-gatherers tended to have more free time than many people do today. In many places food was plentiful (and of course free). Their biggest concerns really were with other people. Modern day hunter-gatherers usually don't have a big surplus of food available to them, but remember that modern day hunter-gatherers are remnant tribes that were forced out of all the best areas and have to live in the most marginal of places. So anyway, people probably did have the time and the resources to domesticate wolves if they wanted to. That doesn't prove that they did it that way, but the argument that "in such hand-to-mouth circumstances, they simply did not have the time or need for pets" doesn't hold up. I need to clarify perhaps. Hunter-gatherers don't have desk jobs and meeting project deadlines that modern humans have to deal with of course, but that doesn't mean they just sit on their asses all day doing nothing. I read books on dog evolution. Hunter-gatherers are more free in the sense their lives are not minutely organized like modern humans are. But they do have to worry about finding food to eat. They have to be on the move constantly. They do not have time to have pets as companions. The traditional idea of humans taking wolf pups and domesticate them is wrong. I mean, do I trust scientists who dedicated their professional lives studying this...or someone making a point without evidence to support?
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Jan 16, 2020 9:42:04 GMT -5
Same here, Ender, same.
|
|
|
Post by trainermch on Jan 16, 2020 22:57:14 GMT -5
|
|