When did dogs become our best friends?(atlasobscura.com)
atlasobscura.com
When did dogs become our best friends?
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/when-did-dogs-become-our-best-friends
243 comments
Really fascinating, I love the implication that domestication is tied to juvenile characteristics (getting along in a group means acting more like a kid than an adult protecting your territory / breeding rights).
> "Are we domesticated in the sense of dogs? No. But I am comfortable saying that the first thing that has to happen to get a human from an apelike ancestor is a substantial increase in tolerance toward one another."
> "Are we domesticated in the sense of dogs? No. But I am comfortable saying that the first thing that has to happen to get a human from an apelike ancestor is a substantial increase in tolerance toward one another."
It's interesting, though, because anyone who has ever owned a cat knows that they are only barely domesticated. It might be something in the canine brain that makes it easy to domesticate them.
> anyone who has ever owned a cat knows that they are only barely domesticated
just speculating, but wolves are "pack" animals, so they are already adapted to cooperating with each other and following a leader. perhaps that made them easier to train and domesticate. cats aren't like that except in the "lion pride" breeding sense which is perhaps a narrower skillset in terms of utility.
and of course, anybody who has owned a tiger will tell you that a cat is fairly domesticated :) I mention it because "domesticated" and "useful as a friend" might be two different things.
just speculating, but wolves are "pack" animals, so they are already adapted to cooperating with each other and following a leader. perhaps that made them easier to train and domesticate. cats aren't like that except in the "lion pride" breeding sense which is perhaps a narrower skillset in terms of utility.
and of course, anybody who has owned a tiger will tell you that a cat is fairly domesticated :) I mention it because "domesticated" and "useful as a friend" might be two different things.
I remember reading once that cats pretend domesticated themselves. Rather then changing themselves to be more docile and acceptable to humans they adapted traits that just make them seem more appealing to humans.
I don't think a lot of effort was put into actually intentionally breeding cats for domestication.
People seem to love them as semi wild animals and unlike dogs they aren't dangerous enough to be put down when they start biting people. On top of that a large percentage of the population are actually wild animals aka feral. Spend a lot of time with a kitten and it may become extremely affectionate, but we also habitually neuter them unlike the wild population. Go back 1,000 years and I suspect people acted similarly though without the neutering.
So the external evolutionary pressure for domestication doesn't seem nearly as strong as with those foxes, and might currently be going in the other direction.
People seem to love them as semi wild animals and unlike dogs they aren't dangerous enough to be put down when they start biting people. On top of that a large percentage of the population are actually wild animals aka feral. Spend a lot of time with a kitten and it may become extremely affectionate, but we also habitually neuter them unlike the wild population. Go back 1,000 years and I suspect people acted similarly though without the neutering.
So the external evolutionary pressure for domestication doesn't seem nearly as strong as with those foxes, and might currently be going in the other direction.
It's because dogs are wolf with the Williams Syndrome. A DNA deletion syndrome which reduces aggression and increases empathy. In humans the syndrome produces individuals with characteristic facial features, a big smile and friendly traits.
Edit: visibly dog lovers are not too keen on learning that their best friends have a genetic abnormality. But that doesn't make it less true, it's pretty well documented. It doesn't mean that dogs are lesser somehow, they are still perfectly viable it the wild (well not the races resulting from the most extreme genetic selections, but most of them)
Edit: visibly dog lovers are not too keen on learning that their best friends have a genetic abnormality. But that doesn't make it less true, it's pretty well documented. It doesn't mean that dogs are lesser somehow, they are still perfectly viable it the wild (well not the races resulting from the most extreme genetic selections, but most of them)
Williams syndrome is only in humans. It's not even a particularly hereditary condition. If what you said was true, we would expect to see modern day wild Wolves with this same genetic abnormality. Or we would expect to see wolves (and other predators, too) domesticated many different times in many different places, whenever this animal version of "Williams Syndrome" naturally occurred. We don't see that.
There are plenty of other genetically similar canine species that aren't domesticated. There are plenty of related animal (seals, ferrets, skunks) that aren't been widely domesticated, but are completely capable of being domesticated on an individual level, and none of them possess genetic abnormalities
One thing that many of these animals have in common is that they are fairly comfortable and adaptable to living in very close proximity to humans. That's true of modern day coyotes, raccoons, etc.
Humans have 99.9% identical DNA. All the variation you see in humans is explained by just 0.1% genetic differences. There's no reason to believe that the same isn't true for dogs without having to resort to a rare genetic deformity.
There are plenty of other genetically similar canine species that aren't domesticated. There are plenty of related animal (seals, ferrets, skunks) that aren't been widely domesticated, but are completely capable of being domesticated on an individual level, and none of them possess genetic abnormalities
One thing that many of these animals have in common is that they are fairly comfortable and adaptable to living in very close proximity to humans. That's true of modern day coyotes, raccoons, etc.
Humans have 99.9% identical DNA. All the variation you see in humans is explained by just 0.1% genetic differences. There's no reason to believe that the same isn't true for dogs without having to resort to a rare genetic deformity.
Dogs have a few genes that are implicated in hyper-social tendencies of people with Williams Syndrome; they do not have Williams Syndrome. WS causes a lot of other mutations that dogs don't have.
It's more likely that the social phenotype that is present with many WS patients emerged in dogs due to evolutionary pressures (explicit and implicit breeding) than dogs emerging due to WS.
It's more likely that the social phenotype that is present with many WS patients emerged in dogs due to evolutionary pressures (explicit and implicit breeding) than dogs emerging due to WS.
Cats aren't as deeply domesticated as dogs but there's clearly been some breeding effect which you see when you compare a housecat against a true wildcat (felis silvestris). The main thing is that housecats are comfortable around humans as long as they're exposed to humans within a critical age window, even if they were born in the wild to a feral cat. In contrast, wildcats never become comfortable around humans and are effectively always feral.
Housecats also have a number of behaviors that seem only distantly related to things that would be useful in the wild, such as meowing for attention. Another weird behavior is when cats line up dead mice outside their owner's bedroom door like a present. There's clearly some relationship that they understand between themselves and their owner.
Housecats also have a number of behaviors that seem only distantly related to things that would be useful in the wild, such as meowing for attention. Another weird behavior is when cats line up dead mice outside their owner's bedroom door like a present. There's clearly some relationship that they understand between themselves and their owner.
Whereas dogs were trained/bred/selected for specific purposes, I suspect cats were just kind of hanging out, following rodents which were were adjacent to human settlements.
It's easy to imagine humans simply tolerating them because they kept mice under control around grain and other food storage.
Intuitively that matches my perception of the cat-human relationship vs. the dog-human relationship.
It's easy to imagine humans simply tolerating them because they kept mice under control around grain and other food storage.
Intuitively that matches my perception of the cat-human relationship vs. the dog-human relationship.
A few years ago someone was raising new questions about the validity of this study, it doesn't seem mentioned in the wikipedia page and I don't know how/if it was resolved or settled:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/russian-foxes-tameness-d...
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/russian-foxes-tameness-d...
It is mentioned in the intro section on the Wikipedia article. And as mentioned in your linked article, the dispute is disputed by others still...
Hence why I added the bit about not being replicated, it's far from settled science. Intriguing though, IMHO.
Hence why I added the bit about not being replicated, it's far from settled science. Intriguing though, IMHO.
Ancient Romans and Greeks would write things about their dogs and have custom grave stones made, one of my favorites reads:
"My eyes were wet with tears, our little dog, when I bore thee (to the grave)... So, Patricus, never again shall thou give me a thousand kisses. Never canst thou be contentedly in my lap. In sadness have I buried thee, and thou deservist. In a resting place of marble, I have put thee for all time by the side of my shade. In thy qualities, sagacious thou wert like a human being. Ah, me! What a loved companion have we lost!"
"My eyes were wet with tears, our little dog, when I bore thee (to the grave)... So, Patricus, never again shall thou give me a thousand kisses. Never canst thou be contentedly in my lap. In sadness have I buried thee, and thou deservist. In a resting place of marble, I have put thee for all time by the side of my shade. In thy qualities, sagacious thou wert like a human being. Ah, me! What a loved companion have we lost!"
Damn he must've been the goodest boy of all time, rest in peace Patricus.
Likely twice as old as written language.
https://www.livescience.com/stone-age-dog-burial.html
Abuse of a dog or cat is a crime against civilization itself.
https://www.livescience.com/stone-age-dog-burial.html
Abuse of a dog or cat is a crime against civilization itself.
I've made this argument many times and it always raises eyebrows and induces shrugs. We as a species co-evolved with some animals and not others. Our partnership with extends deep into the mists of pre-history. We and they have co-evolved to an extent to be better companions. Eating a dog is a profound betrayal unlike that of eating a horse. Come at me
I am OK with some cultures not eating some meats: pork for the muslims or jews, horse for some Western countries, sometimes rabbit. Where I'm from (Italy) we eat both horse and rabbits.
But I too draw the line at eating dogs and cats, except during extreme survival situations where it's eat your pet (or fellow human) to avoid starvation. I feel eating canids and felids as taboo as eating a primate, or eating a human.
But I too draw the line at eating dogs and cats, except during extreme survival situations where it's eat your pet (or fellow human) to avoid starvation. I feel eating canids and felids as taboo as eating a primate, or eating a human.
Just as there are places where eating canids and felids is not taboo - so too are there places where eating a primate is not taboo. A larger geography by far as far as I know.
By this argument and amount of places (not people), eating a primate might be less taboo than eating a canid or felid?
As an American, I feel the same cultural taboos and they’ve kept me from eating some things but I’ve been reconsidering. Horse and rabbit were delicious.
What about coyote or mountain lion though? Those are still but seldom eaten in America mostly by hunters.
Some people draw the line at not eating predators not because of cultural taboo but because of bio accumulation issues.
Fascinating ethnobiology and moral boundary discussion.
By this argument and amount of places (not people), eating a primate might be less taboo than eating a canid or felid?
As an American, I feel the same cultural taboos and they’ve kept me from eating some things but I’ve been reconsidering. Horse and rabbit were delicious.
What about coyote or mountain lion though? Those are still but seldom eaten in America mostly by hunters.
Some people draw the line at not eating predators not because of cultural taboo but because of bio accumulation issues.
Fascinating ethnobiology and moral boundary discussion.
I think the issue with predators is that they taste "bad" compared to herbivores. Maybe we have evolved not to like they because of bioaccumulation, i.e. its not just a cultural norm.
I cannot think of a land-dwelling meat-eating animal human routinely eat. We eat chicken, but they eat anything including rocks, and they're towards the bottom rank of good-tasting meats anyway.
I cannot think of a land-dwelling meat-eating animal human routinely eat. We eat chicken, but they eat anything including rocks, and they're towards the bottom rank of good-tasting meats anyway.
Just depends on the timeframe. There was a period when black bear meat was very popular apparently.
You hear of people occasionally eating frog-legs, alligator, rattlesnake. But maybe these also taste "bad". And since frogs are insect eaters, maybe bioaccumulation isn't as much an issue.
And then you have a ton of people that eat beef all the time, vs a ton of people that revere cows; in certain places you can be imprisoned or lynched for slaughtering one, google "cow vigilantism".
It always interests me to consider just how relative taboos can be.
It always interests me to consider just how relative taboos can be.
> in certain places you can be imprisoned or lynched for slaughtering one
Only one country isn't it ?
Only one country isn't it ?
If it counts, that one country makes up 17% of living humans.
I know. I was just curious if there is any other country that revere cows.
Don’t forget Nepal!
Nepal’s population is 82 percent Hindu. This means many people from Nepal respect cows very much.
It is legal to eat beef in Nepal and many major hotels will serve it. However, it is illegal to kill a cow within the country.
Nepal’s population is 82 percent Hindu. This means many people from Nepal respect cows very much.
It is legal to eat beef in Nepal and many major hotels will serve it. However, it is illegal to kill a cow within the country.
Thanks didn't know that.
> But I too draw the line at eating dogs and cats, except during extreme survival situations where it's eat your pet (or fellow human) to avoid starvation. I feel eating canids and felids as taboo as eating a primate, or eating a human.
Really, dogs, primates, and humans should be the only animals that are okay to eat.
Otherwise you're saying that it's okay to kill and eat thinking, feeling creatures as long as they're sufficiently different from yourself.
Plus, only humans can consent to being eaten— In theory, anyway, though I wouldn't want to see any system that claims it can actually respect that honestly.
Really, dogs, primates, and humans should be the only animals that are okay to eat.
Otherwise you're saying that it's okay to kill and eat thinking, feeling creatures as long as they're sufficiently different from yourself.
Plus, only humans can consent to being eaten— In theory, anyway, though I wouldn't want to see any system that claims it can actually respect that honestly.
This is like arguing about if it’s better to regularly beat your sibling or your cousin. Just don’t beat anybody!
[deleted]
Compagnions and friends?
Maybe when we were nomads and the dogs roamed around freely around the tribe.
But most dogs today are locked in, most of the time and when they get outside, they are on a leash. Totally dependant on their human masters.
I don't think I would describe that relationship as a partnership.
Then there is the concept of breeding them, to establish certain "cute" traits, but cause great pain and misery to the animal:
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualzucht (german)
I would argue, the native american tribes, who also did eat their dogs, treated them better overall, than humanity does today on average. So many dogs bred for running around, are lucky today, if they get to walk around outside for more than 20 minutes. This I would call betrayal.
Maybe when we were nomads and the dogs roamed around freely around the tribe.
But most dogs today are locked in, most of the time and when they get outside, they are on a leash. Totally dependant on their human masters.
I don't think I would describe that relationship as a partnership.
Then there is the concept of breeding them, to establish certain "cute" traits, but cause great pain and misery to the animal:
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualzucht (german)
I would argue, the native american tribes, who also did eat their dogs, treated them better overall, than humanity does today on average. So many dogs bred for running around, are lucky today, if they get to walk around outside for more than 20 minutes. This I would call betrayal.
There are still many instances where this partnership is the case though. Search and rescue, avalanche rescue, herding, security and law enforcement, disability assistance, bomb/drug detection, hunting, etc. A lot of the companion dogs are useless for these roles, but many popular breeds could perform these tasks if given the training. On the west coast, people generally seem much more active with their dogs imo.
Yes I know, which is why I said "on average". Another big group of human-dog partnership, are with hippie/gypsy/punk people - but those dogs usually tend to be very annoying (and also dangerous) to everyone else.
> https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualzucht (german)
Here[0] is an English-language explanation of the term Qualzucht (with the English translation given as "torture breeding").
That German article also references a BBC documentary, which has its own English Wikipedia entry[1].
[0]https://www.petethevet.com/qualzucht-is-a-term-that-should-b...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_Dogs_Exposed
Here[0] is an English-language explanation of the term Qualzucht (with the English translation given as "torture breeding").
That German article also references a BBC documentary, which has its own English Wikipedia entry[1].
[0]https://www.petethevet.com/qualzucht-is-a-term-that-should-b...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_Dogs_Exposed
> I would argue, the native american tribes, who also did eat their dogs, treated them better overall, than humanity does today on average. So many dogs bred for running around, are lucky today, if they get to walk around outside for more than 20 minutes. This I would call betrayal.
Do you relatively equate this to how we treat other animals right now, killing the planet's livable ecosystems while exclusively creating living spaces and amenities for these domestic pets and treating the nature they come from as second class? Tens to hundreds of thousands of unique species and subspecies go extinct at previously unrecorded rates, but selective breeding of vanity traits in pet animals remains a common past time. There's clearly an attachment to these animals and breeds that keeps them in our conscious above others to consider it worthwhile to hold them in public reverence in a way that can still be described as companionship.
We've flipped the needle on adapting them for survival companionship to (essentially) slaved ownership with the aftereffects like you've mentioned, but I think zooming in on the scale of an individual societies' treatment won't generally be favorable. We barely even treat our own species with a level of achievable compassion for anyone deemed undesirable or are a lower class, the betrayal starts earlier than our treatment towards dogs.
Do you relatively equate this to how we treat other animals right now, killing the planet's livable ecosystems while exclusively creating living spaces and amenities for these domestic pets and treating the nature they come from as second class? Tens to hundreds of thousands of unique species and subspecies go extinct at previously unrecorded rates, but selective breeding of vanity traits in pet animals remains a common past time. There's clearly an attachment to these animals and breeds that keeps them in our conscious above others to consider it worthwhile to hold them in public reverence in a way that can still be described as companionship.
We've flipped the needle on adapting them for survival companionship to (essentially) slaved ownership with the aftereffects like you've mentioned, but I think zooming in on the scale of an individual societies' treatment won't generally be favorable. We barely even treat our own species with a level of achievable compassion for anyone deemed undesirable or are a lower class, the betrayal starts earlier than our treatment towards dogs.
"Do you relatively equate this to how we treat other animals right now"
I only talked about dogs and humans.
I only talked about dogs and humans.
Yeah, it's a bit narrow minded to exclude the rest of the historical context while comparing two isolated points in time. Sure makes an entirely emotion-driven plea look initially more compelling and legitimate though! Good for you on sticking to your preferred form of discourse.
Are you .. serious?
Do you really think it makes sense to always talk about everything? The topic was about dogs and humans and this is what I was talking about. Nothing more, even though surely I could. Topics are connected and I do not neceasarily disagree to what you said, but sorry, this is indeed not my preferred form of discourse.
Do you really think it makes sense to always talk about everything? The topic was about dogs and humans and this is what I was talking about. Nothing more, even though surely I could. Topics are connected and I do not neceasarily disagree to what you said, but sorry, this is indeed not my preferred form of discourse.
This doesn't really seem relevant to what I am saying. Or at least does no harm to my argument.
We've got a pretty long-standing partnership with horses too.
Indeed, but the switch from long-standing to long-riding is a relatively recent innovation, by the Romans, Arabs et al. (by breeding horses large enough to ride on), after the Sea Peoples demonstrated how to defeat charioteers
Rats and cockroaches also co-evolved with humans. Is that a partnership that evokes similar sentimental feelings for you?
Dogs co-evolved with such great benefit to humanity that it not only changed the nature of human civilization, but was foundational to the formation of the first human civilizations.
Show me evidence that co-evolution with rats and cockroaches is anything like this.
Show me evidence that co-evolution with rats and cockroaches is anything like this.
I wouldn't eat a horse either, but otherwise agree. Dogs have evolved the skills to fit in human social structures. They really do become part of families.
> https://www.livescience.com/stone-age-dog-burial.html
"Of note, it's unclear whether the dog died a natural death, or whether it was killed to be buried with its human. An analysis of its remains may reveal this mystery."
What are the odds that the dog died of natural causes at exactly the same time as the owner?
> Abuse of a dog or cat is a crime against civilization itself.
That logic doesn't follow. If dogs predate civilization, then how could it be a crime against civilization? Your article is about dogs in primitive hunter gatherer societies. Not civilizations. Besides, many civilizations have thrived abusing dogs and cats. You might want to read what the bible says about 'unclean' dogs. Or why we have the saying 'there is more than one way to skin a cat'.
Or how 'civilizations' dispatched of dogs not too long ago.
https://archive.nytimes.com/cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...
Not to mention the millions of cats/dogs that are 'euthanized' every year or the hundreds of million of cats and dogs that are castrated ( which people oddly don't consider to be abuse ). Heck, it's not hard to argue that imprisoning animals in your home as 'pets' is abuse.
If anything, civilization is an abuse against dogs and cats.
"Of note, it's unclear whether the dog died a natural death, or whether it was killed to be buried with its human. An analysis of its remains may reveal this mystery."
What are the odds that the dog died of natural causes at exactly the same time as the owner?
> Abuse of a dog or cat is a crime against civilization itself.
That logic doesn't follow. If dogs predate civilization, then how could it be a crime against civilization? Your article is about dogs in primitive hunter gatherer societies. Not civilizations. Besides, many civilizations have thrived abusing dogs and cats. You might want to read what the bible says about 'unclean' dogs. Or why we have the saying 'there is more than one way to skin a cat'.
Or how 'civilizations' dispatched of dogs not too long ago.
https://archive.nytimes.com/cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...
Not to mention the millions of cats/dogs that are 'euthanized' every year or the hundreds of million of cats and dogs that are castrated ( which people oddly don't consider to be abuse ). Heck, it's not hard to argue that imprisoning animals in your home as 'pets' is abuse.
If anything, civilization is an abuse against dogs and cats.
Humans and dogs were two borderline species until dogs were domesticated. But together the two were so complementary, that they never looked back. The dogs had the speed, teeth, smell and baby sitting while humans had the weapons, rock throwing, intelligence and cooking. It was and is a killer combination that rose to the top of the animal world on earth so far.
By baby sitting you mean dog hearing?
It's tricky for women to raise children in the wild. Especially once kids get to the ages between 2.5 and 8 when they'll want to explore their ever changing environment but mom still has to look for plants and berries and keep an eye any dangers and carnivores that are around. Dogs protect their own little ones in the wild and readily help to keep an eye on the human youngsters in the same way. Further more dogs will sound the alarm when needed. It's one more helping, important hand, that dogs bring to the bargain.
It's a bit of a fringe theory but there's a suggestion that the human 'alliance' with wolves gave us the edge over Neanderthals and other predators and ensured that it was us who ultimately survived as a species. It's a nice thought for a dog lover.
Why wouldn't neanderthals form an alliance with wolves too? Especially considering Neanderthals had a multi-hundred-thousand year head start in wolf range compared to homo sapiens.
Again we are in the realms of speculation upon speculation, but Neanderthals didn't have sclera (whites of the eyes) which according to the co-operative eye hypothesis as regards to domesticated hunting dogs allows them to follow our gaze. It does seem odd that Neanderthals didn't try to domesticate them too - surely the first reaction on seeing humans and dogs bring down a mammoth or corral large deer would be 'got to get us some of that', but as sibling comments say we don't know much about them really.
It’s an interesting question. I don’t know if there’s any evidence of wolf domestication by Neanderthals. If they didn’t domesticate them, it would be interesting to try to work out why – maybe there’s a subtle difference in psychology between H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalensis that enabled us to bridge that gap but not them?
There isn't a whole lot of evidence for how Neanderthals lived. We have only discovered remnants of 400 Neanderthals (about 30 mostly-complete skeletons).
>The current top contender for the first best friend is a puppy that lived, for a few months, more than 14,000 years ago in Central Europe.
Which tracks with the neolithic transition when we started "domesticating" animals for all purposes
Which tracks with the neolithic transition when we started "domesticating" animals for all purposes
On this topic I saw this great documentary called "Man's first friend" from 2008.[1].
Also speaking of northern Italy, as a dog owner, I am fully behind this[2] proposal to DNA test dogs and punish anyone leaving dog poop on the streets.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=talBvZ5x8sY&t=4882s
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/17/italian-provin...
Also speaking of northern Italy, as a dog owner, I am fully behind this[2] proposal to DNA test dogs and punish anyone leaving dog poop on the streets.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=talBvZ5x8sY&t=4882s
2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/17/italian-provin...
I also enjoyed the probably not very historically accurate movie Alpha, about a prehistoric young man domesticating a wolf: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4244998/
DNA testing would presumably help cut down on dog theft, which was a big issue in the UK when puppy prices increased due to lockdown.
In a low-trust country such as Italy, I'd say that it would be useful.
Also it would depend on the specific commune and not a country-wide requirement.
Also it would depend on the specific commune and not a country-wide requirement.
Denmark is generally considered a high trust country, but it happens often enough I would like to see it.
Also necessary in NYC which I don’t really feel is low-trust in general.
Hardly anyone in NYC would comply with such a law. They would just ignore it. The city could perhaps require DNA testing by animal shelters and legitimate breeders within it's borders. But many dogs come from elsewhere, or from backyard breeders who don't care about laws.
Dogs in NYC are already required to wear tags with their rabies vaccination statuses and IDs. That also isn't really checked, but it absolutely could be by simply stopping people walking their dogs and requesting to see their ID tag.
Don't shoot the messenger, but this is one of a number of quality-of-life improvements which is a non-starter because of the doctrine of disparate racial impact. The argument would be that poverty, undocumented status, etc, means it's harder for some ethnicities to comply with that sort of regulation, so the burden of police interaction would disproportionately fall on them. Probably not wrong in this case, getting a dog registered with all his shots is fairly expensive. My take is that a law worth having is a law worth enforcing, but unless that idea comes back into fashion, things like your suggestion won't happen.
Yet obviously there are many laws that are enforced and do have disparate racial impacts... So this is just an airing of grievances.
Those laws aren't dog ownership requirements in New York City, though. Which is the topic I was replying to. It wasn't a statement about all laws everywhere.
They literally are: you are required to vaccinate and register your dog in NYC and your dog is required to wear proof of this vaccination at all times in public.
Ah, I didn't realize you were the person I was replying to, and assumed that the "airing of grievances" bit was directed at me. My reference to "those laws" was to the ones you said have disparate racial impact and are enforced. I still think that NYC is unlikely to start robustly enforcing the ones you are talking about.
"Your papers, please."
Come on, you can't be serious. Police and code enforcement officers aren't going to stop random dog walkers on the street to demand DNA test results. Real Americans don't tolerate that kind of government overreach, and the authorities already didn't even have time to investigate actual crimes.
Come on, you can't be serious. Police and code enforcement officers aren't going to stop random dog walkers on the street to demand DNA test results. Real Americans don't tolerate that kind of government overreach, and the authorities already didn't even have time to investigate actual crimes.
"Demand DNA test results" == "check that they have a specific tag on their collar"
I didn't say they are going to, and you didn't say they wouldn't. You said they couldn't (because people "would just ignore it") and I said they absolutely could. Which is true.
Re "Real Americans", get a grip.
I didn't say they are going to, and you didn't say they wouldn't. You said they couldn't (because people "would just ignore it") and I said they absolutely could. Which is true.
Re "Real Americans", get a grip.
Also necessary in pretty much all USA metros and suburbs I have been to in the last 10 years.
NYC and US are definitely low-trust.
Interesting comparison: https://jacknicastro.substack.com/p/vienna-and-new-york-high...
Interesting comparison: https://jacknicastro.substack.com/p/vienna-and-new-york-high...
I don't think a single parameter like that makes it "definitely" low-trust.
In Austria, people are required to deposit money to borrow a grocery cart while shopping for food. Not so anywhere I've been in the US -- ergo Austria is low-trust and US is high-trust? I think not.
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/2004272-euro-coin...
In Austria, people are required to deposit money to borrow a grocery cart while shopping for food. Not so anywhere I've been in the US -- ergo Austria is low-trust and US is high-trust? I think not.
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/2004272-euro-coin...
The US has those, Aldi uses them. But isn't this because they don't have cart boys to bring the carts from corals throughout the parking lot back to the front of the store? It's just a different model of cart management, not indicative of trust or lack thereof. If somebody wanted to steal a cart, that quarter is a trivial price for it. It's not an anti-theft measure, just a little thing to encourage honest people to walk slightly further than normal.
Here's a rule of thumb I use to judge if a community is high trust or not. If I leave my bicycle unlocked and it gets stolen, will others be surprised or will they call me a moron for trusting other people? Obviously NYC is low trust, I would be mocked mercilessly if my unlocked bike got stolen there.
Here's a rule of thumb I use to judge if a community is high trust or not. If I leave my bicycle unlocked and it gets stolen, will others be surprised or will they call me a moron for trusting other people? Obviously NYC is low trust, I would be mocked mercilessly if my unlocked bike got stolen there.
My bar for low-trust is 'Should I expect to have to bribe public and private officials to get them to perform their duties, most of the time'?
The US is relatively high trust in this space. And I don't know of many countries that will pass the bike test. Certainly, nowhere in Europe would.
Maybe we could try a different test - how afraid is the society of itself. Count how often you see cops, how well-armed they are, etc...
The US is relatively high trust in this space. And I don't know of many countries that will pass the bike test. Certainly, nowhere in Europe would.
Maybe we could try a different test - how afraid is the society of itself. Count how often you see cops, how well-armed they are, etc...
For me the test is: if possible, would an individual skip paying the ticket for a public transport if they know almost nobody will check?
It's so trivial and yet it shows how much the society cares about its own systems functioning properly or not.
It's so trivial and yet it shows how much the society cares about its own systems functioning properly or not.
That's a better test. There are a lot of places with 95%+ fare compliance where I wouldn't leave my bike unlocked for an instant.
It only takes one asshole out of thousands to steal a bike, and every society has at least one asshole.
It only takes one asshole out of thousands to steal a bike, and every society has at least one asshole.
Any example?
Also high trust != absolutely no crime ever
It's the difference between getting your bike stolen because of a random asshole and knowing your bike will be stolen by someone (also arguably an asshole).
Also high trust != absolutely no crime ever
It's the difference between getting your bike stolen because of a random asshole and knowing your bike will be stolen by someone (also arguably an asshole).
> Any example?
Literally any city with good fare compliance. If it's got enough people in it to have a transit network, it's got enough bike thieves in it to steal your bike.
> It's the difference between getting your bike stolen because of a random asshole and knowing your bike will be stolen by someone (also arguably an asshole).
That's just a product of population density. If you live in the middle of nowhere, with 5 people total in a 15-mile radius, it's highly unlikely someone's going to steal your bike.
If you leave your bike on Main Street, where thousands of people walk by every hour, all it takes is one in a thousand.
Literally any city with good fare compliance. If it's got enough people in it to have a transit network, it's got enough bike thieves in it to steal your bike.
> It's the difference between getting your bike stolen because of a random asshole and knowing your bike will be stolen by someone (also arguably an asshole).
That's just a product of population density. If you live in the middle of nowhere, with 5 people total in a 15-mile radius, it's highly unlikely someone's going to steal your bike.
If you leave your bike on Main Street, where thousands of people walk by every hour, all it takes is one in a thousand.
Aldi, the German grocery chain infecting our High Trust Society with their Low Trust Germanicism?
> It's not an anti-theft measure, just a little thing to encourage honest people to walk slightly further than normal.
... because they can't be trusted to do it without the deposit...
> It's not an anti-theft measure, just a little thing to encourage honest people to walk slightly further than normal.
... because they can't be trusted to do it without the deposit...
Definitely a high trust city (Vienna), but note that a few times a year they do check for tickets.
Because the monthly pass rate is so low, most people have purchased the pass on their phone and that must be shown a couple of times a year or else you’ll be charged a fine at the checkpoint. I’m actually surprised that the evasion stats are so low, since the fine isn’t terribly large and you might come out ahead just never paying the fare and only paying fines.
I have to say though, that system of spot checks makes the day to day very low friction.
Because the monthly pass rate is so low, most people have purchased the pass on their phone and that must be shown a couple of times a year or else you’ll be charged a fine at the checkpoint. I’m actually surprised that the evasion stats are so low, since the fine isn’t terribly large and you might come out ahead just never paying the fare and only paying fines.
I have to say though, that system of spot checks makes the day to day very low friction.
The first time I visited Vienna I noted the complete lack of fare control and thought "wow, it's great they've made public transport free!" My hostel was kind enough to disabuse me of this notion, though.
Isn’t solving trust issues with further mistrust leads to an even lower trust in the end? (genuinely interested because “low-trust/high-trust communities” concept is a topic I know nothing about.)
Good point. I really don't think a country can switch side (high to low and viceversa) within a short timespan, maybe not even within a generation.
So, if you want to solve the issue, you use the methods which work in the affected area.
In high trust, as long as the thing is seeing benefitting most, it is often followed. In low trust, breaking a rule is often seen as a sign of independence and generally being cool, so you need to put deterrents to make it uncool to get caught.
At least, this is coming from my own personal experience living in different countries. Might not be the same everywhere.
So, if you want to solve the issue, you use the methods which work in the affected area.
In high trust, as long as the thing is seeing benefitting most, it is often followed. In low trust, breaking a rule is often seen as a sign of independence and generally being cool, so you need to put deterrents to make it uncool to get caught.
At least, this is coming from my own personal experience living in different countries. Might not be the same everywhere.
The UK has gone from high to low in a generation.
People no longer (for instance) leave their children (or even their dogs) outside shops whilst they go inside.
People no longer (for instance) leave their children (or even their dogs) outside shops whilst they go inside.
When you are eating a shit sandwich already because that's all there is it doesn't matter if there's dogshit or horseshit on it.
The founding fathers would think that allowing the government to have a database on ANYTHING is a bad idea.
Plus dog poop is ecologically good for the environment and fertilizes nature.
Plus dog poop is ecologically good for the environment and fertilizes nature.
It is absolutely not good for the environment. Your dog does not eat a local, natural diet. There are more dogs than could be locally and naturally sustained.
Dog poop can blind children and is horrible for the environment.
https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxocariasis/
https://www.popsci.com/environment/dog-poop-pollution/
https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxocariasis/
https://www.popsci.com/environment/dog-poop-pollution/
DONT EAT THE POOP.
and you won't get that disease.
Problem solved.
And dont let your kids eat any animal poop
and you won't get that disease.
Problem solved.
And dont let your kids eat any animal poop
Children often touch things in the grass and then touch their faces or put their fingers in their mouth
Concrete and asphalt don't need fertilizer.
Most dogs are extremely particular about where they poop and don't poop on concrete and asphalt if they have any other choice.
I guess we walk through different alleyways.
Apparently, dog poop is not an effective fertilizer and is considered harmful for grass?
Was news to me as a dog owner who allows our dog to do her business in the back yard (but would never allow it on a public walkway/area).
https://lawnlove.com/blog/is-dog-poop-bad-for-grass/
Was news to me as a dog owner who allows our dog to do her business in the back yard (but would never allow it on a public walkway/area).
https://lawnlove.com/blog/is-dog-poop-bad-for-grass/
That blows my mind. I had two dogs as a kid, and if we didn't pick up the poop fast it destroyed the grass underneath. Their corner of the yard was all dead grass.
My dog has pooped in my backyard for years and nothing but thick quality grass everywhere.
probably because most kibble is vegetable based and vegetable based poop is good for the grass.
maybe you fed your dog more meat?
if your dog's poop is killing the grass you're doing something seriously wrong with its diet.
probably because most kibble is vegetable based and vegetable based poop is good for the grass.
maybe you fed your dog more meat?
if your dog's poop is killing the grass you're doing something seriously wrong with its diet.
> most kibble is vegetable based
Most cheap kibble maybe.
> if your dog's poop is killing the grass you're doing something seriously wrong with its diet.
If yours isn't, I think _you_ might be doing something wrong with its diet. https://lawnlove.com/blog/is-dog-poop-bad-for-grass/
Most cheap kibble maybe.
> if your dog's poop is killing the grass you're doing something seriously wrong with its diet.
If yours isn't, I think _you_ might be doing something wrong with its diet. https://lawnlove.com/blog/is-dog-poop-bad-for-grass/
lawnlove.com
"Dont believe everything you read on the internet"
- Abraham Lincoln
"Dont believe everything you read on the internet"
- Abraham Lincoln
Do your dogs urinate in your yard as well?
I think any poop from a carnivore is bad for grass, and everything else. You can compost it and it will be usable after about 1.5 years.
dogs are omnivores.
most kibble is vegetable based
most kibble is vegetable based
Sorry, misspoke. I meant any animal that eats meat, including humans, dogs, chickens, etc. If they eat meat, there are toxins in the poop that make it inappropriate as a fertilizer, but you can compost it and kill off most of the bad stuff.
Using an A.I. article from lawnlove.com as a source....okayyyy
This country has really gone downhill with education
My teachers would have yelled at me for having a source like that.
This country has really gone downhill with education
My teachers would have yelled at me for having a source like that.
Fair point. Was my first Google hit on "is dog poop bad for a lawn" which was probably lazy on my part.
Dogs are little more than farm animals, in the sense that we're farming them for companionship. They might be our friends now that we have killed all the ones that would defy our commands.
Look at any wild animal, do they want to be owned, do they want to be put on a leash? Of course not. Animals want to be free like any other living being, but just like cows, dogs would not survive on their own because we have artificially selected them. Imagine aliens capturing humans, breeding them in captivity until they are docile little creatures that cannot survive on their own. It's easy to feel sorry for farm animals because we eat them, but in a way people who love pets are not any better than the farmer, despite the culture thinking otherwise.
Look at any wild animal, do they want to be owned, do they want to be put on a leash? Of course not. Animals want to be free like any other living being, but just like cows, dogs would not survive on their own because we have artificially selected them. Imagine aliens capturing humans, breeding them in captivity until they are docile little creatures that cannot survive on their own. It's easy to feel sorry for farm animals because we eat them, but in a way people who love pets are not any better than the farmer, despite the culture thinking otherwise.
[deleted]
Thank you for saying that, it's a bitter pill for a lot of people to swallow. I suspect most folks who struggle with squaring the facts just haven't spent much time around livestock.
> Look at any wild animal, do they want to be owned, do they want to be put on a leash?
Numerous wild animals can be held as pets, without going through domestication, so apparently they do. If you feed them, they may have no reason to mind the leash, life is hard in the wild.
Numerous wild animals can be held as pets, without going through domestication, so apparently they do. If you feed them, they may have no reason to mind the leash, life is hard in the wild.
I think we would need to make a distinction between holding a wild animal in captivity temporarily and owning one as a pet or as an exhibition at the zoo. When people help wild animals that is of course good for them, and it helps preserve wild life. Having them as pets on the other hand is a different matter, and I would be very skeptical even if the animal seems happy because ultimately it would not know or have awareness of what is really going on. That said, it's a complicated issue, so it's not like I'm saying no one should own pets.
> Animals want to be free like any other living being,
That's a nice thought, but in reality there are plenty of humans even that just get overwhelmed and scared at the thought of freedom, whether their own or other people's, and actively demand, seek, and create rigid and oppressive systems of rules and restrictions in order to trade freedom away for predictability. Otherwise… The entire human world would likely be shaped quite different from how it currently is.
Our morals don't map cleanly onto physical reality, and values like "freedom" are unfortunately still relatively inconsequential next to causalities like "death", "killing", "starvation", and "culling". Does a tapeworm "want to be free" from its host? How about a male anglerfish, which only has a nervous system complex enough to find a larger female anglerfish which it can latch onto while its entire body is subsumed away? Animals want whatever animals are neurologically wired to want, humans included, and only sometimes does that align with our higher ideals of life having intrinsic worth. The nature of things simply is, and in a lot of cases, I think the ways we try to assign moral judgements to it are projecting our own social instincts onto ecological and cognitive systems that do not share our values.
Certainly, the power dynamics, amount of control, and relative levels of awareness between humans and pets are… Would be rightfully horrifying, though, if the alternative were a relationship of equal peers.
That's a nice thought, but in reality there are plenty of humans even that just get overwhelmed and scared at the thought of freedom, whether their own or other people's, and actively demand, seek, and create rigid and oppressive systems of rules and restrictions in order to trade freedom away for predictability. Otherwise… The entire human world would likely be shaped quite different from how it currently is.
Our morals don't map cleanly onto physical reality, and values like "freedom" are unfortunately still relatively inconsequential next to causalities like "death", "killing", "starvation", and "culling". Does a tapeworm "want to be free" from its host? How about a male anglerfish, which only has a nervous system complex enough to find a larger female anglerfish which it can latch onto while its entire body is subsumed away? Animals want whatever animals are neurologically wired to want, humans included, and only sometimes does that align with our higher ideals of life having intrinsic worth. The nature of things simply is, and in a lot of cases, I think the ways we try to assign moral judgements to it are projecting our own social instincts onto ecological and cognitive systems that do not share our values.
Certainly, the power dynamics, amount of control, and relative levels of awareness between humans and pets are… Would be rightfully horrifying, though, if the alternative were a relationship of equal peers.
Ok, sure, maybe not all animals would feel that way, but I think probably all mammals or at least the smarter ones (relatively speaking). If dogs "want" to be pets, it's for the same reasons cows "want" to be farm animals, but it would be far-fetched to say a cow wants to be slaughtered and eaten. Sure a pet dog is not food, but compared to their wolf ancestors, they are far from their ideal natural state (if they have one at this point, which I guess is arguable, just like with cows).
I guess I'm mostly pointing to a double standard between pets and farm animals. I eat meat, so I'm not advocating for any solution on either case here, just making an observation that potentially we are farming animals for more than food, and there aren't any movements advocating for the release of pets or alternatives to animal companionship.
I guess I'm mostly pointing to a double standard between pets and farm animals. I eat meat, so I'm not advocating for any solution on either case here, just making an observation that potentially we are farming animals for more than food, and there aren't any movements advocating for the release of pets or alternatives to animal companionship.
Well before the cataclysm 12k years ago.
For a lot of dog owners, their dog is less a friend and more an Instagram cast member
[deleted]
More than friendship, I think this is more a case of dependency. Sometimes it goes one way, sometimes both ways especially in the emotional part.
[deleted]
As a cyclist, I can't say dogs are my best friends. OTOH I have had great bonds with some cats.
Cycling in rural Virginia/West Virginia has this risk as well. 99% of pooches just want to run along and make noise, but 1/100 wants flesh.
The solution - never be the slowest in the group!
The solution - never be the slowest in the group!
When in Rome... open/constitutional carry, stand your ground?
i was walking my two dogs Sunday before last and was jumped by pitbulls roaming the neighborhood. A passing Dominos delivery driver pretty much saved the lives of both my dogs. I got him to role down his window and literally threw one of my dogs through it, then when the other one got separated for a min she literally jumped through the open window too. I jumped in and paid the driver $20 to take me home, the pits chased the car for maybe a block.
I have a pistol and was thinking about carrying it but that means every time i take my dogs for a walk i have to get it out of the safe and put it back in the safe. I have kids so can't just hang a holster with the leashes. Too much hassle and I know i'll eventually stop taking it with me. What i ended up doing was getting bear spray that can attach to the leashes. Now I can't forget to take protection with me when taking the dogs out because it's physically attached to the leash.
edit: this happened in Dallas TX
I have a pistol and was thinking about carrying it but that means every time i take my dogs for a walk i have to get it out of the safe and put it back in the safe. I have kids so can't just hang a holster with the leashes. Too much hassle and I know i'll eventually stop taking it with me. What i ended up doing was getting bear spray that can attach to the leashes. Now I can't forget to take protection with me when taking the dogs out because it's physically attached to the leash.
edit: this happened in Dallas TX
I, too, like cycling around with my shotgun. It nicely complements the spandex outfit.
Missed opportunity here. I found a number of gun racks for bikes, but no hardpoint mounts for gun turrets on bikes.
https://silodrome.com/columbia-military-pneumatic-safety-bic...
For when you need to deliver a really, really important message.
For when you need to deliver a really, really important message.
Pfft, it only aims forward. Surely we can do better.
Open carry is legal in both states. But I want nothing to do with owning/carrying guns. And haven't ever felt the need - most dogs give up chase once you pass their property. And I've only had a dog get my back tire once, and never flesh (though it does happen).
If there is more than one dog then you are almost always in big trouble.
I got bitten on a bike before, we have lots of aggressive stray dogs here. Even running routes have to be carefully planned to avoid the dogs.
I got bitten on a bike before, we have lots of aggressive stray dogs here. Even running routes have to be carefully planned to avoid the dogs.
[deleted]
> But I want nothing to do with owning/carrying guns.
I said "when in Rome" to signal distaste at the idea, for whatever that's worth. On the other hand, if bicycling leftists armed themselves and started blasting away every car and dog that made them feel threatened, it might move the needle on gun rights in a way that right-wing shooters fail to.
And, I've had several dogs escape their fences. They aren't just noisy.
I said "when in Rome" to signal distaste at the idea, for whatever that's worth. On the other hand, if bicycling leftists armed themselves and started blasting away every car and dog that made them feel threatened, it might move the needle on gun rights in a way that right-wing shooters fail to.
And, I've had several dogs escape their fences. They aren't just noisy.
I can't say cyclists are my best friends either. Just had two buzz me with with few mm to spare while walking to work. Yes, I was on the footpath, cyclists are not allowed to ride on footpaths here, there was a bicycle path right next to the footpath.
If I was a dog that would be even more disturbing - a huge fast monkey trying to kill you (and your owner) while you peacefully walk.
Bikers gotta watch out for the cats as well!
https://www.kuow.org/stories/cougar-attack-washington-state-...
https://www.kuow.org/stories/cougar-attack-washington-state-...
Deadly and non-deadly mountain lion attacks are rare, but dog attacks are not rare.
I do hiking, the same.
Pepper spray, knife etc are illegal here. I carry air horn for quick deployment, and petards (very small explosives). Saved my ass twice! Once I was surrounded by pack of four large dogs!
Pepper spray, knife etc are illegal here. I carry air horn for quick deployment, and petards (very small explosives). Saved my ass twice! Once I was surrounded by pack of four large dogs!
Wait, what? What country is a self-defense item like a pepper spray illegal in?
No offense but why do you care what the law says when you're by yourself in the middle of the wilderness?
It is mostly South Europe, not wilderness but more like 10 km from nearest village of 2000 people. Injuring dog is a serious offense here ($20k fine, perhaps jail). I am also foreigner, not local citizen...
You have stray dogs where you live or what? Cant say cycling has affected my views on dogs.
Lots of stray dogs around here in south of Spain. Also when I used to be a 12y old cycling in rural france that was pretty much the same, I was always prepared for a sprint whenever I would reach a farm.
In a sense it probably made me stronger but I can't say I build a friendship and a mutual sense of confidence with dogs.
In a sense it probably made me stronger but I can't say I build a friendship and a mutual sense of confidence with dogs.
ah okay thats not a thing here in Sweden.
So its not cycling then its a stray dog thing :)
So its not cycling then its a stray dog thing :)
I wonder what makes them hunt cyclists and some cars that pass by.
Some breeds have a higher prey drive than others.
But many bad behaviours are pretty easy to train out of most dogs (eg barking at passer-bys). Dogs are easy to train. Too many lazy owners blame their "nature" or "that's just how they are" as if they can't do anything.
But many bad behaviours are pretty easy to train out of most dogs (eg barking at passer-bys). Dogs are easy to train. Too many lazy owners blame their "nature" or "that's just how they are" as if they can't do anything.
My dogs bark at people on bike/motorcycles/scooters. I think they code as a big animal to them. Once we get up close and it's clear that it's a person on a machine they stop barking.
As a counter point to hunting, my dog seems to be afraid of almost anything on wheels. Even a skateboard without rider is a hard nope, and will send her tail tucked behind me.
She's a 90 lbs Mastiff/St Bernard/Lab cross. It's not like she's worried about being crushed or eaten. She could probably eat me.
Or maybe she doesn't realize she's big. I don't know.
She's a 90 lbs Mastiff/St Bernard/Lab cross. It's not like she's worried about being crushed or eaten. She could probably eat me.
Or maybe she doesn't realize she's big. I don't know.
Instincts? Wolves hunt animals much larger than themselves for a living, they run after, nibble their ankles and wait for them to make a mistake and then they go in.
Perhaps this is in order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velo-dog
Well I don't want them any harm either. I understand all this is a big misunderstanding as they probably feel I am a danger to them.
> For the more humane, there were cartridges loaded with cayenne pepper or dust,
Could probably go for pepper spray nowadays.
Could probably go for pepper spray nowadays.
I've been bitten by off leash dogs in California. They often give chase and try to attack your legs or bike wheels causing a crash.
[deleted]
stef25(1)
First, I know a lot of people are very nice to their dogs, but...
I live in a large city, and based on the number of dogs locked away in apartments all day barking and bored to death with almost no stimulation, I figure dogs are certainly not the best friends of a lot of people. Instead, they are more like prisoners that illustrate the cruelness of humanity in general: these people use them as entertainment and care fairly little for their overall welfare.
I live in a large city, and based on the number of dogs locked away in apartments all day barking and bored to death with almost no stimulation, I figure dogs are certainly not the best friends of a lot of people. Instead, they are more like prisoners that illustrate the cruelness of humanity in general: these people use them as entertainment and care fairly little for their overall welfare.
I strongly agree and it's apparent not everybody shares this opinion.
I grew up in the countryside in the middle of nowhere, my dog used to have an enormous backyard to run in, and was cheeky enough to have made a hole in the fence when that time of the year came and he really wanted to leave for a couple days at a time, either to sire some puppies, or to roll around in horse dung. We used a leash whenever we took him amidst civilization, otherwise he was used to just walking unleashed, with us (mostly getting impatient at how slow humans are), sniffing anything he wanted and peeing on every pole that stood in his path.
I miss him every day (died at 15 years old a happy and free half golden retriever mutt). I'd love another dog, but I know they're a type of animal that enjoys a large territory, freedom, as well as a social hierarchy. I will have to suffer with this hole inside of me until I am able to leave the city and offer a dog not only love, but large enough space to run around and not get bored to death.
Cats on the other hand, as long as they have food and are left alone, can happily live holed up in a flat. Thrive, I'm not sure, but they have much simpler needs than dogs.
I grew up in the countryside in the middle of nowhere, my dog used to have an enormous backyard to run in, and was cheeky enough to have made a hole in the fence when that time of the year came and he really wanted to leave for a couple days at a time, either to sire some puppies, or to roll around in horse dung. We used a leash whenever we took him amidst civilization, otherwise he was used to just walking unleashed, with us (mostly getting impatient at how slow humans are), sniffing anything he wanted and peeing on every pole that stood in his path.
I miss him every day (died at 15 years old a happy and free half golden retriever mutt). I'd love another dog, but I know they're a type of animal that enjoys a large territory, freedom, as well as a social hierarchy. I will have to suffer with this hole inside of me until I am able to leave the city and offer a dog not only love, but large enough space to run around and not get bored to death.
Cats on the other hand, as long as they have food and are left alone, can happily live holed up in a flat. Thrive, I'm not sure, but they have much simpler needs than dogs.
Some dogs really can handle modest exercise. I know a happy cocker spaniel who’s an apartment dweller. Gets a lot of human interaction with almost constant human companions, with about ten humans rotating in and out of the dogs life over a month. So, exercise wise, not too much except walks in the city and parks, but socially a very interesting life. I am sure a husky would go insane in the same circumstances. It also very much depends on the individual, so if you get a dog, find out as much as possible how it’s close relatives behave.
> Cats on the other hand
are much more like humans - cat's dig urbanism, can hang out at a cafe for hours, sit on a couch watching the tube all day, they happily adapt.. So that' why we say "there's a cool cat" but you never hear anything about "cool dogs". So your theory is correct in my opinion: dogs are good rural friends and cats are good urban friends. There is also the matter of dog poop. Has anyone every complained on cat poop on their stoop? Or getting bitten by the neighbor's cat? Or being annoyed at the neighbor's mewing cat?
Now a cat on a farm, don't know about that. Wonder how that would work.
are much more like humans - cat's dig urbanism, can hang out at a cafe for hours, sit on a couch watching the tube all day, they happily adapt.. So that' why we say "there's a cool cat" but you never hear anything about "cool dogs". So your theory is correct in my opinion: dogs are good rural friends and cats are good urban friends. There is also the matter of dog poop. Has anyone every complained on cat poop on their stoop? Or getting bitten by the neighbor's cat? Or being annoyed at the neighbor's mewing cat?
Now a cat on a farm, don't know about that. Wonder how that would work.
Small dogs can do OK in your typical suburban block. (Block as in land for single dwelling). They need walks though yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm_cat
We domesticated cats so they would keep rats away from our winter grain storage.
We domesticated cats so they would keep rats away from our winter grain storage.
I assume it was more like humans found cats in their winter grain storage, saw the cat ate rats and left the grain alone, so humans left the cat alone. Ten thousand years later and we are now in a closer relationship.
Any farm ive ever been to has about 8 mildly domesticated cats that live around the premises.
> Now a cat on a farm, don't know about that. Wonder how that would work.
Can easily feed themselves from all the rodents enjoying the grain supply.
Can easily feed themselves from all the rodents enjoying the grain supply.
This is either amazing satire or the most Hacker News comment ever written.
"Beware of the Cat!" ..
Me and my parents came to an agreement that we will not own a pet while we live in an apartment precisely because of this sentiment. I also disagree with the strawman the other comment presented: The alternative isn't to have the dog fight for survival on the streets as a stray. The alternative is to have the dog owned by a family that can actually provide it with the appropriate environment.
Dogs are very social and they love to be with their humans, your pet is not going to be happier being left alone in the back yard than lounging on the couch with you.
I do not see where the parent poster advocated for leaving a dog alone in the back yard.
They didn't, I'm pointing out that the problem isn't the space (apartment), but that owners aren't providing adequate stimulation and companionship for the dogs.
Lived on a farm with a 100 acres a dog could roam freely in.
Live in a suburban house with a small back yard and a small dog doesn't like it and wants to roam.
Dogs are great in rural areas, in cities I think they suffer for the sake of humans.
Live in a suburban house with a small back yard and a small dog doesn't like it and wants to roam.
Dogs are great in rural areas, in cities I think they suffer for the sake of humans.
Not always that simple. I have a giant doberman. I no-shit threw a frisbee for this doberman 72 times yesterday (and ran with her three miles). She gets more exercise than the sheltie I had as a kid that ran leash-free in the country. And if you dare leave her in the backyard her whine could emit high-pitch frequencies that shake glass. She's a city dog that would be lost in the country without a human to hang with.
I generally agree that cities and apartments aren't great places for dogs.
But a lot of dogs are rescues, and a lot of breeds are quite happy in apartments.
There are also a lot of mitigations possible. There are dog walkers and dog sitters who come by and walk the dogs during the daytime. You can have multiple dogs that keep each other company. Etc.
A barking dog isn't necessarily distressed. In fact, they're probably not distressed: there are a lot of other ways that dogs show that.
They also like to sleep during the daytime. They sleep a lot in general. They are pretty adaptable to our schedules.
While I generally don't think we should be breeding dogs at all, the reality is that there are a lot of dogs who need homes (as well as homes who need dogs!) and in the majority of situations I think that getting dogs into homes with a loving family is preferable to euthanizing them.
But a lot of dogs are rescues, and a lot of breeds are quite happy in apartments.
There are also a lot of mitigations possible. There are dog walkers and dog sitters who come by and walk the dogs during the daytime. You can have multiple dogs that keep each other company. Etc.
based on the number of dogs locked away in apartments
all day barking and bored to death with almost no
stimulation
A barking dog isn't necessarily distressed. In fact, they're probably not distressed: there are a lot of other ways that dogs show that.
They also like to sleep during the daytime. They sleep a lot in general. They are pretty adaptable to our schedules.
While I generally don't think we should be breeding dogs at all, the reality is that there are a lot of dogs who need homes (as well as homes who need dogs!) and in the majority of situations I think that getting dogs into homes with a loving family is preferable to euthanizing them.
> While I generally don't think we should be breeding dogs at all
What do you mean by this? If we don't breed dogs, in about 15 years or so, there will be no dogs left at all.
What do you mean by this? If we don't breed dogs, in about 15 years or so, there will be no dogs left at all.
Right. I wasn't very clear. I perhaps made it sound like I didn't want any more dogs to be born.
To be clearer, my wish is that we could curtail breeding until supply matched demand. Rather than the current situation where lots of dogs are put down because there are more dogs than homes.
To be clearer, my wish is that we could curtail breeding until supply matched demand. Rather than the current situation where lots of dogs are put down because there are more dogs than homes.
I can't speak for GP, but I personally find it kind of fucked up that we selectively breed a lot of dogs for certain asthetic traits at the expense of their health. I assume they meant this brand of artificial selection rather than letting dogs reproduce at all.
That’s an extremely harsh take considering those same owners likely do care a lot about their dogs and shower them with love and affection outside those 8 hours. You’re focusing on a single part of the experience in order to paint the whole thing in a negative light.
To put it another way, would they be better off being strays? I doubt it.
To put it another way, would they be better off being strays? I doubt it.
Extremely harsh? Many of these dogs are very smart. What about locking a human away for 8 hours with no internet, no books, no entertainment, nothing to do?
And it might be affection they give their dogs but it's not really love if they are so cruel. Besides, they wouldn't be strays if they were never bought, at least not a lot of them if the demand were lower, then so would the breeding and supply.
And it might be affection they give their dogs but it's not really love if they are so cruel. Besides, they wouldn't be strays if they were never bought, at least not a lot of them if the demand were lower, then so would the breeding and supply.
> What about locking a human away for 8 hours with no internet, no books, no entertainment, nothing to do
These arguments fall apart when the animal is anthropomorphized.
Dogs sleep a lot more than people do, needing around 12 hours. They will take about 4 hours of that sleep in the day regardless if a human is around.
It's very breed dependent but, the majority of dogs don't require a significant amount of mental stimulation. For most breeds, a half hour of mental stimulation is plenty.
Obviously locking a husky or a cattle dog in an apartment (and this unfortunately does happen), is another story. There are certain breeds you shouldn't go for if you live in an apartment. But there are a lot of breeds that do just fine, even some large ones, like greyhounds.
These arguments fall apart when the animal is anthropomorphized.
Dogs sleep a lot more than people do, needing around 12 hours. They will take about 4 hours of that sleep in the day regardless if a human is around.
It's very breed dependent but, the majority of dogs don't require a significant amount of mental stimulation. For most breeds, a half hour of mental stimulation is plenty.
Obviously locking a husky or a cattle dog in an apartment (and this unfortunately does happen), is another story. There are certain breeds you shouldn't go for if you live in an apartment. But there are a lot of breeds that do just fine, even some large ones, like greyhounds.
Exactly. My wife has been rescuing French Bulldogs for years. Even before they were this popular. The problem is they have all sorts of health issues that people don't account for, so they get turned in more than you think. But, their demeanor makes them great apartment dogs. They'll happily sleep 15 hours/day, and even when outside will lay down in the sun to sleep more.
Speaking of greyhounds, we fostered an Italian Greyhound one time...and I thought Frenchies were fragile.
Speaking of greyhounds, we fostered an Italian Greyhound one time...and I thought Frenchies were fragile.
Pre-pandemic, when my partner and I had to go to work and leave the dog alone, we made sure to leave multiple treat toys and puzzles for entertainment, and were never away for longer than 6 hours.
Now that we both work from home we can see that the dog mostly sleeps all day, occasionally getting up to bark at some squirrels or passers-by.
Now that we both work from home we can see that the dog mostly sleeps all day, occasionally getting up to bark at some squirrels or passers-by.
> To put it another way, would they be better off being strays? I doubt it.
Adopting a dog will probably do it good, but a lot of people are buying dogs from dog breeders (and then the mentioned behavior happens, dogs left alone to bark in apartments). Should dogs be purposefully bred as pets, only to be left alone for hours on end?
Adopting a dog will probably do it good, but a lot of people are buying dogs from dog breeders (and then the mentioned behavior happens, dogs left alone to bark in apartments). Should dogs be purposefully bred as pets, only to be left alone for hours on end?
[deleted]
I am not a lover of dogs, which some people seem to find offensive? Yet, people who are cruel to dogs are, generally, dog owners and not people like me who just give them a wide berth.
Anyone who thinks an animal enjoys being locked indoors all day with no understanding of why, or for how long it will be, is a much lesser person than me.
Anyone who thinks an animal enjoys being locked indoors all day with no understanding of why, or for how long it will be, is a much lesser person than me.
Unfortunately, this pet-owner energy mismatch extends to those who live in all types of environments. People will often seek a companion putting plenty of research into their looks, size, and how much they shed - without paying mind to the breed's temperament. I work with high-drive waterfowl retrievers that have seemingly endless energy and they can really start to act up without proper frequent exercise. They require multiple 20+ minute sessions of training/running per day that would be equivalent to many miles of running each session.
They are pets and not friends
They are neither. They are living beings that we just happened to have modified through artificial selection to be our slaves.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
That's a pretty extreme take.
Being unfit to raise a dog does not imply cruelty.
Being unfit to raise a dog does not imply cruelty.
[deleted]
lordnacho(7)
mynameishere(1)
Dogs are the worst... at least some dog owners who leave their dogs outside barking all morning.
Not nice for the neighbors and not nice to the dog.
Interestingly, while they were selected purely for lack of aggression towards humans they started to develop dog-like physical traits.
Hasn't been replicated yet, and doubtfully will, but interesting.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox