[working-gundog] old dogs > GSP Forum

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search

Forums > Mailing Lists > working-gundog

Subject: [working-gundog] old dogs

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

cwalt

MH
Posts:180

10/18/2008 12:11 AM
I have long insisted that dogs were domesticated long before the former oldest record at about 15,000 years since the skeletal data show that the dog was already domesticated when it came across the Bering Strait land bridge in the last ice age. A prehistoric skull of a dog dating to 31,700 years ago has been excavated at Goyet Cave in Belgium. This raises the age of the oldest known dog by more than 17 thousand years. There are also tracks in the cave of a dog and a child. The dogs were something like huskies and about the size of a German shepherd. As of 31,700 years ago dogs were anatomically quite definitely different than wolves. Cj

mcotton

MH
Posts:87

10/20/2008 2:52 AM
Some good data on this topic in a book I'm reading, Merles Door. Ed Bailey recommended it Cj, and it's an enjoyable read as well as informative. It seems 40 thou years there is records of wolves or domesticated type wolves being buried with people, and mitochondrial (sp?) DNA testing has shown the originator of the domestic dog was the Asiatic wolf. Provides info that wolves and men were together before men began to farm crops. Also the mito-whatever DNA testing showed all races of man tested stem from one woman in Africa. Not much heard about that one eh? Marg > > > I have long insisted that dogs were domesticated long before the former > oldest record at about 15,000 years since the skeletal data show that the > dog was already domesticated when it came across the Bering Strait land > bridge in the last ice age. A prehistoric skull of a dog dating to 31,700 > years ago has been excavated at Goyet Cave in Belgium. This raises the > age of the oldest known dog by more than 17 thousand years. There are > also tracks in the cave of a dog and a child. The dogs were something > like huskies and about the size of a German shepherd. As of 31,700 years > ago dogs were anatomically quite definitely different than wolves. > Cj

cwalt

MH
Posts:180

10/20/2008 10:17 AM
Margaret Cotton wrote: > Some good data on this topic in a book I'm reading, Merles Door. > Ed Bailey recommended it Cj, and it's an enjoyable read as well as > informative. > It seems 40 thou years there is records of wolves or domesticated type > wolves being buried with people, and mitochondrial (sp?) DNA testing > has shown the originator of the domestic dog was the Asiatic wolf. > Provides info that wolves and men were together before men began to > farm crops. Also the mito-whatever DNA testing showed all races of man > tested stem from one woman in Africa. Not much heard about that one eh? > > Marg Well actually we can say that all modern humans derived their mitochondrial DNA from the mitochondrial DNA of one female that lived in Africa xxx years ago. Since mitochondria in the body cells are inherited only from the mother line through the ovum they may well represent only the first mitochondria that inhabited human cells. Mitochondria are apparently bacteria that became parasitic or symbionts within body cells earlier in the evolution of animals, an endosymbiotic theory advanced by Lynn Margulis, a biologist at Boston University. Her ideas are pretty well accepted by most modern biologists. Today mitochondria are so well integrated with human cells that they can only live within our cells and have no independent existence. Since mitochondria are discrete organelles in cells they have their own DNA that isn't, in theory, originated from the host cell's DNA. Of course mitochondrial DNA evolves through mutations just as does our cellular DNA and so we have unique DNA lineages that can be traced. Dogs are the most genetically plastic species on the planet, a fact that probably depends on more than 30,000 years of selective breeding in multiple different patterns. The end result is that you cannot get to a real wolf by crossing all the breeds of dogs to get a singular wolf DNA pattern, wild dogs don't drift back or revert to wolves. The Australian Dingo was a domesticated dog that came to the continent with humans and became secondarily wild and you can see that Dingo isn't like a wolf. The Dingo is almost extinct now having interbred with so many other domestic dogs although there are some efforts to save the species by captive breeding. In my view dogs are not wolves and haven't been for tens of thousands of years. Basic dog social behavior is similar to that of wolves but isn't anywhere nearly identical and those who train dogs trying to use the popularized wolf behavior models of a linear dominance hierarchy based on aggression are sadly misled. Cj

rospigan

MH
Posts:372

10/20/2008 11:53 AM
Cj wrote: >>Of course mitochondrial DNA evolves through mutations just as does our cellular DNA and so we have unique DNA lineages that can be traced.>> Reminds me of something I read in a book about birddogs, written in around 1914. The book is otherwise excellent, considering the time it was written in, but there is one thing that caught my eye. There is a reference to the Russian researcher Ivan Pavlov who made experiments with conditioned reflexes in dogs but also other animals. In the book it is referred to, and I believe this is not a correct understanding of Pavlov's experiments, or the experiments must be faulty in some way: Pavlov let untrained white- (laboratory-) mice hear a specific sound and disposed food to them at the same time or shortly afterwards. He had to do this 300 times before the mice made the connection between the sound and the food. However, the next generation from these now trained mice made the connection after only 100 times. One more downline generation from these mice made it in ....say 10 repetitions. Pavlov did not continue the experiments with the mice but concluded that still another downline generation of these mice would make the connection between the sound and the food without any training at all! Now, this perhaps suggest that we only have to train 3 - 4 generations of birddogs and then their progeny will need no training at all, to do what we want them to do! In the prolongation the desire to make war could be bred out of humans in 3 - 4 generations! What about that folks? Fantastic if true..........unfortunately I have never studied Pavlov from the books he probably wrote. However, if Mr. Pavlov had made very selective breeding of the mice, he could have bred in sagacity in 30 - 40 generations, or outbred the sagacity in 3 - 4 generations if he had bred without any selection at all. That is if mice and dogs can be bred in about the same fashion. Torsti Borta Med Vindens Kennel www.rospigan.net "Merciful God the Almighty! Deprive me my common sense so that I can at least to some extent accomplish my commitments as a citizen of the European Union!."

rospigan

MH
Posts:372

10/20/2008 12:22 PM
> Basic dog social behaviour is similar to that of wolves but isn't anywhere nearly identical and those who train dogs trying to use the popularised wolf behavior models of a linear dominance hierarchy based on aggression are sadly misled. Cj>> A short time a go I wrote about the 3 Irish setters that visited us for a short week. The youngest one (10 months) is a bold and courageous nice little bitch but had got the hold of her family. I started the training by putting a chain (choke) collar on her with the aim to make her to heel to start with. She was totally wild and any jerk in the collar was fruitless. She had by her family been used to jerks in the collar, followed by nothing else, simple as that. So I started to hang the dog from the collar, until she started to writhe and scream in pain or discomfort. Then I slowly lowered her to the ground and gave her a short command "sit". I had to repeat this many times for say 20 minutes before she was able to walk to heel and do it without dipping her nose to the ground or to bolt at any outside stimuli, like a songbird. Afterwards she had full confidence with me and wanted be with me all the time. The question now is: Is this what you mean with "aggression" ? In my opinion it is not. It is just a demonstration of determination and consistence. I have to ask this to make sure that we are on "the same wave-length", and speak in the same language - in other words understand each other despite of slightly different cultures.. Torsti Borta Med Vindens Kennel www.rospigan.net "Merciful God the Almighty! Deprive me my common sense so that I can at least to some extent accomplish my commitments as a citizen of the European Union!."

rospigan

MH
Posts:372

10/22/2008 2:44 AM
I asked the Swedish ethologist Erik Wilson about the subject of aggression as a mean of training, and if we can refer to the origin of the dog when training it. This is his answer, translated by me to english, to the best of my ability. """"""""""""""""" Quote: It is actually not that much about the exactness of the origin of the dog, whether the origin is the grey wolf of today or the timber wolf. The origin, however, is definitely a now extinct subspecies of the wolf family. The basics for social collaboration are about the same, not only for the majority of the social animals within the wolf family, but also for the majority of social mammals. The basic for all social behaviour is aggression. It can be found among every species and the purpose is primary to increase the distance between the individuals. Therefore, in order to be able to live together, aggression-dampening behaviours must evolve. These aggression-dampening behaviours have then been ritualised to social signals with the purpose to strengthen the ties between the individuals. It is not correct to say that the order of rank is built on aggression, but aggression is an important component when the order of rank is established. Aggression leads to the development of aggression dampening behaviours, an expression of submission, signals of appease etc. that when they work leads to a harmonious life between two individuals. The order of rank is a simultaneous expression of both dominance and submission. In the domestic dog the dominance has gradually weakened since most of the dog owners are not able to handle dominant dogs. This evolution has in all probability accelerated lately as a result of todays methods of training. The possibility to castrate male dogs has possibly contributed to the opposite. Whatever, the question about a dogs origin can never tell us how to train dogs. We know relatively well how to train dogs efficiently with a fast and good result. The question is more about what methods are considered as politically correct. Unquote. """""""""""""""""""""""" So I guess there is a consensus to what Cj wrote: >>>Basic dog social behavior is similar to that of wolves but isn't anywhere nearly identical and those who train dogs trying to use the popularized wolf behavior models of a linear dominance hierarchy based on aggression are sadly misled.>>> Torsti Borta Med Vindens Kennel www.rospigan.net "Merciful God the Almighty! Deprive me my common sense so that I can at least to some extent accomplish my commitments as a citizen of the European Union!."

cwalt

MH
Posts:180

10/22/2008 5:46 AM
Maud & Torsti wrote: > A short time a go I wrote about the 3 Irish setters that visited us > for a short week. The youngest one (10 months) is a bold and > courageous nice little bitch but had got the hold of her family. I > started the training by putting a chain (choke) collar on her with the > aim to make her to heel to start with. She was totally wild and any > jerk in the collar was fruitless. She had by her family been used to > jerks in the collar, followed by nothing else, simple as that. So I > started to hang the dog from the collar, until she started to writhe > and scream in pain or discomfort. Then I slowly lowered her to the > ground and gave her a short command "sit". I had to repeat this many > times for say 20 minutes before she was able to walk to heel and do it > without dipping her nose to the ground or to bolt at any outside > stimuli, like a songbird. Afterwards she had full confidence with me > and wanted be with me all the time. > The question now is: Is this what you mean with "aggression" ? In my opinion it is not. It is just a demonstration of determination and consistence. > > I have to ask this to make sure that we are on "the same wave-length", and speak in the same language - in other words understand each other despite of slightly different cultures.. > > Torsti > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What you demonstrated with the Irish setter was the power of heeling in organizing the deference relationship between a human and a dog. That she was confident in you after the 'heeling' treatment should always be expected if the heeling treatment is appropriate. No doubt many dog owners would be horrified at your treatment of the dog but the dog's response demonstrated that proper heeling straightens out the relationship with a dog no matter how that obedience is created. Begging is inefficient but I believe heeling by any means is an important step in gaining the dog's confidence and you do what you have to do to. Dogs are a lot tougher than people and a bit of insistence doesn't bother them a bit. The resistant dog isn't being aggressive, it's just insisting that it doesn't want to obey you. Once the dog defers to you the conflict is over and the dog will cooperate. The method you used was force training, simple insistence that the dog must obey the command. You could have achieved the same results in an hour of nagging or 20 minutes of force, either way the dog finally gives in and accepts you as the pack leader. From the dog's viewpoint there was no growling or biting, you were insistent but not aggressive. Once you are the pack leader the dog defers to you and the pack bond has been correctly established. As with all training sometimes you have to reinforce the heeling with a spirited dog but it always turns out right if you insist on it. A little heeling every day reminds the dog who the pack leader is. Cj

rospigan

MH
Posts:372

10/22/2008 10:24 AM
Cj wrote: >>doesn't bother them a bit. >>>< Yes, we often miss-interpret their response to "determined" treatment and very fast they learn to use it to their advantage. Having said that I also have to say that this was the first time I seriously tried the method of lifting the entire dog in the lead. I felt that the young dog is mentally very strong and having been neglected for so long I wanted a fast response so that I could start with "ordinary" heeling work. Maud has used the method for some years but as long as I have felt that I can solve the problem with softer methods I have avoided it. I am probably softer with dogs than she is... For example you can make the dog to sit by lifting it slightly with the lead but many dogs respond much faster if you just give them a light jerk up with the lead and simultaneously with your left hand give them a light but fast pat on the rear end. In the end it all boils down to when the training has started. If started with the small puppy then it rapidly learns to pay attention to you and later more serious obedience training is a pleasure, rather than heavy repair work. Torsti Borta Med Vindens Kennel www.rospigan.net "Merciful God the Almighty! Deprive me my common sense so that I can at least to some extent accomplish my commitments as a citizen of the European Union!."

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums > Mailing Lists > working-gundog > [working-gundog] old dogs

ActiveForums 3.7