|
| Author |
Messages |
|
jmurr
MH
Posts:158
 |
| 08/09/2008 11:48 AM |
|
|
Wolves are considerably more intelligent than dogs and have, pound for pound,
larger brains to facilitate that intelligence.
Wolves and dogs evolved from the same animal.
Either that animal was much less intelligent than present day wolves so that wolves
evolved increased intelligence since the split or it was more or less similar to
present day wolves in this regard.
If the later is the case, and it may be reasonable to believe that since it had
been around for a LONG time in a world that wasn't much different than the one
wolves have lived in since - except very recently, then dogs became less
intelligent as they split off from the line which became wolves and evolved to what
we see today.
How did this happen? Was it a result of some "use it or lose it phenomenon" - they
found themselves a cushy niche where smarts were not so important as in the
competitive world of the evolving wolf? Or could there be some survival advantage
bestowed on relative dumbness? Darwinian evolution would seem to demand the later.
Jere
{My guess is Torsti and Cj may come down on the side of the later considering their
thoughts on certain world leader's mental capabilities. In some places on Earth we
now see a couple of generations of diminishing intelligence in that population.}
|
|
|
|
|
cwalt
MH
Posts:180
|
| 08/09/2008 2:48 PM |
|
| Jere Murray wrote:
> Wolves are considerably more intelligent than dogs and have, pound for pound,
> larger brains to facilitate that intelligence.
>
> Wolves and dogs evolved from the same animal.
>
> Either that animal was much less intelligent than present day wolves so that wolves
> evolved increased intelligence since the split or it was more or less similar to
> present day wolves in this regard.
>
> If the later is the case, and it may be reasonable to believe that since it had
> been around for a LONG time in a world that wasn't much different than the one
> wolves have lived in since - except very recently, then dogs became less
> intelligent as they split off from the line which became wolves and evolved to what
> we see today.
>
> How did this happen? Was it a result of some "use it or lose it phenomenon" - they
> found themselves a cushy niche where smarts were not so important as in the
> competitive world of the evolving wolf? Or could there be some survival advantage
> bestowed on relative dumbness? Darwinian evolution would seem to demand the later.
>
> Jere
>
> {My guess is Torsti and Cj may come down on the side of the later considering their
> thoughts on certain world leader's mental capabilities. In some places on Earth we
> now see a couple of generations of diminishing intelligence in that population.}
>
>
>
> Careful Jere, you might touch off a major essay!
Cj
|
|
|
|
|
jikoj
JH
Posts:23
|
| 08/09/2008 6:25 PM |
|
Perhaps the measuring of smart/dumb is flawed, or biased in some way. Smart/dumb may
be related to an environment. A Phd. in the jungle may be useless compared to the "smarts" of a jungle dweller who graduated in the bottom half of his "class"
-----Original Message-----
From: Cj
To: working-gundog@web.whc.net
Sent: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: [working-gundog] Dogs' intelligence
Jere Murray wrote:
> Wolves are considerably more intelligent than dogs and have, pound for pound,
> larger brains to facilitate that intelligence.
>
> Wolves and dogs evolved from the same animal.
>
> Either that animal was much less intelligent than present day wolves so that wolves
> evolved increased intelligence since the split or it was more or less similar to
> present day wolves in this regard.
>
> If the later is the case, and it may be reasonable to believe that since it had
> been around for a LONG time in a world that wasn't much different than the one
> wolves have lived in since - except very recently, then dogs became less
> intelligent as they split off from the line which became wolves and evolved to what
> we see today.
>
> How did this happen? Was it a result of some "use it or lose it phenomenon" - they
> found themselves a cushy niche where smarts were not so important as in the
> competitive world of the evolving wolf? Or could there be some survival advantage
> bestowed on relative dumbness? Darwinian evolution would seem to demand the later.
>
> Jere
>
> {My guess is Torsti and Cj may come down on the side of the later considering their
> thoughts on certain world leader's mental capabilities. In some places on Earth we
> now see a couple of generations of diminishing intelligence in that population.}
>
>
>
> Careful Jere, you might touch off a major essay!
Cj
|
|
|
|
|
craig
JH
Posts:27
|
| 08/09/2008 6:52 PM |
|
|
The classic example of that of course is getting rocket scientists and physicists (real high IQ egg-heads) to evaluate so-called "psychics" like Uri Geller. Despite all their fancy calculations and book learnin' they are just as easy to flim flam as Joe Six-Pack. If you really want to catch a slight-of-hand scammer, call in a magician like James Randi http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo
On 9-Aug-08, at 7:13 PM, jikoj@aol.com wrote: Perhaps the measuring of smart/dumb is flawed, or biased in some way. Smart/dumb may
be related to an environment. A Phd. in the jungle may be useless compared to the "smarts" of a jungle dweller who graduated in the bottom half of his "class"
-----Original Message-----
From: Cj
To: working-gundog@web.whc.net
Sent: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: [working-gundog] Dogs' intelligence
Jere Murray wrote:
> Wolves are considerably more intelligent than dogs and have, pound for pound,
> larger brains to facilitate that intelligence.
>
> Wolves and dogs evolved from the same animal.
>
> Either that animal was much less intelligent than present day wolves so that wolves
> evolved increased intelligence since the split or it was more or less similar to
> present day wolves in this regard.
>
> If the later is the case, and it may be reasonable to believe that since it had
> been around for a LONG time in a world that wasn't much different than the one
> wolves have lived in since - except very recently, then dogs became less
> intelligent as they split off from the line which became wolves and evolved to what
> we see today.
>
> How did this happen? Was it a result of some "use it or lose it phenomenon" - they
> found themselves a cushy niche where smarts were not so important as in the
> competitive world of the evolving wolf? Or could there be some survival advantage
> bestowed on relative dumbness? Darwinian evolution would seem to demand the later.
>
> Jere
>
> {My guess is Torsti and Cj may come down on the side of the later considering their
> thoughts on certain world leader's mental capabilities. In some places on Earth we
> now see a couple of generations of diminishing intelligence in that population.}
>
>
>
> Careful Jere, you might touch off a major essay!
Cj
www.craigkoshykphoto.ca www.chiendog.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
azwhitemtndogs3
Posts:16
|
| 08/09/2008 8:05 PM |
|
I have a question.
Occasionally, I have a chance to read messages and find this a great list--it doesn't happen often enough. I was just looking at the photos about wolf behavior and thought about this. I have a question, perhaps someone knows the answer. I've always guessed at the answer. What do you think?
I have a 10yo GSP. Katie is a great girl. Occasionally, when I think she's excited about something, she'll let out a howl and just have a good whooping of a hollar for a few minutes. To me, it means that something has excited her and that the long wait is over. It's not a hollar for the other 2 companions to come. It just seems to be almost a relief and excited exclamation for something that is happening.
Would anyone on the list venture a guess of what she's doing? Has anyone experienced this in their own "pack"???
Phyllis, RB, Flash!, Katie in Mesa, AZ
--- On Sat, 8/9/08, Jere Murray wrote:
From: Jere Murray
Subject: [working-gundog] Dogs' intelligence
To: working-gundog@web.whc.net
Date: Saturday, August 9, 2008, 10:36 AM
Wolves are considerably more intelligent than dogs and have, pound for pound,
larger brains to facilitate that intelligence.
Wolves and dogs evolved from the same animal.
Either that animal was much less intelligent than present day wolves so that
wolves
evolved increased intelligence since the split or it was more or less similar
to
present day wolves in this regard.
If the later is the case, and it may be reasonable to believe that since it had
been around for a LONG time in a world that wasn't much different than the
one
wolves have lived in since - except very recently, then dogs became less
intelligent as they split off from the line which became wolves and evolved to
what
we see today.
How did this happen? Was it a result of some "use it or lose it
phenomenon" - they
found themselves a cushy niche where smarts were not so important as in the
competitive world of the evolving wolf? Or could there be some survival
advantage
bestowed on relative dumbness? Darwinian evolution would seem to demand the
later.
Jere
{My guess is Torsti and Cj may come down on the side of the later considering
their
thoughts on certain world leader's mental capabilities. In some places on
Earth we
now see a couple of generations of diminishing intelligence in that
population.}
|
|
|
|
|
|
mcotton
MH
Posts:87
|
| 08/09/2008 10:46 PM |
|
| I'm sure I read somewhere Neanderthals had bigger brains than us.
Marg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jere Murray"
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 5:36 AM
Subject: [working-gundog] Dogs' intelligence
>
> Wolves are considerably more intelligent than dogs and have, pound for
> pound,
> larger brains to facilitate that intelligence.
>
|
|
|
|
|
jmurr
MH
Posts:158
|
| 08/10/2008 1:06 PM |
|
| To quote someone else who posts here: "HeHeHeHe."
Jere
>
>> Careful Jere, you might touch off a major essay!
> Cj
|
|
|
|
|
jmurr
MH
Posts:158
|
| 08/10/2008 1:10 PM |
|
| Wolves have been observed to learn to easily escape from elaborately latched pens
by undoing the latch. Most dogs can not learn to do that. Wolf on dog turf.
Jere
> Perhaps the measuring of smart/dumb is flawed, or biased in some way. Smart/dumb
> may
> be related to an environment. A Phd. in the jungle may be useless compared to the
> "smarts" of a jungle dweller who graduated in the bottom half of his "class"
|
|
|
|
|
jmurr
MH
Posts:158
|
| 08/10/2008 1:23 PM |
|
| If so, perhaps their olfactory lobes comprised the excess?
This could also apply to the (working) dog - wolf situation as well; but I doubt it.
Jere
> I'm sure I read somewhere Neanderthals had bigger brains than us.
>
> Marg
|
|
|
|
|
mcotton
MH
Posts:87
|
| 08/11/2008 1:05 AM |
|
| from Rob Clay who can't post for some reason
There are at least a couple of factors at play. Wolves are still subject
to evolutionary pressures, natural selection ensures the fittest (both
physical and mental fitness) are the most likely to survive and
reproduce. As domestic animals, dogs are no longer subject to natural
evolution, it is humans that decide which dogs survive and reproduce.
Humans use different selection criteria than does Mother Nature, and the
results of those differing selection criteria are largely responsible
for the differences between dogs and wolves. In other words while
nature always selects for "fitness", humans sometimes select for
"cuteness". Wolves need to solve problems to survive, dogs need to be
valued by humans to survive.
While I believe the differing selection processes are largely
responsible for the differences between dogs and wolves, a second factor
to consider is environment and mental stimulation. Researchers have
found that animals kept in cages containing nothing but food and bedding
have smaller brains than animals kept in stimulating environments (toys
or other animals to play with, animals required to problem solve in
order to receive food) . When the brains of the animals from the two
groups were examined, the animals from the stimulating environments were
found to have brains that not only contained more complex neuronal
networks, but were actually 10% larger than the animals kept in the
non-stimulatory environment. Surviving in the wild (wolf) is a lot more
mentally stimulating than surviving in the back yard (dog), so even if
they were born with equal mental potential (which they are not), it
wouldn't be surprising to find that as adults, the wild wolf was more
intelligent.
Cheers,
Rob
Jere Murray wrote:
> Wolves are considerably more intelligent than dogs and have, pound
for pound,
> larger brains to facilitate that intelligence.
>
> Wolves and dogs evolved from the same animal.
>
> Either that animal was much less intelligent than present day wolves
so that wolves
> evolved increased intelligence since the split or it was more or less
similar to
> present day wolves in this regard.
>
> If the later is the case, and it may be reasonable to believe that
since it had
> been around for a LONG time in a world that wasn't much different
than the one
> wolves have lived in since - except very recently, then dogs became less
> intelligent as they split off from the line which became wolves and
evolved to what
> we see today.
>
> How did this happen? Was it a result of some "use it or lose it
phenomenon" - they
> found themselves a cushy niche where smarts were not so important as
in the
> competitive world of the evolving wolf? Or could there be some
survival advantage
> bestowed on relative dumbness? Darwinian evolution would seem to
demand the later.
>
> Jere
>
> {My guess is Torsti and Cj may come down on the side of the later
considering their
> thoughts on certain world leader's mental capabilities. In some
places on Earth we
> now see a couple of generations of diminishing intelligence in that
population.}
|
|
|
|
|
robclayau
JH
Posts:36
|
|
jmurr
MH
Posts:158
|
| 08/11/2008 1:21 PM |
|
| I suspect brain size diminished early on in the evolution of the dog. It was
probably largely accomplished prior to domestication. Wouldn't it be interesting to
be able to examine remains of "dogs" as they existed after evolving from the
dog/wolf precursor but before domestication?
That may not be such a far fetched fancy, IF Coppinger's are correct that the dogs
found living ("wild" and commensally) near humans in some places around the world
which appear - both in physical appearance and in the context of the local human
culture - are, in fact, descendants of those early, undomesticated, "dogs." Their
pictures suggest a small brained animal but they give no data to support that
observation. As a prototypical example of such populations od "dogs" Coppingers
discuss the village dogs of the island Pemba of the East African coast. They argue
persuasively the animals are not likely mongrels.
Whether these animals are mongrels or not might actually be subject to verification
through examination of DNA at this time... Got to remember to suggest that where
it might be taken up.
Yes, for sure, sometime after domestication, the evolutionary pressures on dogs
became somewhat artificial but in a quite "natural" manner when man (part of the
environment of the domesticated dog) subjected them to additional selection
pressures based on ability to PERFORM a task. Working breeds probably developed
this way. It's only when the "show folks" and/or "conformation purests" get into
the act that "cuteness" gets folded into the mix of selection criteria. Otherwise
exceptional ability to perform the job is largely the determining factor in breeder
selection - in defining "fitness." Man becomes part of "Mother Nature" in a sense.
North American sled dogs - which the Coppingers discuss at length - are a prime
example. Not even being a recognised breed, breeders have no concern for the
sensibilities of the show/conformation types - there are none. The dog does the
job (pulling a sled with team mates to win races) well (is "fit" or "fittest") or
it isn't bred. No team of any "breed" has ever been able to beat such a team at its
own game, though a Scandenavian came over, a decade or so ago, with a team based on
dogs "evolved" from GSPs and redefined performance in the North American sprint
circuit. NA breeders were quick to get the message and the dogs about universally
changed conformation rapidly as "pointers" were mixed into the lines.
Where is Derry, he'd love to jump in on this stuff!
Marg. Send Rob to that website I referenced a few days ago and he may be able to
register to post. Otherwise have him email Rick petersen at the email addy I gave.
Jere
> from Rob Clay who can't post for some reason
>
> There are at least a couple of factors at play. Wolves are still subject
> to evolutionary pressures, natural selection ensures the fittest (both
> physical and mental fitness) are the most likely to survive and
> reproduce. As domestic animals, dogs are no longer subject to natural
> evolution, it is humans that decide which dogs survive and reproduce.
> Humans use different selection criteria than does Mother Nature, and the
> results of those differing selection criteria are largely responsible
> for the differences between dogs and wolves. In other words while
> nature always selects for "fitness", humans sometimes select for
> "cuteness". Wolves need to solve problems to survive, dogs need to be
> valued by humans to survive.
>
> While I believe the differing selection processes are largely
> responsible for the differences between dogs and wolves, a second factor
> to consider is environment and mental stimulation. Researchers have
> found that animals kept in cages containing nothing but food and bedding
> have smaller brains than animals kept in stimulating environments (toys
> or other animals to play with, animals required to problem solve in
> order to receive food) . When the brains of the animals from the two
> groups were examined, the animals from the stimulating environments were
> found to have brains that not only contained more complex neuronal
> networks, but were actually 10% larger than the animals kept in the
> non-stimulatory environment. Surviving in the wild (wolf) is a lot more
> mentally stimulating than surviving in the back yard (dog), so even if
> they were born with equal mental potential (which they are not), it
> wouldn't be surprising to find that as adults, the wild wolf was more
> intelligent.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
|
|
|
|
|
mcotton
MH
Posts:87
|
| 08/11/2008 2:11 PM |
|
| There have been cute little lap dogs for probably centuries.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jere Murray"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: [working-gundog] Dogs' intelligence
>I suspect brain size diminished early on in the evolution of the dog. It
>was
> probably largely accomplished prior to domestication. Wouldn't it be
> interesting to
> be able to examine remains of "dogs" as they existed after evolving from
> the
> dog/wolf precursor but before domestication?
>
> That may not be such a far fetched fancy, IF Coppinger's are correct that
> the dogs
> found living ("wild" and commensally) near humans in some places around
> the world
> which appear - both in physical appearance and in the context of the local
> human
> culture - are, in fact, descendants of those early, undomesticated,
> "dogs." Their
> pictures suggest a small brained animal but they give no data to support
> that
> observation. As a prototypical example of such populations od "dogs"
> Coppingers
> discuss the village dogs of the island Pemba of the East African coast.
> They argue
> persuasively the animals are not likely mongrels.
>
> Whether these animals are mongrels or not might actually be subject to
> verification
> through examination of DNA at this time... Got to remember to suggest
> that where
> it might be taken up.
>
> Yes, for sure, sometime after domestication, the evolutionary pressures on
> dogs
> became somewhat artificial but in a quite "natural" manner when man (part
> of the
> environment of the domesticated dog) subjected them to additional
> selection
> pressures based on ability to PERFORM a task. Working breeds probably
> developed
> this way. It's only when the "show folks" and/or "conformation purests"
> get into
> the act that "cuteness" gets folded into the mix of selection criteria.
> Otherwise
> exceptional ability to perform the job is largely the determining factor
> in breeder
> selection - in defining "fitness." Man becomes part of "Mother Nature" in
> a sense.
> North American sled dogs - which the Coppingers discuss at length - are a
> prime
> example. Not even being a recognised breed, breeders have no concern for
> the
> sensibilities of the show/conformation types - there are none. The dog
> does the
> job (pulling a sled with team mates to win races) well (is "fit" or
> "fittest") or
> it isn't bred. No team of any "breed" has ever been able to beat such a
> team at its
> own game, though a Scandenavian came over, a decade or so ago, with a team
> based on
> dogs "evolved" from GSPs and redefined performance in the North American
> sprint
> circuit. NA breeders were quick to get the message and the dogs about
> universally
> changed conformation rapidly as "pointers" were mixed into the lines.
>
> Where is Derry, he'd love to jump in on this stuff!
>
> Marg. Send Rob to that website I referenced a few days ago and he may be
> able to
> register to post. Otherwise have him email Rick petersen at the email
> addy I gave.
>
> Jere
>
>
>> from Rob Clay who can't post for some reason
>>
>> There are at least a couple of factors at play. Wolves are still subject
>> to evolutionary pressures, natural selection ensures the fittest (both
>> physical and mental fitness) are the most likely to survive and
>> reproduce. As domestic animals, dogs are no longer subject to natural
>> evolution, it is humans that decide which dogs survive and reproduce.
>> Humans use different selection criteria than does Mother Nature, and the
>> results of those differing selection criteria are largely responsible
>> for the differences between dogs and wolves. In other words while
>> nature always selects for "fitness", humans sometimes select for
>> "cuteness". Wolves need to solve problems to survive, dogs need to be
>> valued by humans to survive.
>>
>> While I believe the differing selection processes are largely
>> responsible for the differences between dogs and wolves, a second factor
>> to consider is environment and mental stimulation. Researchers have
>> found that animals kept in cages containing nothing but food and bedding
>> have smaller brains than animals kept in stimulating environments (toys
>> or other animals to play with, animals required to problem solve in
>> order to receive food) . When the brains of the animals from the two
>> groups were examined, the animals from the stimulating environments were
>> found to have brains that not only contained more complex neuronal
>> networks, but were actually 10% larger than the animals kept in the
>> non-stimulatory environment. Surviving in the wild (wolf) is a lot more
>> mentally stimulating than surviving in the back yard (dog), so even if
>> they were born with equal mental potential (which they are not), it
>> wouldn't be surprising to find that as adults, the wild wolf was more
>> intelligent.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rob
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
robclayau
JH
Posts:36
|
| 08/11/2008 3:03 PM |
|
| Thanks for forwarding my email Marg, I think I'm able
to post again (will see if this appears)
--- Jere Murray wrote:
> Yes, for sure, sometime after domestication, the
> evolutionary pressures on dogs
> became somewhat artificial but in a quite "natural"
> manner when man (part of the
> environment of the domesticated dog) subjected them
> to additional selection
> pressures based on ability to PERFORM a task.
> Working breeds probably developed
> this way. It's only when the "show folks" and/or
> "conformation purests" get into
> the act that "cuteness" gets folded into the mix of
> selection criteria. Otherwise
> exceptional ability to perform the job is largely
> the determining factor in breeder
> selection - in defining "fitness." Man becomes part
> of "Mother Nature" in a sense.
I agree, but selection by humans was/is still less
rigorous than in Nature. There are humans that run
tightly controlled, performance based, breeding
programs. However there are far more situations where
dogs are bred because somebody wants a pup and any
half decent dog/bitch pair around is used.
Also, even in performance based breeding programs
humans are not always selecting for intelligence. Yes
people may want (and aim to bred) a good hunting dog,
cattle dog etc. But above all most people want a dog
"they can live with". So "livability" or tractability
is strongly selected for. Highly intelligent dogs may
be difficult to train (would rather think for
themselves than follow your instructions) or are quick
to become bored when left in the backyard all day.
There are relatively few situations where breeding
programs are geared to select for "performance at all
costs". Most are aiming to produce "good canine
citizens" that can hunt, herd, or whatever.
Cheers,
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
jmurr
MH
Posts:158
|
| 08/11/2008 11:01 PM |
|
| Even if "for probably centuries" turns out to be true, we're talking at least
hundreds, maybe thousands of centuries here.
Jere
> There have been cute little lap dogs for probably centuries.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jere Murray"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [working-gundog] Dogs' intelligence
>
>
>>I suspect brain size diminished early on in the evolution of the dog. It
>>was
>> probably largely accomplished prior to domestication. Wouldn't it be
>> interesting to
>> be able to examine remains of "dogs" as they existed after evolving from
>> the
>> dog/wolf precursor but before domestication?
|
|
|
|
|
jikoj
JH
Posts:23
|
| 08/12/2008 7:43 AM |
|
Hardly, as the "lap" was not in existence before the mid 1600's,
-----Original Message-----
From: Jere Murray
To: working-gundog@web.whc.net
Sent: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:47 pm
Subject: Re: [working-gundog] Dogs' intelligence
Even if "for probably centuries" turns out to be true, we're talking at least
hundreds, maybe thousands of centuries here.
Jere
> There have been cute little lap dogs for probably centuries.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jere Murray" <jmurr@xyz.net>
> To: <working-gundog@web.whc.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [working-gundog] Dogs' intelligence
>
>
>>I suspect brain size diminished early on in the evolution of the dog. It
>>was
>> probably largely accomplished prior to domestication. Wouldn't it be
>> interesting to
>> be able to examine remains of "dogs" as they existed after evolving from
>> the
>> dog/wolf precursor but before domestication?
|
|
|
|
|
rospigan
MH
Posts:372
|
| 08/14/2008 12:33 PM |
|
I came home some hours ago and found this
discussion on dogs intelligence. I do not know what it is worth but here is my
experience from maybe 50 years back, when I was a young child. When my parents
had noticed that I had an unusually interest in animals I started to
get not only all kinds of books about animals but also animals. One of the
animals I had was a blue fox. A blue fox is a colour variation of the polar fox
and raised for the fur industry. I got it as a young puppy and it did not last
many days before it was him and me - if you know what I mean  ))
Some of my brightest memories comes from the short
period of life with that fox. As long as it was not sexually mature it was like
a very bright dog puppy and very, very fun to play with. Of course I did not do
nay menatal analyze then but now decades afterwards, once I learned to know
dogs, I can think about the fox and make comparisons.
I cant say that it was more intelligent than a dog,
or even as intelligent, but for sure it was very active. It became house clean
and rather safe to have indoors. However a working springer spaniel puppy could
be classified as just as dangerous for the furnishing as a polar fox puppy
))
The difference came at some age, dont remember
for sure how many months - maybe 7 - 10, and after that the fox started to
behave more and more like a wild animal. It lost interest for me to some degree
and started to investigate the village at nights. Finally it killed some of our
neighboors hens and then my father killed the fox.
So the conclusion of mine, for what it is worth,
is that like a young wolf, the fox will at some stage kind of "lock" into
inherited behaviours - behaviours that have been proved to be needed for
survival. After that man can not rule or trust the animal anymore, not even
nearly to the degree as we can rule and trust a dog - sometimes all the way into
death.
A question arises to me: When judgeing intelligence
among diffrent animals; should we judge the intelligence of the animal from
how it is co-operating with us humans, or should we judge it from how
it can handle everyday situationes that helps it to survive?
I have seen that dogs can not only create ties to
humans but also to other pack animals like horses for ex. Is this
co-operation with horses a similarly valuable sign of intelligence as the
co-operation with humans is? After all I believe that the tie to the horse was
not created automatically but most often with the help of a human acting as
"a starter" to trigger the friendship.
Anyway when we compare the intelligenc eof a dog to
the intelligence of other animals we should perhaps pay good attention to the
dogs natural ability to co-operate with us ans hence its ability to blind us to
believe that they are smarter than other animals!!!?????
Or what?
Torsti
Borta Med Vindens Kennel
"Ask not what your dog
can do for you.
Ask what you can do for your dog."
www.rospigan.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
You must be logged in to use this module.
|
 |
Membership: |
 |
Latest:
NDScoutfam |
 |
New Today:
1 |
 |
New Yesterday:
2 |
 |
Overall:
3254 |
 |
People Online: |
 |
Visitors:
113 |
 |
Members:
0 |
 |
Total:
113 |
Online Now:
|
|
|
|
|