Stray Use of Dog “Domestication”

The research paper about the proto-dog skull found in Siberia (that I posted about here) has generated a lot of media interest with the vast majority of reports focusing on the idea that it pushes back the dog’s domestication from the previously thought 12,000-14,000 years ago to around 33,000 years ago. This is not my reading of these researchers’ results as they clearly suggest that the early stages of dog development did not include deliberate selection by people, rather that it was a natural evolution of the wolf adapting to a niche around people and therefore, I believe, should not be called domestication. 

This got me wondering if I was misunderstanding what “domestication” actually means so I checked some definitions. Here are a couple from credible sources that give a good overall feel for the meaning (emphasis is mine):

“… a species in which the evolutionary process has been influenced by humans to meet their needs" and “… the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of artificial selection, is changed at the genetic level, accentuating traits desired by humans.”      Convention on Biological Diversity;

“… the process of hereditary reorganization of wild animals and plants into domestic and cultivated forms according to the interests of people. In its strictest sense, it refers to the initial stage of human mastery of wild animals and plants. The fundamental distinction of domesticated animals and plants from their wild ancestors is that they are created by human labour to meet specific requirements or whims and are adapted to the conditions of continuous care and solicitude people maintain for them.”       Encyclopedia Britannica.

Every definition I read included some idea of people deliberately changing animals for some specific purpose. Therefore, the idea of the wolf changing to a dog-like animal through natural selection cannot be considered part of the dog’s domestication.

I have even seen the phrase “self-domestication” being used to describe the first stages of change in the wolf towards a dog-like animal but this is an oxymoron. Domestication needs human intent; the wolf changing through natural selection (even though the change is driven by the presence of people) has nothing to do with domestication. The best I can offer under this process model is that the natural change from wolf to early dog enabled or led to later domestication.

Domesticated dog or perhaps not?

This is an important distinction to me because the word “domestication” is clearly a hurdle in people’s understanding of the dog’s origins. There is still a lot of room for debate and clarification of details but calling the initial change in the wolf  something like “the first stage in domestication” makes people assume it was deliberately driven by us when it probably wasn’t. Let’s save the word for the point when we did start selecting to meet our whims (whenever that was).

And if we were to do this perhaps, just perhaps, we might even start to wonder if many of those “village” dogs that we so casually call strays are actually a domesticated animal or not.

Dog Domestication a Natural Event

© 2011 Ovodov et al.

A study published at the end of last year (reported in a Vancouver newspaper here or original journal article here) discusses, with reference to earlier findings, the significance of a canine skull from around 33,000 years ago found in southern Siberia that is somewhere between a wolf and a domestic dog.

The conclusions from the study can be neatly summarized with the following quote from the journal article:

“…dog domestication almost certainly occurred multiple times without direct human selection…”

Something about the nature of wolves and the character of our early settlement phase almost seem to have made the “dog” an inevitable result, for which we should not really try to take credit. Our direct selection did later produce breeds but not the original dog.

The significance of these conclusions for “stray” dogs is that dogs living on the edge of human society are quite natural and exactly what they evolved to do.

And neither should we see this as simply some point in the distant past. The “village” dogs still running around parts of the world today are a piece of living history that can probably teach us a lot about domestication, so let’s recognize them as such and stop trying to “deal” with them all as strays.

(As always, please note that I am not talking about abandoned pets)

A Dog’s Natural Environment?

This blog post by Maria Goodavage highlights the plight of dogs in Greece following the economic problems of the country. The relationship between economic hardship and increased stray dogs on the streets is fairly clear but I think economics can work against dogs in another way. For example, in Bangkok, dog abandonment seemed to actually increase in times of boom as if buying a cute puppy had become a minor expense and the dog was then unfortunately later included in the carefree, throw-away attitude to life that prosperity had brought. In other words, increased wealth meant that belongings, including dogs, became disposable.

Another report (here) also discusses the Greek stray problem but with the added remark that in times of hardship people looking for a dog are more likely to adopt strays than buy from a pet store.

However, what particularly interested me in the first blog post was the comment “In which civilized part of the world are the streets considered as the natural environment of a dog????”.

Aside from the question of what she means by “civilized”, I would argue that that is exactly the natural environment of a dog. I don’t mean all those dogs that have spent so many generations being turned into breeds and living in people’s homes but certainly the dog as an animal in a general sense. They are superbly suited to living as pets but also superbly suited for living on the streets wherever culture and climate allow. I believe that’s where they came from and in some parts of the world that’s where many of them still are.

I think it comes back to the western attitude to dogs being different to that in the east. Westerners are so far removed from the idea of free-ranging unowned dogs that they can only see it as wrong, which is fine in their own cultural context but this view is increasingly being forcefully exported to eastern cultures. Well-meaning it may be but the phrase “cultural imperialism” also comes to mind.

In some places some dogs should be allowed to roam free.

Chinese New Year a bad time for dogs

Chinese New Year is not a good time for dogs in south-east Asia.

Beyond the problem of finding volunteers to feed the dogs in shelters during the holiday period as reported in the Shanghai Daily there is the more serious issue of dogs as food.

The far north-eastern part of Thailand has gained itself a bit of a reputation for the trade and consumption of dog meat and has been in the news recently after several successful raids by police. The trade is mainly for export to Vietnam and seems particularly active in the run-up to Chinese New Year celebrations.

The latest case involved a house owner where 5,000 dogs were found ready for export. He was given a four-month jail term and a fine of 37,500 bahts (about US$1,250). The consumption of dog meat is not actually illegal in Thailand but the people involved are charged with running a livestock business without a license and also exporting without a license.

In the past the dogs were collected from nearby provinces, usually strays caught and sold by the local villagers although dog-napping pets was also involved, but now there is some indication of a shift towards raising dogs in pounds specifically for their meat.

The Mail Online also recently reported on the interception of around 1,500 dogs crammed into small cages on the back of a lorry in south-west China. The comments from readers at the end of the article are extreme and xenophobic to say the least but it’s a very clear indication of just how abhorrent many people find the idea.

There is a long history of dog-eating amongst some groups in this part of the world and, personally, I don’t have a problem with it anymore than with the consumption of pigs, for example. However, I do have a problem with the extremely cruel practices involved in the trade.

There is clearly a dichotomy of attitudes to dogs between what could loosely be called the West and East, and the clash between the moral values of the West and the cultural beliefs of the East seems to have little middle ground in this case. However, the western view is already gaining ground in many areas with a dog-eating tradition and I suspect that the western view will win out in the end.

The loss of traditional culture that this implies will not be missed by the vocal majority, however, there are more subtle effects of this westernization of attitudes to dogs that could have an impact on Asian dogs in another way. Namely, that unowned village dogs are an accepted part of south-east Asian life with a history that goes back to the dog’s first appearance in the world. To western eyes these unowned animals are stray and either need to be saved or dealt with some other way. To eastern eyes they are exactly where they should be. Many of these dogs live healthy lives whereby they define their own activities and socialize with their own kind, and they do not create problems in the way that abandoned pets do. It would be a great shame if this part of the local culture was lost due to westernization but that is exactly the route we are heading down.

Another thought that might be hard for some to bear is that I also wonder if dog-eating played a role in the domestication of dogs which may well have happened in south-east Asia.

Sound Advice on Meeting Strange Dogs

The Sri Lankan Sunday Times newspaper published an article about the ongoing controversy of how to deal with stray dogs in a country where rabies is a serious concern.

At the end of the article they give some very sound advice to anyone coming into contact with a dog to avoid getting bitten. I have emphasized what I believe is the key advice:

•                Do not stare directly into the eyes of an unknown dog because it is intimidating and may provoke an attack

•                Do not go near a female dog with pups or try to stroke or feed

•                Do not run past a sleeping dog – walk past it instead

•                Do not disturb a dog when it is eating

•                Do not illtreat a dog that is minding its own business by throwing stones or sticks, kicking it or shouting at it

•                Do not go near a dog that is chained – it may be aggressive

•                If a dog is chasing you with the clear intention to bite, stand your ground (do not move) and do not wave your arms about. Look away from the dog. It should then consider that you are not a threat and leave you alone. This is difficult to do but it is the right thing to do.

•                To befriend a dog, find out whether there is an owner and ask the name of the dog. Call it by its name, if it responds and wags his tail first let him sniff the back of your hand and if you want to pet the dog, do so under its chin not on the top of its head.

As they say, standing still and looking away from an aggressive dog is difficult but is surprisingly effective as the dog usually calms down a lot after it has had a good sniff from close range. However, it is important to realise that this is advice to follow when faced with unowned dogs – pets on the loose are a different beast that are socially confused and treat strange people as they would a strange dog. It still works with most pets but I can’t guarantee it will work with all. Telling the difference is not always easy but having personally wandered many streets looking at dogs this strategy has not failed me yet.

Too often I see advice on the internet that encourages people to stare at dogs, throw things at them, or do other things that are guaranteed to ensure that the encounter is an aggressive confrontation.

My advice: LOOK AWAY AND STAY STILL (or move very slowly).

Kids’ Wisdom on Street Dogs

In celebration of tomorrow’s National Children’s Day in Thailand, the Bangkok Post newspaper asked children how they would solve the country’s problems. Here are a couple of answers I liked about soi (street) dogs:

Kaew, aged 10 said, “I’d leave an unwanted dog at a place that takes care of them. Don’t discard them at temples. The monks might ordain them.”

Gig, aged 6 said, “I would feed them every day and take them to hospital because they’re probably sick. I love them. People who throw away their dogs should be spanked.”

Public spanking may well be a better solution than registration schemes.

The Bangalore Boy and Stray Dog Journalism

On 9^th January the Times of India reported how a 5-year-old boy in Bangalore called Selva had been “pounced on” by stray dogs who had bitten his face and “mauled him” before passersby chased them away by throwing stones. This created an uproar and a lot of understandably bad feelings towards the strays.

On 11^th January a different version of events was published online by The Voice of Stray Dogs. Here, 4-year-old Selva apparently knew these dogs and played with them daily. On the day in question he happened to have a carrot in his hand which he playfully tried to force down a dog’s throat. This dog, who often allows Selva to take pony-rides on his back, didn’t like it and reacted by biting Selva’s face. 

This is a classic example of a child pushing things too far with a normally placid dog who reacts by defending itself in just about the only way it can. Very unfortunate for the child who learns the hard way through direct experience. The alternative way of learning would have been for adults to warn him about the risk of playing too roughly with dogs. All kids should be taught this lesson by parents or teachers not dogs.

This story is also a classic example of sensational journalism that gets public attention and reaction. One dog becomes a pack and a single bite becomes a mauling. Both versions are actually written from a certain standpoint but the Voice of Stray Dogs is much more credible as an on-site investigation. 

There are so many immovable attitudes and misunderstandings when it comes to stray dogs that I recommend reading all reports from all sides with utmost caution.

Every Sri Lankan Dog "Should Have an Owner"

Sri Lanka’s Daily News reported a plan to enforce a registration system to control the dog population and the spread of rabies. A Government Minister said that “every dog should have an owner”. This plan may well help with the rabies problem but as I reported earlier (here) a high proportion of bites are probably coming from pets.

As in other tropical countries I suspect that aiming for 100% ownership is fighting against the tide, unrealistic and unnecessary. More practical is trying to prevent abandonment, some sterilization and improving waste management. Administrative registration programs simply do not reflect the subtle nature of human-dog relationships in warm climates where ownership is a largely imported concept and unowned “village dogs” have a role and a long history.

Runway Runaway

Anyone keeping a record of problems caused by stray dogs can add “aviation risk” to the list. As reported here,  an airplane landing was aborted at the last minute due to a stray dog on the runway at Gilgit Airport in Pakistan. The plane landed successfully on its second approach after the dog moved away by itself.

More and More Bangalore Pedigrees Becoming Strays

This report in the Deccan Herald notes that more “high breed” dogs are being found amongst the usual rubbish-scavenging strays and blames the abandonment of unsold young dogs. They say this is fuelling the dog problem by keeping numbers up and producing strays more likely to be dangerous. Labrador, Pomeranian, German Shepherd and Greyhound are all amongst those that have been spotted.

My experience in Thailand is that pedigree dogs are generally still too valuable to get abandoned on a regular basis but this story perhaps hints at the future in more and more cities whilst also highlighting the importance of tackling the abandonment issue. This means targeting the cause of the problem, namely, dog owners.

“Dog Bites – An Unrecognized Epidemic”

I recently came across an old research paper of the above title written in 1974 (full article here) that investigated an increase in the incidence of dog bites in New York city from 1965 to 1972.

There were a few findings I found quite interesting such as the increase in large aggressive breeds kept specifically for security being a big part of the problem, and that there were more free-ranging dogs in lower income areas, but there is one paragraph from their discussion that is worth quoting word-for-word:

“The attacks of packs of so-called stray dogs have often drawn much attention in the popular press. In many instances these packs of dogs are composed not of unowned, stray dogs but of owned dogs which are allowed to roam freely. Such animals often form packs in the morning or evening hours, particularly around a female in heat. The unowned, stray dogs are infrequently aggressive and more often than not bite only when provoked or harassed. In contrast, owned dogs which are permitted to roam the streets develop a sense of territorial possession, which includes not only the property of their owners but also the area in which they roam. A stranger walking down such a street risks being bitten by an aggressive dog which considers the street its territory.”

Apparently, blaming strays for the deeds of pet dogs was the case over 40 years ago as well as now. Even the implied cases of packs of stray dogs may actually have been pets that were never identified as such.

The authors do not attempt to explain why pets are aggressive in their territory more so than strays (which presumably also have a territory) but I believe this comes down to the effect of socializing dogs to people. Pet dogs react to people as they do to other dogs whereas dogs that have never been owned see people as people and dogs as dogs. Therefore, unowned dogs can bite a person as a physical threat but pets will also bite a person as a social threat making them much more dangerous.

This is a fundamental difference between the behavior of pet dogs and those that have never been owned. I really wish it was more widely understood as it is a key argument when trying to persuade dog owners’ to control their pet in areas that also have unowned dogs on the streets. Put simply: IT IS NOT OKAY TO LET YOUR PET DOG ROAM JUST BECAUSE OTHER DOGS ARE ALREADY OUT THERE.

Sri Lankan Animal Rights Activists Condemn Gov’t Dog Culling Plan

According to this report, this predominantly Buddhist country banned the culling of stray dogs in 2005 but is apparently re-considering it as a method to control 3 million strays. 

The problems of bites (2,000-2,500 every year) and rabies are highlighted plus the conflict with animal rights activists and the problem of corruption hindering sterilization programs.

Near the end is a comment by a veterinary surgeon who said that “…it is the domesticated dogs that have bitten most of the people, not the stray dogs.” This is no surprise to me and in my view it should be given more prominence. Other reports I have seen on this story fail to report this point putting all the blame on strays.

Jawaharlal Nehru University Campus Overrun by Strays

This report in India Today magazine focuses on two things: the problem of aggressive strays attacking people and the problem of “dog lovers” sabotaging attempts to sterilize the dogs.

The 1,000 acre JNU campus is reported to have around 800 dogs with over 20 attacks on students in a single 3-day period alone. The question of where these dogs came from, however, is not covered.

Most interesting for me are the comments by some students near the end of the report that “…only a few dogs are creating a nuisance" and that “most of them are harmless.”

I have never been to India and do not know the circumstances at this university but this sounds like a classic case of lumping all unowned dogs into the same category of “problem” without looking at the root causes. The aggression shown by a few dogs strikes me as typical behavior for abandoned pets that have been socialized to people compared to a more relaxed stance by long-term unowned dogs.

Identifying and controlling the few problem dogs may be enough to solve the short-term issue of aggression. However, it sounds like the wider problem probably has it’s roots elsewhere.  

Westernization of Attitudes to “Stray” Dogs

Western attitudes to dogs differ from eastern attitudes. This is most obvious in the acceptance of dogs being used as a food source in some eastern cultures whereas it is absolutely taboo in the west, but that particular attitude is a topic for another day.

Another attitude difference that seems especially important to the stray dog issue is that westerners believe that a dog’s place is as an owned animal and nowhere else, whether that be as a pet or a working dog. This means that any unowned dog is out of place and therefore “stray”. It becomes a “problem” and needs to be “dealt with”. And the assumption is that everybody else feels the same way. This is fine in the western context but things are different in the east where unowned dogs have been an accepted part of village life for centuries and they are not looked at as being “stray” at all – they are just there, doing what they always have done.

“West” and “East” are being used here quite loosely and the difference in attitude to dogs is perhaps also related to temperate versus equatorial regions.

With increasing contact with the West there has been a gradual shift over the years in how people in east Asia view dogs. It is by no means complete but it is particularly noticeable in middle class urban communities where this western attitude has been embraced. I don’t believe that this is a conscious change, more the effect of exposure to sometimes quite forcefully expressed western opinion combined with a general increase in dog ownership.

To me this represents a loss of culture. Having lost touch with more rural village life, Asian city dwellers are adopting many imported attitudes and their view of dogs is one of them that does not fit their own country’s history.

Again, let me be clear, I am not suggesting that ex-pets are anything other than a problem and I never condone their abandonment. I am talking about dogs that have lived without human owners for many, many generations, arguably ever since dogs first came into being. These are the animals that people from the West refuse to acknowledge as having a legitimate role in the world.

Having lived in Thailand for 15 years I have to accept that I am part of this process of westernization but having gained insight into the life of dogs in the south-east Asian context I am uncomfortable at the arrogance with which we foreigners impose our views despite clear evidence to the contrary. In the case of dogs we force what we see to fit our own model and promote our own cultural beliefs as indisputably right.

I believe that part of the reason for this particular change in attitude is that even the Asians who have not yet been westernized are not especially attached to village dogs. Individuals may be very closely attached to certain unowned dogs but not to the idea of free-ranging dogs in general terms. Also, there is no particular interest in defining whether a dog is owned or not. The concept of free-ranging dogs is simply not important in people’s lives and there is no reason why it should be, but this does make it susceptible to change in the face of more forcefully held beliefs.

However, it is important to me because I see the village dog story as fundamental to the role and history of dogs in our world, and I will continue to argue that in the right context many unowned dogs are in no sense “stray”.

My aim is for people to acknowledge that unowned dogs do have a rightful place in the world and then learn to appreciate them as the beautifully adapted animals that they are. This is clearly going against the tide somewhat and, in effect, would mean a partial easternization of western attitude.

Ukraine Temporary Moratorium on Killing Stray Dogs

With the Euro 2012 football championships just around the corner, one of the host nations, Ukraine, began cleaning its streets by killing stray dogs but has now called a moratorium on the practice following an outcry from international animal welfare groups. The aim is to house them in shelters instead.

However, the ban is only due to last for six months. The long-term policy is unclear.

(full story in Guardian newspaper or see Naturewatch's Report of Stray Animal Control in Ukraine).