Ancient sighthounds

[Sherlock 42]

Has anyone stopped to think that we modern man have been lead up the garden path so to speak, we are educated from an early age that the wolf is a nasty vicious ferocious beast of an animal, and we also believe that it has always been so. What if when early man first encountered the wolf it was more willing to associate with us because it had not experienced human persecution. As we know the wolf was the first animal to be domesticated,suggesting that it was not that difficult. Presumably for hunting and guarding how ever when man domesticated the goat sheep cow and pig the wild wolf became a threat to those animals. As a result they have suffered millennia of persecution at human hands by being killed and driven to the extremities of human territory. It is possible that over time this experience has changed the wolf from what it was when humans first encountered them. They could now be genetically per disposed to be suspicious of and untrusting towards humans where as this may not have been the case in the past.

[Tsayad 88]

Sherlock....

 

Thinking of wolves as "nasty and viscious" is on the same level of anthropomorphism as thinking of them as "nice and noble".

 

They are what they are; Top-level predators that compete with humans for game and are a threat to our livestock and children. Too many wolves mean not enough deer, as is being proven in Yellowstone right now.

[Sherlock 42]

Tsayad, please reread my post as you have not understood the point I am making .

[Tsayad 88]

Sorry, to clarify....

 

Yes, I am familiar with the fact that there have been discovered certain "naive" populations of wildlife. All of those with which I'm familiar are on isolated islands with no significant predator populations. So while the concept is possible, I doubt that it is probable in the context of your question.

Wild canines have always had to deal with other predators, as well as competitors whether man is present or not.

 

Secondly, I am very, very sceptical of the notion that the relationship between men and wild canines was universally happy in the absence of domesticated livestock. Happier, yes. But wolves and humans are both high-level predators and therefore natural competitors as well as regarding weaker members of the other species as prey. Particularly in times of shortage.

 

As to whether we have been led down the garden path,,, I'd answer "yes". But not in the way that you propose. In current culture, far more people anthropomorphise wolves than see them as they really are. More people gain their understanding from watching David Attenborough or, heaven help us, Disneyland, than from reading Little Red Riding-Hood. Fewer still actually run livestock in an area occupied by wolves.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Tsayad

[Casso 1,261]

Has anyone stopped to think that we modern man have been lead up the garden path so to speak, we are educated from an early age that the wolf is a nasty vicious ferocious beast of an animal, and we also believe that it has always been so. What if when early man first encountered the wolf it was more willing to associate with us because it had not experienced human persecution. As we know the wolf was the first animal to be domesticated,suggesting that it was not that difficult. Presumably for hunting and guarding how ever when man domesticated the goat sheep cow and pig the wild wolf became a threat to those animals. As a result they have suffered millennia of persecution at human hands by being killed and driven to the extremities of human territory. It is possible that over time this experience has changed the wolf from what it was when humans first encountered them. They could now be genetically per disposed to be suspicious of and untrusting towards humans where as this may not have been the case in the past.

100 % right Sherlock,

[Tsayad 88]

So how does that explain wolfish behaviour in Northern USA, Canada and Siberia..... all areas with little or no history of domesicated livestock, herding and the kind of "persecution" (nice choice of emotive term there) ?

 

Not even close to 100% right,

 

Also...

Here were have a real account of hunter-gatherer nomads interacting with the local canines. Not speculation. Observation.

 

If

R. Logan-Jack "Northmost Australia".

Such as here: h ttp://www.booksandcollectibles.com.au/dump/JeanLouis_Boglio_Maritime_Books/books-0018/32962.html

 

Robert Logan Jack was described as "Geologist and Explorer" was Government Surveyor and was commissioned to carry out a geological survey of north Queensland in the late 1870's. He was the first white man into many of these areas. He took a large government expedition with native guides (useless north of the Nepean River), ticket-of-leave men, convicts, overseers, mules, bullocks and horses north into Australia's wild unknown in the 1870's. He was an enlightenment-era naturalist of the highest order, and keen hunter and dog enthusiast.

 

He was very interested in Aboriginal people and wrote extensively on what he saw and was very interested in the concept of domestication of native animals amongst the Aboriginal tribes of Queensland.He said the selection process for camp dogs was random, the "pet" would basically be a live toy for the kids to torture to death or keep, as the whim took them. Bad ones would get tied up and left until they died. The pet many times would just as easily be a turtle on a rope, a wallaby joey on a rope, or a dingo pup on a rope. If things got tough and the hunters came back empty-handed, they would get speared or knocked on the head and thrown on the fire for dinner.

 

Useful ones that made it through the "selection process" and protected the camp and helped catch food were allowed table scraps and sleeping privileges. The tribal people were said to love their dogs and had great affection for them, and valued them highly in the hunt - but were never seen to care for them or feed them.

The aborigines were always keen to "borrow" the services of the kangaroo dogs (wolfhound X) that accompanied Logan Jack, they admired their speed and long legs which their hunting dogs lacked. Even at this time camp dogs were seen to have more white markings and a prevalence of darker coats than the wild dingo population. So maybe there was a bit of breeding going on as part of their tradition.

 

The ones with the best ability to get on and survive in that tough environment got to stay with the camp and breed.

 

Not the basis for an animated feelgood movie for the kids, but reality...

[Casso 1,261]

So how does that explain wolfish behaviour in Northern USA, Canada and Siberia..... all areas with little or no history of domesicated livestock, herding and the kind of "persecution" (nice choice of emotive term there) ?

 

Not even close to 100% right,

 

Also...

Here were have a real account of hunter-gatherer nomads interacting with the local canines. Not speculation. Observation.

 

If

R. Logan-Jack "Northmost Australia".

Such as here: h ttp://www.booksandcollectibles.com.au/dump/JeanLouis_Boglio_Maritime_Books/books-0018/32962.html

 

Robert Logan Jack was described as "Geologist and Explorer" was Government Surveyor and was commissioned to carry out a geological survey of north Queensland in the late 1870's. He was the first white man into many of these areas. He took a large government expedition with native guides (useless north of the Nepean River), ticket-of-leave men, convicts, overseers, mules, bullocks and horses north into Australia's wild unknown in the 1870's. He was an enlightenment-era naturalist of the highest order, and keen hunter and dog enthusiast.

 

He was very interested in Aboriginal people and wrote extensively on what he saw and was very interested in the concept of domestication of native animals amongst the Aboriginal tribes of Queensland.He said the selection process for camp dogs was random, the "pet" would basically be a live toy for the kids to torture to death or keep, as the whim took them. Bad ones would get tied up and left until they died. The pet many times would just as easily be a turtle on a rope, a wallaby joey on a rope, or a dingo pup on a rope. If things got tough and the hunters came back empty-handed, they would get speared or knocked on the head and thrown on the fire for dinner.

 

Useful ones that made it through the "selection process" and protected the camp and helped catch food were allowed table scraps and sleeping privileges. The tribal people were said to love their dogs and had great affection for them, and valued them highly in the hunt - but were never seen to care for them or feed them.

The aborigines were always keen to "borrow" the services of the kangaroo dogs (wolfhound X) that accompanied Logan Jack, they admired their speed and long legs which their hunting dogs lacked. Even at this time camp dogs were seen to have more white markings and a prevalence of darker coats than the wild dingo population. So maybe there was a bit of breeding going on as part of their tradition.

 

The ones with the best ability to get on and survive in that tough environment got to stay with the camp and breed.

 

Not the basis for an animated feelgood movie for the kids, but reality...

Thats a nice account of Abo's and their mutts couple of hundred years ago,

but nothing what so ever to do with the human/Wolf situation many thousands of decades ago bud in a very different setting,

 

can we just agree to disagree ,

i can see the strength of the hunt in my relationship with the mutt, and i just dont agree it was of less importance to early man than the taste of his flesh, an animal that can follow our gaze, follow a trail for miles and can work in a group to defeat large prey , perfect combination,,long may it last, SLAN,

Edited March 21, 2012 by Casso

[Casso 1,261]

It is also possible that canids - being pack animals and accustomed to working as a team - learnt that there are benefits to working with people. A parallel would be the cooperation between dolphins and aboriginals on the east coast of Australia in fishing.

 

These are your words ,,are they not,,

[Sherlock 42]

Tsayad. You are focusing on semantics and not the point of my post. Please see the map below if this does not show persecution I do not know what does. .

[Tsayad 88]

Casso.

 

The Northern Australian record is a record of a nomadic stone-age hunter-gatherer culture. There is little evidence that it has changed greately over the supposed 50-60 thousand years that this country has been occupied. As the best evidence is that domestication of the wolf predated that of either herd animals or grains, the only circumstances in which this could have happend was in a nomadic stone-age hunter-gatherer cultures. So your claim that the circumstances were completely different is is without foundation..

If you wish to convince me otherwise, all you have to do is present evidence of nomadic stoneage hunter-gather cultures that were "completely different".

 

If you cannot, then our "difference" is due to your unwillingness to accept evidence..

 

Sherlock.

That's a nice map. Your problem is that your theory predicts a behavioural difference among wolves depending on whether they originate in agrarian or non-agrarian environments, yet that difference is hardly noticeable. What difference that does exists is consistent with a few generations of hunting pressure and doesn't require thousands of years of "persecution" by livestock-raising farmers.. Yes, wolves have been significantly reduced or rendered extinct in certain areas, but that says absolutely nothing about what wolves were like when they were first domesticated or how that behavioural difference may have made domestication much easier.

 

That's not sematics, that's addressing the implications of your argument in the context of this thread.The maps shows distribution, not behavioural change.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Tsayad

[Casso 1,261]

It is also possible that canids - being pack animals and accustomed to working as a team - learnt that there are benefits to working with people. A parallel would be the cooperation between dolphins and aboriginals on the east coast of Australia in fishing.

 

These are your words ,,are they not,,

Are they your words Tsayad ???

[Sherlock 42]

Tsayad, You continue to miss understand my theory. It is not dependant on differences of wolf behaviour in agrarian or non agrarian environments as you suggest. My theory is about wolf behaviour when they first came into contact with humans. These wolves would not have recognised humans as either prey or a threat presumably making them more amenable for domestication.

[Tsayad 88]

Sherlock...

 

What evidence have you that "first contact" and domestication occurred at the same time?

 

For you argument to work, it requires that wolves had not had prolonged , competitive, occasionally adverse experience of each other prior to domestication. I don't believe that that scenario is a realistic one.

[Tsayad 88]

Are they your words Tsayad ???

 

Yes, they are.

 

But that is not domestication, and the gulf between the level of cooperative hunting that I suggested, and domestication is bigger than you seem to think..

 

There are many animals that have learnt that association with man brings benefits. from mice to bears. They eat our food and seem to have lost all fear of us. But try treating them as if they are tame, and you rapidly discover the difference.

 

 

 

Dingo attacks tourist on Fraser Island

 

 

 

 

 

DINGO patrols have been stepped up on Fraser Island in southeast Queensland after a tourist was surrounded by a pack of five and bitten multiple times.

The Korean woman was set upon on at Eurong Beach early on Sunday morning, the Department of Environment and Resource Management said.

 

Regional Manager, Ross Belcher, said although there were five in the pack, it was only one that became violent.

 

"The woman was bitten on the leg, hands and arms," he told AAP.

 

She apparently followed safety advice and responded assertively towards the dingo, causing it to retreat.

 

She was treated at the scene and did not require hospital care.

 

Mr Belcher said safety patrols around the area have increased because of the attack, and authorities will do tag checks to try to identify the culprit.

 

The latest incident occurred near a township where most human-dingo interactions have occurred in the past.

 

Mr Belcher warned people again not to feed the wild dogs, saying they're unpredictable and dangerous.

 

"Dingoes that get easy access to food will learn to depend on and approach humans, increasing the risk of an attack," Mr Belcher said.

 

 

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/dingo-attacks-tourist-on-fraser-island/story-e6frfku0-1225992374253#ixzz1qOklrcSg

 

Australian rangers found and killed two dingoes believed to have mauled a three-year-old girl as her family was preparing to board a ferry following a camping trip on Australia's Fraser Island.

The dingoes, wild dogs native to Australia, attacked the girl and dragged her by the legs Monday after she wandered away from her family and into the sand dunes on the island in northeastern Queensland.

 

... and again.

 

A 9-year-old boy was killed by dingoes on Fraser Island in 2001. As a result, more than a dozen dogs were killed in a government cull and a campaign was launched to warn visitors of the danger posed by the animals.

 

Please pay attention.

The Fraser Island population is not only the purest population of wild canines left in Australia, it has not been subject to "persecution, because it isn't farming country. On the contrary, this large island is a very populat tourist destination, and the Dingoes have learnt that tourists are a source of food... Of various kinds.

 

We don't leave our very young children alone with large hunting dogs. How much more insecure would early men have felt with large, wild canines in camp?... If those canines were not well secured and/or trusted due to having been raised in the camp from infancy?

The idea that wolves simply decided to wander into camp one day and sit down without major friction is a fantasy. The idea that they would do so and accept the kind of restraint that would permit men to feel secure about their children, is a greater fantasy again.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Tsayad

[hutch6 550]

Hutch...

 

As I said before, in this continent, the sole occupants prior to European settlement were nomadic hunter-gatherers. Yet they had domesticated canines that were indistinguishable from wild canines in the same area. This is observed and recorded history, not inferred history from 50,000 years ago.

 

Secondly, I am a farmer. It doesn't matter whether you are talking modern farming, or primitive farming and herding as practiced in Africa to this day, farmers and large predators do not live together comfortably. To the predator, the farmer is not a source of scraps and pests, he is a source of livestock. Livestock that are very valuable and which must be protected.

 

In farming country, wild game is not more common, but less. Farmers kill off or exclude wild game, because wild game destroy the crops and pastures that we need for our stock. Stock are generally easier prey for predators, not harder, so we must kill off or exclude predators. The only predators that flourish under agriculture are those that are too small to threaten our livestock. Foxes and feral cats do OK, but not large canines that hunt bigger things than mice.

 

You might also pause to consider that everyagricultural society of which we have decent records has a history of hunting large predators in order to protect their livestock (and family members). Whether it is modern Masai or ancient Egyptions. Why do you think that wolves are extinct in England and so rare in western Europe and much of the US, if there is a benefit to farmers of living with wolves.

 

As a further aside, the more "primitive" an agricultural society is, the fewer scraps it produces. Hunter-gatherers produce excess because they sometimes kill more than they can carry, store or eat-on-the-spot. But farmers don't.

 

My point was that humans had domesticated dogs (15-50,000yrs ago) a long long time before the domestication of livestock such as sheep (9-7,000yrs) and cattle (8,000yrs). It is much easier to farm grain and cereals than it is to farm livestock as livestock require enclosures and as you say, will be hunted so ealry man grew grain and crops. The availablilty of free hand outs to vermin would have attracted them in droves and the predators will always follow the prey.

A dog that is brought up around a herd will protect that herd in some way be it through barking or other methods, hence why hill farmers, even today, put the pup of a dog onto the teat of the sheep or goat in the few couple of months to create that bond.

 

WIld game, as you mentioned, love crops and predators love wild game. We grow crops and invite the wild game in, the predators spend a large amount of time where our scents and sounds are and eventually through conditioning they learn to accept us and as we see the clearing of wild game going on we learn to appreciate their assistance and eventually, one day, someone rewarded a wolf for the work by putting a chunk of free meat out for it or the table scraps - try and get a wild animal to lead you to prey and it will just want to get away from you but put food in the same place for them day after day and eventually you will tame them, not domesticate them but tame them, Domestication had to come after this as early man simply did not have the ability to contain wild wolves if modern day materials and scientists can't do it. No matter HOW Much tiem you spend trying to domesticate a wolf, when it comes to time to reproduce they are off and that is it. If you have a dwelling on their territory then over time they will eventually learn to live with you and not be so skitish which leads after a few generatiosn to wolves that hang aroudn the village and have no need to run off to breed to seek mates as the mates are in close proximity. The off spring are rpoduced around man from day one almost and become accustomed and eventually they in turn have their offspring who through the passing down of learned behaviour (which is now a culture) they actively seek man out as a benefit.