install theme
slapfight:

whatisthisidont-even:

Went out today and look what I found at Tim Hortons.

i NEEEED them 

GOD DAMN

slapfight:

whatisthisidont-even:

Went out today and look what I found at Tim Hortons.

i NEEEED them 

GOD DAMN

desolatewolf said: That Felix guy is fucking weird. Someone should’ve pushed him off his ladder. Creepy bastard… Hahahahahaha!

hahahah good thing I love him!

get out of the shower

all i hear is “I can see your boobies”

look out the window

Felix is standing on a 6ft ladder with his face right in the window

I laughed pretty fuckin hard and somehow was expecting that to happen, so much so that I wasn’t even the slightest bit surprised when I heard a voice out the bathroom window

Cargo gets it… its just one of those lazy days….

Cargo gets it… its just one of those lazy days….

Muskox Killed in Wales While Attacking Dog

oosik:

Watch the clip of a musk ox attacking a sled dog.

fuck eh… Muskox are pretty damn intimidating, never mind that close up…

brakechecks:

" you’re gonna have that tattoo for the rest of your life"

Wow really?

I didn’t..

are you serious?
ravendroppings:

fleshcircus:

wolveswolves:

Wolves cooperate but dogs submit, study suggests
19 August 2014


For dog lovers, comparative psychologists Friederike Range and Zsófia Virányi have an unsettling conclusion. Many researchers think that as humans domesticated wolves, they selected for a cooperative nature, resulting in animals keen to pitch in on tasks with humans. But when the two scientists at the Messerli Research Institute at the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna studied lab-raised dog and wolf packs, they found that wolves were the tolerant, cooperative ones. The dogs, in contrast, formed strict, linear dominance hierarchies that demand obedience from subordinates, Range explained last week at the Animal Behavior Society meeting at Princeton University. As wolves became dogs, she thinks, they were bred for the ability to follow orders and to be dependent on human masters.
Range and Virányi developed their new portrayal of dogs and wolves by giving a series of tests to socialized packs of mixed-breed dogs and wolves, four packs of each species, containing anywhere from two to six animals each. The scientists raised all the animals from about 10 days old at the Wolf Science Center in Game Park Ernstbrunn, Austria, living with them 24 hours a day until they were introduced to pack life, so that they were accustomed to humans.
Range and her colleagues tested the dogs’ and wolves’ tolerance for their fellow pack members with a mealtime challenge. The researchers paired a high-ranking dog with a low-ranking pack buddy and set out a bowl of food, then gave the same challenge to a pair of wolves. In every matchup, “the higher ranking dog monopolized the food,” Range told the meeting. “But in the wolf tests, both high- and low-ranking animals had access” and were able to chow down at the same time. At times, the more dominant wolves were “mildly aggressive toward their subordinates, but a lower ranking dog won’t even try” when paired with a top dog, Range said. “They don’t dare to challenge.”
Wolves also beat the hounds on tests that assessed whether the canids were able to follow the gaze of their fellows to find food. “They are very cooperative with each other, and when they have a disagreement or must make a group decision, they have a lot of communication or ‘talk’ first,” Range said.  The same was not true for the center’s dog packs; for even the smallest transgression, a higher ranked dog “may react aggressively” toward one that is subordinate.
Range and Virányi suspect that the relationship between dogs and humans is hierarchical, with humans as top dogs, rather than cooperative, as in wolf packs. The notion of “dog-human cooperation” needs to be reconsidered, Range said, as well as “the hypotheses that domestication enhanced dogs’ cooperative abilities.” Instead, our ancestors bred dogs for obedience and dependency. “It’s not about having a common goal,” Range said. “It’s about being with us, but without conflict. We tell them something, and they obey.”
“It’s wonderful work,” says James Serpell, an ethologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “But it’s not what the dog training community wants to hear; you can’t say the word ‘dominance’ around them. Does dominance exist as a phenomenon in dogs? The answer is clearly ‘yes,’ ” Serpell says, although he notes that there are breed differences. Other researchers, for example, have shown that when in packs, poodles and Labrador retrievers are more aggressive than are malamutes and German shepherds.     
Monique Udell, an animal behaviorist at Oregon State University, Corvallis, says her own study of dog and wolf behavior, also presented at the meeting, supports Range’s contention that dogs are waiting for orders. To find out if dogs are “independent problem solvers,” she presented 20 adult dogs (10 pets and 10 from shelters) with sealed containers of summer sausage. Each animal was allotted 2 minutes to open it. Ten captive wolves were given the same test. Not one of the adult dogs succeeded; most did not even try. Meanwhile, eight of the 10 wolves opened the container in less than 2 minutes. So did dog puppies, indicating that dogs are no less capable of the task than wolves, but “as the dog grows and becomes more dependent on its human owner that [independent] behavior is inhibited,” Udell said.
Underscoring the point, she found that adult pooches could open the container after all—when their human owner told them to do so. Because dogs “suppress their independence, it’s difficult to know what their normal problem-solving abilities are,” she told the meeting.
It may be that we have to give Fido a command to find out.


Source

The bit about the dog training doesn’t make sense to me.
First and foremost I thought a large majority of dog trainers believed in things like having to “dominate” your dog.Secondly, even people who don’t believe in this, I think for the most part do not say “dominance doesn’t exist” they mainly agree that its much more contextual than previously though (and of course this all depends on how you define dominance). As in, not EVERYTHING dogs do is a way to gain a higher spot in the social hierarchy.. like when people say things such as “dont let your dog through the door first hes trying to dominate you” and that kind of bs.
And of COURSE dogs were domesticated to obey… over time, more so. But if you’ve ever met or worked with any extremely primitive breeds/land races, like the numerous types of LGDs that are out there, you will see that they are often significantly more independent and far more co-operative with one another as well as far less obedient.
When I saw this study being put out it was often referred to as “surprising” that wolves are better at co-operating with one another and I have to ask… why? Why is that surprising at all? You’re surprised that a pack animal that has not been altered through history is good at co-operating with the same type of pack animal? Really? And the one that has been altered by humans for literally thousands of years isn’t as good at co-operating with its own species? Maybe that has something to do with the fact that they have literally been bred to communicate with people and do jobs for people. All this says about dominance is that dogs will show dominance(or submission) to one another if left to their own devices and presumably not taught how to behave in a neutral manner around other dogs. That’s like saying “if we put really confident, aggressive people in a room with people who are really shy and nervous, the confident and aggressive people will take charge of the situation/task at hand” wow no way, I wouldn’t have thought that.
What I know is going to happen now is a shit ton of people are going to say “this study proves I need to be dominant over my dog!” and use it as some sort of justification to alpha roll their dog and be a prick needlessly. There’s a difference between being a strong leader and consistently “dominating” your dog like a fucking asshole.

Since I’m a part of the Animal Behavior Society, the meeting of which the article’s subject was presented at, I want to make it clear that this article is a report on a 15-minute talk given by the authors during the meeting, and possibly some post-talk interviewing. This is the reporter discussing what they took away from the talk and I would be sad if the reporter’s slant made people tear apart or ignore the actual study. Here is the abstract given for the talk:
“Tolerance and attentiveness in dogs and wolves: The evolutionary origins of dog-human cooperation
F Range, Zs Virányi Messerli 
Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna Recent theories on the evolutionary origins of dog-human cooperation propose that their tamer, more tolerant temperament in comparison to wolves allowed dogs to accept humans as social partners and subsequently the development of their human-like cognitive skills. By testing similar raised and kept dogs and wolves socialized with humans as well as conspecifics in cognitive tasks, we found that wolves also accept humans as social partners in two-object choice and social learning tasks and that they perform at least as well as dogs. Moreover, by comparing their tolerance and aggressiveness when competing over food, dogs appear to have a steeper dominance hierarchy than wolves, which also allows human partners to inhibit dogs from taking easily available meat. Our results are best explained by the canine cooperation hypothesis proposing, on the one hand. a cooperative and tolerant view of wolves, which might have served as the evolutionary origin of dog-human cooperation and on the other hand, the evolution of an enhanced sensitivity of dogs to social inhibition leading them to more readily accept their social partners’ – human or conspecific - leading role than wolves.”
Here is a similar paper, along the same lines, from the same authors. The conclusions drawn by a reporter are going to be a bit different than the pragmatic conclusions drawn in the published literature, which provides a clearer set of methods, justification, and background information.  Many of their conclusions may not be too surprising to people familiar with wolf and dog behavior, but the point of most studies is to have an idea and test it quantifiably so you can have actual data that support (or refute) the idea, and build upon those conclusions in future work.
I just don’t want to see these researchers, or the study, being unfairly criticized because of a reporter, before their actual work is considered.

I have read over the actual study and I was by no means attempting to criticize it. If you read what I wrote, I was criticizing the way the article is being received and how it will likely be turned around to justify poor behavior in dog training.
I just don’t want to see people taking information, as they regularly do, and turning it around to mean something else(like more recently, “smelling farts reduce cancer risk” etc that kind of bullshit)
I’m not trying to be rude or piss on these researchers. I’m pissed at the way people are understanding the study and it seems like it will offer a way for people to rationalize domineering behavior with their pets and be easily misinterpreted since most people do not bother to actually read the study in itself or take the time to reflect on it.
* I also want to add, I see where you’re coming from 100% and I apologize for coming off that way as that was not my intention.

ravendroppings:

fleshcircus:

wolveswolves:

Wolves cooperate but dogs submit, study suggests

19 August 2014

For dog lovers, comparative psychologists Friederike Range and Zsófia Virányi have an unsettling conclusion. Many researchers think that as humans domesticated wolves, they selected for a cooperative nature, resulting in animals keen to pitch in on tasks with humans. But when the two scientists at the Messerli Research Institute at the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna studied lab-raised dog and wolf packs, they found that wolves were the tolerant, cooperative ones. The dogs, in contrast, formed strict, linear dominance hierarchies that demand obedience from subordinates, Range explained last week at the Animal Behavior Society meeting at Princeton University. As wolves became dogs, she thinks, they were bred for the ability to follow orders and to be dependent on human masters.

Range and Virányi developed their new portrayal of dogs and wolves by giving a series of tests to socialized packs of mixed-breed dogs and wolves, four packs of each species, containing anywhere from two to six animals each. The scientists raised all the animals from about 10 days old at the Wolf Science Center in Game Park Ernstbrunn, Austria, living with them 24 hours a day until they were introduced to pack life, so that they were accustomed to humans.

Range and her colleagues tested the dogs’ and wolves’ tolerance for their fellow pack members with a mealtime challenge. The researchers paired a high-ranking dog with a low-ranking pack buddy and set out a bowl of food, then gave the same challenge to a pair of wolves. In every matchup, “the higher ranking dog monopolized the food,” Range told the meeting. “But in the wolf tests, both high- and low-ranking animals had access” and were able to chow down at the same time. At times, the more dominant wolves were “mildly aggressive toward their subordinates, but a lower ranking dog won’t even try” when paired with a top dog, Range said. “They don’t dare to challenge.”

Wolves also beat the hounds on tests that assessed whether the canids were able to follow the gaze of their fellows to find food. “They are very cooperative with each other, and when they have a disagreement or must make a group decision, they have a lot of communication or ‘talk’ first,” Range said.  The same was not true for the center’s dog packs; for even the smallest transgression, a higher ranked dog “may react aggressively” toward one that is subordinate.

Range and Virányi suspect that the relationship between dogs and humans is hierarchical, with humans as top dogs, rather than cooperative, as in wolf packs. The notion of “dog-human cooperation” needs to be reconsidered, Range said, as well as “the hypotheses that domestication enhanced dogs’ cooperative abilities.” Instead, our ancestors bred dogs for obedience and dependency. “It’s not about having a common goal,” Range said. “It’s about being with us, but without conflict. We tell them something, and they obey.”

“It’s wonderful work,” says James Serpell, an ethologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “But it’s not what the dog training community wants to hear; you can’t say the word ‘dominance’ around them. Does dominance exist as a phenomenon in dogs? The answer is clearly ‘yes,’ ” Serpell says, although he notes that there are breed differences. Other researchers, for example, have shown that when in packs, poodles and Labrador retrievers are more aggressive than are malamutes and German shepherds.     

Monique Udell, an animal behaviorist at Oregon State University, Corvallis, says her own study of dog and wolf behavior, also presented at the meeting, supports Range’s contention that dogs are waiting for orders. To find out if dogs are “independent problem solvers,” she presented 20 adult dogs (10 pets and 10 from shelters) with sealed containers of summer sausage. Each animal was allotted 2 minutes to open it. Ten captive wolves were given the same test. Not one of the adult dogs succeeded; most did not even try. Meanwhile, eight of the 10 wolves opened the container in less than 2 minutes. So did dog puppies, indicating that dogs are no less capable of the task than wolves, but “as the dog grows and becomes more dependent on its human owner that [independent] behavior is inhibited,” Udell said.

Underscoring the point, she found that adult pooches could open the container after all—when their human owner told them to do so. Because dogs “suppress their independence, it’s difficult to know what their normal problem-solving abilities are,” she told the meeting.

It may be that we have to give Fido a command to find out.

Source

The bit about the dog training doesn’t make sense to me.

First and foremost I thought a large majority of dog trainers believed in things like having to “dominate” your dog.
Secondly, even people who don’t believe in this, I think for the most part do not say “dominance doesn’t exist” they mainly agree that its much more contextual than previously though (and of course this all depends on how you define dominance). As in, not EVERYTHING dogs do is a way to gain a higher spot in the social hierarchy.. like when people say things such as “dont let your dog through the door first hes trying to dominate you” and that kind of bs.

And of COURSE dogs were domesticated to obey… over time, more so. But if you’ve ever met or worked with any extremely primitive breeds/land races, like the numerous types of LGDs that are out there, you will see that they are often significantly more independent and far more co-operative with one another as well as far less obedient.

When I saw this study being put out it was often referred to as “surprising” that wolves are better at co-operating with one another and I have to ask… why? Why is that surprising at all? You’re surprised that a pack animal that has not been altered through history is good at co-operating with the same type of pack animal? Really? And the one that has been altered by humans for literally thousands of years isn’t as good at co-operating with its own species? Maybe that has something to do with the fact that they have literally been bred to communicate with people and do jobs for people. All this says about dominance is that dogs will show dominance(or submission) to one another if left to their own devices and presumably not taught how to behave in a neutral manner around other dogs. That’s like saying “if we put really confident, aggressive people in a room with people who are really shy and nervous, the confident and aggressive people will take charge of the situation/task at hand” wow no way, I wouldn’t have thought that.

What I know is going to happen now is a shit ton of people are going to say “this study proves I need to be dominant over my dog!” and use it as some sort of justification to alpha roll their dog and be a prick needlessly. There’s a difference between being a strong leader and consistently “dominating” your dog like a fucking asshole.

Since I’m a part of the Animal Behavior Society, the meeting of which the article’s subject was presented at, I want to make it clear that this article is a report on a 15-minute talk given by the authors during the meeting, and possibly some post-talk interviewing. This is the reporter discussing what they took away from the talk and I would be sad if the reporter’s slant made people tear apart or ignore the actual study. Here is the abstract given for the talk:

Tolerance and attentiveness in dogs and wolves: The evolutionary origins of dog-human cooperation

F Range, Zs Virányi Messerli

Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna Recent theories on the evolutionary origins of dog-human cooperation propose that their tamer, more tolerant temperament in comparison to wolves allowed dogs to accept humans as social partners and subsequently the development of their human-like cognitive skills. By testing similar raised and kept dogs and wolves socialized with humans as well as conspecifics in cognitive tasks, we found that wolves also accept humans as social partners in two-object choice and social learning tasks and that they perform at least as well as dogs. Moreover, by comparing their tolerance and aggressiveness when competing over food, dogs appear to have a steeper dominance hierarchy than wolves, which also allows human partners to inhibit dogs from taking easily available meat. Our results are best explained by the canine cooperation hypothesis proposing, on the one hand. a cooperative and tolerant view of wolves, which might have served as the evolutionary origin of dog-human cooperation and on the other hand, the evolution of an enhanced sensitivity of dogs to social inhibition leading them to more readily accept their social partners’ – human or conspecific - leading role than wolves.

Here is a similar paper, along the same lines, from the same authors. The conclusions drawn by a reporter are going to be a bit different than the pragmatic conclusions drawn in the published literature, which provides a clearer set of methods, justification, and background information.  Many of their conclusions may not be too surprising to people familiar with wolf and dog behavior, but the point of most studies is to have an idea and test it quantifiably so you can have actual data that support (or refute) the idea, and build upon those conclusions in future work.

I just don’t want to see these researchers, or the study, being unfairly criticized because of a reporter, before their actual work is considered.

I have read over the actual study and I was by no means attempting to criticize it. If you read what I wrote, I was criticizing the way the article is being received and how it will likely be turned around to justify poor behavior in dog training.

I just don’t want to see people taking information, as they regularly do, and turning it around to mean something else(like more recently, “smelling farts reduce cancer risk” etc that kind of bullshit)

I’m not trying to be rude or piss on these researchers. I’m pissed at the way people are understanding the study and it seems like it will offer a way for people to rationalize domineering behavior with their pets and be easily misinterpreted since most people do not bother to actually read the study in itself or take the time to reflect on it.

* I also want to add, I see where you’re coming from 100% and I apologize for coming off that way as that was not my intention.

ostealjewelry:

really-shit:

French photographer Antoine Bruy spent three years (2010 - 2013) aimlessly hitchhiking around remote European regions documenting the affairs and lifestyle of former city dwellers turned off-grid families. Antoine offered labor (helping raise livestock, tending to farmlands) in return for housing and an intimate, more in-depth understanding of this largely undocumented subsociety.

goals.

(Source: themindunleashed.org)

its extremely unsettling that I can smell shit but have no idea where its coming from

wolveswolves:

Wolves cooperate but dogs submit, study suggests
19 August 2014


For dog lovers, comparative psychologists Friederike Range and Zsófia Virányi have an unsettling conclusion. Many researchers think that as humans domesticated wolves, they selected for a cooperative nature, resulting in animals keen to pitch in on tasks with humans. But when the two scientists at the Messerli Research Institute at the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna studied lab-raised dog and wolf packs, they found that wolves were the tolerant, cooperative ones. The dogs, in contrast, formed strict, linear dominance hierarchies that demand obedience from subordinates, Range explained last week at the Animal Behavior Society meeting at Princeton University. As wolves became dogs, she thinks, they were bred for the ability to follow orders and to be dependent on human masters.
Range and Virányi developed their new portrayal of dogs and wolves by giving a series of tests to socialized packs of mixed-breed dogs and wolves, four packs of each species, containing anywhere from two to six animals each. The scientists raised all the animals from about 10 days old at the Wolf Science Center in Game Park Ernstbrunn, Austria, living with them 24 hours a day until they were introduced to pack life, so that they were accustomed to humans.
Range and her colleagues tested the dogs’ and wolves’ tolerance for their fellow pack members with a mealtime challenge. The researchers paired a high-ranking dog with a low-ranking pack buddy and set out a bowl of food, then gave the same challenge to a pair of wolves. In every matchup, “the higher ranking dog monopolized the food,” Range told the meeting. “But in the wolf tests, both high- and low-ranking animals had access” and were able to chow down at the same time. At times, the more dominant wolves were “mildly aggressive toward their subordinates, but a lower ranking dog won’t even try” when paired with a top dog, Range said. “They don’t dare to challenge.”
Wolves also beat the hounds on tests that assessed whether the canids were able to follow the gaze of their fellows to find food. “They are very cooperative with each other, and when they have a disagreement or must make a group decision, they have a lot of communication or ‘talk’ first,” Range said.  The same was not true for the center’s dog packs; for even the smallest transgression, a higher ranked dog “may react aggressively” toward one that is subordinate.
Range and Virányi suspect that the relationship between dogs and humans is hierarchical, with humans as top dogs, rather than cooperative, as in wolf packs. The notion of “dog-human cooperation” needs to be reconsidered, Range said, as well as “the hypotheses that domestication enhanced dogs’ cooperative abilities.” Instead, our ancestors bred dogs for obedience and dependency. “It’s not about having a common goal,” Range said. “It’s about being with us, but without conflict. We tell them something, and they obey.”
“It’s wonderful work,” says James Serpell, an ethologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “But it’s not what the dog training community wants to hear; you can’t say the word ‘dominance’ around them. Does dominance exist as a phenomenon in dogs? The answer is clearly ‘yes,’ ” Serpell says, although he notes that there are breed differences. Other researchers, for example, have shown that when in packs, poodles and Labrador retrievers are more aggressive than are malamutes and German shepherds.     
Monique Udell, an animal behaviorist at Oregon State University, Corvallis, says her own study of dog and wolf behavior, also presented at the meeting, supports Range’s contention that dogs are waiting for orders. To find out if dogs are “independent problem solvers,” she presented 20 adult dogs (10 pets and 10 from shelters) with sealed containers of summer sausage. Each animal was allotted 2 minutes to open it. Ten captive wolves were given the same test. Not one of the adult dogs succeeded; most did not even try. Meanwhile, eight of the 10 wolves opened the container in less than 2 minutes. So did dog puppies, indicating that dogs are no less capable of the task than wolves, but “as the dog grows and becomes more dependent on its human owner that [independent] behavior is inhibited,” Udell said.
Underscoring the point, she found that adult pooches could open the container after all—when their human owner told them to do so. Because dogs “suppress their independence, it’s difficult to know what their normal problem-solving abilities are,” she told the meeting.
It may be that we have to give Fido a command to find out.


Source

The bit about the dog training doesn’t make sense to me.
First and foremost I thought a large majority of dog trainers believed in things like having to “dominate” your dog.Secondly, even people who don’t believe in this, I think for the most part do not say “dominance doesn’t exist” they mainly agree that its much more contextual than previously though (and of course this all depends on how you define dominance). As in, not EVERYTHING dogs do is a way to gain a higher spot in the social hierarchy.. like when people say things such as “dont let your dog through the door first hes trying to dominate you” and that kind of bs.
And of COURSE dogs were domesticated to obey… over time, more so. But if you’ve ever met or worked with any extremely primitive breeds/land races, like the numerous types of LGDs that are out there, you will see that they are often significantly more independent and far more co-operative with one another as well as far less obedient.
When I saw this study being put out it was often referred to as “surprising” that wolves are better at co-operating with one another and I have to ask… why? Why is that surprising at all? You’re surprised that a pack animal that has not been altered through history is good at co-operating with the same type of pack animal? Really? And the one that has been altered by humans for literally thousands of years isn’t as good at co-operating with its own species? Maybe that has something to do with the fact that they have literally been bred to communicate with people and do jobs for people. All this says about dominance is that dogs will show dominance(or submission) to one another if left to their own devices and presumably not taught how to behave in a neutral manner around other dogs. That’s like saying “if we put really confident, aggressive people in a room with people who are really shy and nervous, the confident and aggressive people will take charge of the situation/task at hand” wow no way, I wouldn’t have thought that.
What I know is going to happen now is a shit ton of people are going to say “this study proves I need to be dominant over my dog!” and use it as some sort of justification to alpha roll their dog and be a prick needlessly. There’s a difference between being a strong leader and consistently “dominating” your dog like a fucking asshole.

wolveswolves:

Wolves cooperate but dogs submit, study suggests

19 August 2014

For dog lovers, comparative psychologists Friederike Range and Zsófia Virányi have an unsettling conclusion. Many researchers think that as humans domesticated wolves, they selected for a cooperative nature, resulting in animals keen to pitch in on tasks with humans. But when the two scientists at the Messerli Research Institute at the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna studied lab-raised dog and wolf packs, they found that wolves were the tolerant, cooperative ones. The dogs, in contrast, formed strict, linear dominance hierarchies that demand obedience from subordinates, Range explained last week at the Animal Behavior Society meeting at Princeton University. As wolves became dogs, she thinks, they were bred for the ability to follow orders and to be dependent on human masters.

Range and Virányi developed their new portrayal of dogs and wolves by giving a series of tests to socialized packs of mixed-breed dogs and wolves, four packs of each species, containing anywhere from two to six animals each. The scientists raised all the animals from about 10 days old at the Wolf Science Center in Game Park Ernstbrunn, Austria, living with them 24 hours a day until they were introduced to pack life, so that they were accustomed to humans.

Range and her colleagues tested the dogs’ and wolves’ tolerance for their fellow pack members with a mealtime challenge. The researchers paired a high-ranking dog with a low-ranking pack buddy and set out a bowl of food, then gave the same challenge to a pair of wolves. In every matchup, “the higher ranking dog monopolized the food,” Range told the meeting. “But in the wolf tests, both high- and low-ranking animals had access” and were able to chow down at the same time. At times, the more dominant wolves were “mildly aggressive toward their subordinates, but a lower ranking dog won’t even try” when paired with a top dog, Range said. “They don’t dare to challenge.”

Wolves also beat the hounds on tests that assessed whether the canids were able to follow the gaze of their fellows to find food. “They are very cooperative with each other, and when they have a disagreement or must make a group decision, they have a lot of communication or ‘talk’ first,” Range said.  The same was not true for the center’s dog packs; for even the smallest transgression, a higher ranked dog “may react aggressively” toward one that is subordinate.

Range and Virányi suspect that the relationship between dogs and humans is hierarchical, with humans as top dogs, rather than cooperative, as in wolf packs. The notion of “dog-human cooperation” needs to be reconsidered, Range said, as well as “the hypotheses that domestication enhanced dogs’ cooperative abilities.” Instead, our ancestors bred dogs for obedience and dependency. “It’s not about having a common goal,” Range said. “It’s about being with us, but without conflict. We tell them something, and they obey.”

“It’s wonderful work,” says James Serpell, an ethologist at the University of Pennsylvania. “But it’s not what the dog training community wants to hear; you can’t say the word ‘dominance’ around them. Does dominance exist as a phenomenon in dogs? The answer is clearly ‘yes,’ ” Serpell says, although he notes that there are breed differences. Other researchers, for example, have shown that when in packs, poodles and Labrador retrievers are more aggressive than are malamutes and German shepherds.     

Monique Udell, an animal behaviorist at Oregon State University, Corvallis, says her own study of dog and wolf behavior, also presented at the meeting, supports Range’s contention that dogs are waiting for orders. To find out if dogs are “independent problem solvers,” she presented 20 adult dogs (10 pets and 10 from shelters) with sealed containers of summer sausage. Each animal was allotted 2 minutes to open it. Ten captive wolves were given the same test. Not one of the adult dogs succeeded; most did not even try. Meanwhile, eight of the 10 wolves opened the container in less than 2 minutes. So did dog puppies, indicating that dogs are no less capable of the task than wolves, but “as the dog grows and becomes more dependent on its human owner that [independent] behavior is inhibited,” Udell said.

Underscoring the point, she found that adult pooches could open the container after all—when their human owner told them to do so. Because dogs “suppress their independence, it’s difficult to know what their normal problem-solving abilities are,” she told the meeting.

It may be that we have to give Fido a command to find out.

Source

The bit about the dog training doesn’t make sense to me.

First and foremost I thought a large majority of dog trainers believed in things like having to “dominate” your dog.
Secondly, even people who don’t believe in this, I think for the most part do not say “dominance doesn’t exist” they mainly agree that its much more contextual than previously though (and of course this all depends on how you define dominance). As in, not EVERYTHING dogs do is a way to gain a higher spot in the social hierarchy.. like when people say things such as “dont let your dog through the door first hes trying to dominate you” and that kind of bs.

And of COURSE dogs were domesticated to obey… over time, more so. But if you’ve ever met or worked with any extremely primitive breeds/land races, like the numerous types of LGDs that are out there, you will see that they are often significantly more independent and far more co-operative with one another as well as far less obedient.

When I saw this study being put out it was often referred to as “surprising” that wolves are better at co-operating with one another and I have to ask… why? Why is that surprising at all? You’re surprised that a pack animal that has not been altered through history is good at co-operating with the same type of pack animal? Really? And the one that has been altered by humans for literally thousands of years isn’t as good at co-operating with its own species? Maybe that has something to do with the fact that they have literally been bred to communicate with people and do jobs for people. All this says about dominance is that dogs will show dominance(or submission) to one another if left to their own devices and presumably not taught how to behave in a neutral manner around other dogs. That’s like saying “if we put really confident, aggressive people in a room with people who are really shy and nervous, the confident and aggressive people will take charge of the situation/task at hand” wow no way, I wouldn’t have thought that.

What I know is going to happen now is a shit ton of people are going to say “this study proves I need to be dominant over my dog!” and use it as some sort of justification to alpha roll their dog and be a prick needlessly. There’s a difference between being a strong leader and consistently “dominating” your dog like a fucking asshole.

weaselwoman:

howtoskinatiger:

europewilds:

Outcry as Italian hunters told they can shoot deer with bows and arrows
Deer hunters in Umbria could soon be allowed to kill their prey using bows and arrows, causing an outcry among critics who say it will return the Italian region to the Dark Ages.
Long cultivated by sophisticated British expatriates, Umbria is already a favourite with local hunters armed with rifles who stalk through the stunning countryside picking off deer, boar and birds.
But a new regional law would allow them to use medieval-style weaponry to target their game – which animal rights groups believe will lead to a slow, agonising end for the dying creatures.
"Animals struck by arrows can die painful deaths while guns used by hunters have a lethal, immediate effect," said Ofeo Goracci, a regional councillor who opposed the measure.
Read more

Any thoughts?
Bow hunting is illegal in most of Europe so it’s not something I’m too familiar with, but from the videos I’ve watched it seems that a well-placed arrow brings the animal down pretty quickly. I’d love to learn more from people that are familiar with bow hunting since I don’t trust the opinions of AR groups. 

Bows are indeed fast when well placed. It’s basically the same effect when shot in the area too. If you miss the vital areas, yeah, you’re going to have issues, but bullets do this too if you miss as well. They both work the same really. The arrow tips are razor sharp, pretty much they are razors, and penetrate super deep. So, really, bullets and arrows work the same for the most part, but I guess bullets have more force to them and so people are quick to say “Oh those are instant! Arrows go in and stick to them and they suffer”. I think people associate bows as a “slower” weapon that only “goes in so deep”. Bows actually have a lot of power in them!
I have noticed in Europe it’s illegal in most areas and they seem pretty iffy on it. I have a good friend in the U.K who seemed quite shocked at first that we Americans use bows for a lot of game.  I had to explain to him that bows are not really these slow killing, medieval machines. Bows are freaking lethal! In a vital area, say your lungs, you’re dead pretty fast and you ain’t going far. 

they’re definitely exaggerating about arrows just being barbaric and causing an agonizing death… If you don’t miss, you don’t have a problem. Penetrating vital organs whether with a spear, arrow or bullet will do the job quickly, regardless. The only thing that sucks about the arrow is that if you do miss, the deer is now running off with an arrow in it rather than a (comparatively) small bullet. But missing with either would still suck and I’m not sure why they’re under the impression that the arrow is SO MUCH worse than the bullet. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

weaselwoman:

howtoskinatiger:

europewilds:

Outcry as Italian hunters told they can shoot deer with bows and arrows

Deer hunters in Umbria could soon be allowed to kill their prey using bows and arrows, causing an outcry among critics who say it will return the Italian region to the Dark Ages.

Long cultivated by sophisticated British expatriates, Umbria is already a favourite with local hunters armed with rifles who stalk through the stunning countryside picking off deer, boar and birds.

But a new regional law would allow them to use medieval-style weaponry to target their game – which animal rights groups believe will lead to a slow, agonising end for the dying creatures.

"Animals struck by arrows can die painful deaths while guns used by hunters have a lethal, immediate effect," said Ofeo Goracci, a regional councillor who opposed the measure.

Read more

Any thoughts?

Bow hunting is illegal in most of Europe so it’s not something I’m too familiar with, but from the videos I’ve watched it seems that a well-placed arrow brings the animal down pretty quickly. I’d love to learn more from people that are familiar with bow hunting since I don’t trust the opinions of AR groups. 

Bows are indeed fast when well placed. It’s basically the same effect when shot in the area too. If you miss the vital areas, yeah, you’re going to have issues, but bullets do this too if you miss as well. They both work the same really. The arrow tips are razor sharp, pretty much they are razors, and penetrate super deep. So, really, bullets and arrows work the same for the most part, but I guess bullets have more force to them and so people are quick to say “Oh those are instant! Arrows go in and stick to them and they suffer”. I think people associate bows as a “slower” weapon that only “goes in so deep”. Bows actually have a lot of power in them!

I have noticed in Europe it’s illegal in most areas and they seem pretty iffy on it. I have a good friend in the U.K who seemed quite shocked at first that we Americans use bows for a lot of game.  I had to explain to him that bows are not really these slow killing, medieval machines. Bows are freaking lethal! In a vital area, say your lungs, you’re dead pretty fast and you ain’t going far. 

they’re definitely exaggerating about arrows just being barbaric and causing an agonizing death… If you don’t miss, you don’t have a problem. Penetrating vital organs whether with a spear, arrow or bullet will do the job quickly, regardless. The only thing that sucks about the arrow is that if you do miss, the deer is now running off with an arrow in it rather than a (comparatively) small bullet. But missing with either would still suck and I’m not sure why they’re under the impression that the arrow is SO MUCH worse than the bullet. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

notapitbull:

 An example of how NOT to break up a pit fight.
I don’t believe the guy in the beginning has his thumb up the dog’s ass, I think he’s pulling onto the dog’s tail to hopefully cause discomfort and make the dog let go. However, the thumb-up-the-ass thing is an actual myth and there are people stupid enough to try it.
 What we see here is not one, not two, not three, but FOUR idiots, plus one additional one with her own “reactionary” dog standing feet away from a dog fight.. INCORRECTLY breaking up a dog-fight.
Three people on top of two pit bulls that are not letting go, nobody has a fucking break stick, and the most they’re doing is saying “no, stop it”, “let go”. That might work with a fucking lab but it’s NOT going to work with a pit bull.


 This video shows just how determined these dogs are to fight. Once you’ve got a fight on your hands, it’s literally a situation between life and death for one or both dogs. Most dogs will get into a scuffle and back off after a while, but NOT pit bulls.

 The safest way to get two fighting dogs apart is to (if you can) rope a leash around one dog’s neck, drag him, and tie him off to a fence or tree. If the other dog is fighting and not just being attacked, you need to leash him and use a breakstick on him or the dog who has the hold. Seperate both dogs and secure them both IMMEDIATELY or they WILL fight again if they get loose. If the second dog is being attacked and not wanting to fight, pry the attacker off and bring the attacked dog into a secure area. If the attacking dog gets loose, he will attack the other dog again.
Don’t do none of that grab-the-hind-legs bullshit, that will NOT work and you’re opening your dog up for an even more severe attack if he slips and falls and exposes his throat/belly.
NEVER STICK YOUR HANDS IN THE MOUTH, NOSE, OR FACE OF THE DOGS LIKE YOU SEE IN THIS VIDEO. These people are complete fucking idiots and are begging to get their fingers bitten off.
"Put your fingers in their nostrils" is an incredibly stupid, dangerous method of breaking up a dog fight. Remember that dog-fights are always easier to break up if you have more than one person, and each person can grab a dog.
Hitting a pit bull in the head will not work. I’ve seen videos of these dogs being smacked with baseball bats, trampled by horses, hit with bricks, punched, slapped, it does nothing to them so don’t bother.

If you don’t have a breakstick handy.. first of all, wtf are you doing? Second, you can use a tent peg as a temporary, make-shift break stick.

"nanny dogs"

spacephantom:

taboop:

iridessence:

the devil flew out of her mouth for trying to be racist

send an ambulance I’m dying

WHATS HAPPENING

what the fuck was that

(Source: maplesuhtori)

camdamage said: Can I come over

any time

tinywolfheart said: Will you marry me?

I would say yes but I think you’ll have to talk to Felix first