Updating our understanding about dogs ...CORRECTLY !!!

[Guest guest]

So do feral cats.

Nobody argues that cats are omnivores even though they will eat

almost anything rather than starve.

_____

Here is a fundamental difference ... cats will indeed eat almost anything to

avoid starving. In contrast, dogs will eat almost anything, 24x7x365.

 

Please note that I did not suggest feeding high-starch vegetables to dogs

.... e.g., carrots. But there are many other forms of vegetation, and I have

seen dogs do wonderfully well with it. Also, we would need to know much more

of the history of any particular dog, just as we would any particular

person, before commenting in depth on that one dog or person.

 

Please keep in mind that the same scientists who are determined to classify

dogs as carnivores are also determined to classify humans as omnivores. Both

views are ubiquitously held, both are mistaken, and the likelihood of

convincing many in today's scientific milieu of either of these is small.

One can find mountains of " scientific evidence " to support almost any view

on anything. But if we were to follow the lead of the mainstream scientific

community, then we would all be standing in line to inject or ingest every

vaccination ever invented; we would all join a discount pharmaceutical club;

and so forth.

 

As I say again and again (from my teacher, Ray Kent), all majority opinions

are wrong. This applies equally in the scientific community, the dog owners'

community, etc. Until we humans REALLY learn to examine the nature of the

underlying belief system in which we are living, this shall remain so.

 

If dogs really did evolve from wolves by virtue of proximity to humans,

foraging on human garbage, then they must have shifted their natural diet at

least somewhat. Please note that I'm not coming from a religious " Vegan "

view here, I'm not suggesting that anyone " should " feed dogs anything in

particular. I'm ONLY suggesting that dogs are among the most flexible of

eaters among all the large terrestrial mammals, by design.

 

Anyway, I'm returning my attention to human health and well-being, just

responding here because it's you, Laurie.

 

Best,

Elchanan

_____

 

rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of

Laurie Swanson

Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:26 AM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Re: Updating our understanding about dogs ...CORRECTLY

!!!

 

 

Hi Elchanan and all,

 

I wrote to a friend about a couple of the points you brought up about dogs.

I just thought I'd share what she said so there's more food for thought.

Too bad she's not on this list--I'd love to see the two of you be able to

communicate directly. It's gotten too complicated; I certainly can't debate

the specifics of the science. But I do know my dog likes meat WAY better

than vegetables, he used to poop a lot more (and you could see the

undigested carrots) when he ate veggies, and his chronic yeasty ear problem

has resolved since removing veggies from his diet (even after I'd removed

carrots and was feeding mostly greens).

 

Laurie

 

Here's what Carrie says:

 

I think he is misinformed and gets his info from the same place

veterinarians get it. And let me say that veterinarians are pretty much the

only scientists that think dogs are omnivores. Geneticists, zoologists,

biologists, etc. all recognize the dog as a carnivore. The reason vets hold

to the silly idea that dogs are omnivores is because there is a

multi-billion dollar industry that could not exist otherwise. That industry

does research, supports vet schools, and conditions vet students to accept

the idea that simply doesn't make sense to anyone that hasn't been

brainwashed into it. Has anyone ever seen a wolf dig up a potato and eat

it? No. Do feral dogs eat whatever they can find including garbage? Yes.

So do feral cats. Nobody argues that cats are omnivores even though they

will eat almost anything rather than starve.

 

With regard to salivary amylase[i, Laurie asked her about amylase, since I'd

heard dogs don't produce it in their saliva], it is true dogs do not usually

produce it, but they are able to at need. Early researchers (before dogs

were fed kibble) found that dogs did not have amylase in their saliva:

 

THE DIASTATIC ACTIVITY OF RAT SALIVA 1936 BY ESSIE WHITE COHN AND MARGARET

HESSLER BROOKES http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/114/1/139.pdf

 

Other researchers found that the type of saliva excreted depended on whether

the dog was fed meat or dry food. Pavlov, for example, fed different groups

of dogs raw meat, milk, or bread. Amylase does not affect the pH of saliva,

though. I would like to see some evidence that the dog's salivary pH varies

more widely than that the of the human. My understanding is that dog, cat,

and human salivary pH varies throughout the day and depending on when and

what is eaten. Since humans are omnivores and dogs are not, if it is true

that dog's salivary pH varies more widely than humans then this argument

does not support the contention that dogs are omnivores. The fact that dogs

*can* produce salivary amylase but usually does not supports the fact that

they can subsist on non-meat sources at need, i.e. when prey is not

available.

 

Taxonomy: Taxonomists are reclassifying organisms based on new information

all the time. What is old is this person's understanding of the system.

Taxonomists classify species according to structure, observation of

behavior, and, more recently, DNA. While dogs were first listed as Canis

familiaris by Linnaeus in 1758, they were reclassified as Canis lupus

familiaris in 1993 because of the DNA evidence proving that they are a

supspecies of the grey wolf. Since that time, much more research into

canine genetics has been done, and there is no doubt that dogs ARE wolves.

Recent studies show that there were at least 2 and probably 5 or more

separate domestication events, and that wolves continued to interbreed with

dogs after " domestication " . It is typically human hubris to imagine that we

domesticated the wolf for our own purposes. Based on our present domination

of the planet and most species on it, we imagine that

10,000 years ago our forbears somehow just figured out that it would be a

good idea to have pet wolves. There is no evidence to support this

hypothesis. There is evidence to support the idea that humans and dogs

co-evolved:

 

Morey, Darcy. " The Evolution of the Domestic Dog. " American Scientist

82:336-347. 1994.

 

Taxonomical classification does often leave something to be desired. Dogs

have been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris, but DNA research shows

that different populations of dogs descended from different populations of

wolves is different parts of the world. Some breeds of dogs are more

closely related to some subspecies of wolves than they are to other breeds

of dogs. In short, dogs are wolves as much as wolves are wolves. They have

not had a completely separate breeding population since " domestication " , and

even if they had,

10,000 years is not sufficient time to evolve into omnivores. Further, it

makes no sense to assume that humans, after taking wolves into their

households, would begin feeding them things other than they had been

observed eating in the wild. Indeed, one of the arguments for coevolution

is that humans are the only primate that hunts cooperatively to bring down

big game. Wolves had been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years. We

learned it from them.

 

Burbidge, Maryann Louise. Polyphyletic origins of extinct and extant

domestic dogs. Masters Thesis, University of Victoria, British Columbia.

1998.

 

Koop, et al. " Ancient DNA Evidence of a Separate Origin for North American

Indigenous Dogs. " Dogs through Time: an archaeological perspective:

proceedings of the 1st ICAZ Sympsium on the History of the Domestic Dog.

(ICAZ98): 271-286. Oxford: Archaeopress. 2000.

 

Now that we have established that dogs are wolves, and not a new species

created by humans, let us examine the feeding behavior and physiology shared

by wild wolves, wild dogs (dingos), and domestic dogs (since these three

groups are all the same species). Carissa, a zoologist and member of

rawfeeding, has already written a well- supported article on dog anatomy and

physiology here: http://rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html You might find other

helpful articles written by her on my website, here is the list:

http://rawfed.com/myths/

 

As for feeding behavior, observations of wolves in the wild clearly

demonstrate that when large ungulate prey is available, that is what wolves

eat. When large ungulate prey is not available, smaller prey is taken, and

when prey cannot be found or caught, only then will wolves resort to eating

non-animal foods. As will any creature-- hungry herbivores will eat steak

rather than starve--that doesn't make them omnivores.

 

I can provide supporting evidence for wolf behavior and eating habits if you

like, but those are rather easier to find than the DNA stuff which is only

slowly trickling into the public domain. Few people read PhD theses that

don't have to! I do have a bibliography of wolf articles if needed.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thank you Laurie and thank Carrie too. I appreciate the explanation

and the update on my own information. It was all I had handy at the

time.

 

Belinda

 

 

 

> FYI, more from Carrie:

>

> (This shows a) lack of an understanding of the difference between

DNA

> and mtDNA. Humans and chimps share 98% of DNA. Dogs and wolves

share

> 100% of their DNA.

>

> In Wayne's limited sample, there was *up to* a 0.2% difference in

> mtDNA, no difference in DNA. There was no difference in mtDNA

between

> some samples. And much more work has been done since that was

> published.

>

> So, if one accepts the idea of using mtDNA as an evolutionary

clock,

> humans diverged from the other great apes several million years

ago.

> Some, but not all, dogs diverged from the wolf several thousand

years

> ago. There has not been sufficient time for speciation to occur,

and

> indeed, dogs and wolves produce viable offspring.

>

>

> rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan@> wrote:

>

> Well, this explains why this conversation has seemed so " off " to me.

> Belinda, you have stated repeatedly there there is NO genetic

> difference

> between wolves and dogs. Now you have provided your source, which

> states

> that there ARE genetic differences affecting about 0.2% of the

genetic

> sequences.

>

> The difference of mtDNA sequences between bonobos and humans is

also

> less

> than 1%, yet I have never met anyone who considers humans just

another

> variant of bonobos!!!

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Elchanan,

 

What, then, do we make of the fact that the majority believes dogs are

omnivores?

 

Laurie

 

rawfood , " Elchanan " <Elchanan wrote:

> As I say again and again (from my teacher, Ray Kent), all majority

opinions

> are wrong. This applies equally in the scientific community, the dog

owners'

> community, etc.