A question I've often heard asked with regard to domestic pets is whether they're "food motivated". I've never met a dog or cat that wasn't... is there some rando in Arkansas that has a Dachshund that enjoys true crime documentaries and experimental mathematics more than treats? Or is my impression that fuzzy quadrapeds with walnut-sized brains are universally food-motivated a correct one?
“Food-motivated” in dogs means something more like “can be induced to listen to commands from a human in exchange for food.” Some dogs are only interested in their own plans. Others are only interested in really good food, or are much more interested in some other reward, like having a ball thrown.
My dog for instance is not particularly food motivated. He believes strongly that there is “food” and “better food” and will hold off until he’s really hungry to eat something that’s just food. But he’s very motivated by attention. He will do tricks for treats he doesn’t like and then drop the treat on the floor once you give it to him.
One of my cats is the same way. If anything, he's _more_ excited by getting attention from me than he is from food. Sometimes when he'll be eating, I'll get up from my desk (which is at the far side of the living room from the couches) and he'll notice and excitedly run off to the opposite side of the living room and hop on the couch and stare up at me until I come over because I've conditioned him to go there to get pets and cuddles (since he originally would try to lead me to a spot on the floor where it was far less comfortable to sit). Although he really loves a specific brand of treats, he's at least as much excited by just getting some love from his favorite humans (who are, in order, my wife, then me, then my mother-in-law, and then anyone else who's he's met enough to trust and want affection from) as he is from getting treats.
My recall training improved dramatically when I stopped only using treats as he got wise to that game, he would only do that consistently at home or solo. When I started using the come command with a game like tug of war or running away slightly then throwing a ball, he associated it with fun/activity and comes more often now.
this. i have a shiba inu. one of the most picky, stubborn breeds. he can be food-motivated but it depends on which treat i offer him. some have higher value to him than others. In addition, sometimes they won’t motivate him at all if there’s something else he deems worthy of his focus.
Yeah, we have two and one is very clearly in the food motivated camp and the other likes food and treats, but won't do anything for them like our other.
It's a pretty wide spectrum. Here's a fun example. I've fostered rescue dogs before, and two dogs I fostered were on opposite ends.
The rescue org asked all fosters to crate train their dogs. The first I fostered was a lab mix. He hated his crate, but all I had to do was throw one piece of kibble in and he would sprint inside. As soon as I locked the door he would whine, for upwards of 30 minutes, which was hard for a first time dog owner. I kept checking the camera I setup until he finally settled down and I was able to relax. This routine happened every time.
The other one was a Boxer/Pit mix. He would not go into his crate for all the kibble in the world. He just didn't care. He knew what would happen if he went in, so he wouldn't budge. When I eventually managed to coax him inside, and I closed the door, he was totally silent. He made the choice to go in knowing what would happen. This happened every time.
So based on my limited experience, food motivation is not about whether or not a dog wants to eat, but what other desires that desire for food (even when not particularly hungry) will override.
Try the working breeds (don’t actually do this unless you live on a farm).
For them food is absolutely ignored if there’s a possibility of something to do. Food in a bowl and a ball nearby? Food is secondary to ball. We used to worry about our border collie and have to constantly make effort to lock him in a room with food so he’d eat and not just allow the other dogs to take the food.
Cats can be similarly ‘fussy’ as well. I have two indoor cats, a Garfield (can’t leave food out near him or he’ll eat to the point of throwing up) and one thats play obsessed and not at all interested in food except as needed at the most minimal levels. Makes it hard to feed them since one needs food left out to graze and the other has to be controlled.
Not sure I'd go as far as "ignored". Family member had cocker spaniels from a working dog breeder (gun dogs). Both would do anything for food. Another has a golden retriever, also from gun dog "lineage" and again, they'll do anything for food.
Sure, they like a ball, or better still a squirrel to chase, but they'll give up that chase instantly for a piece of bacon.
Came here to say this. I have an Aussie and he really does not care about food. They just want to run and do stuff, food is secondary. I've never needed to use treats to train him either. Good boy and a pat on the head suffices.
I have two border collies at the moment. The older one is definitely food motivated but also ball-motivated. If presented with both, she goes back and forth, undecided as to what she wants first. The younger one is "meh" on food and would easily ignore it entirely if given the chance to run flat-out in a wide-open space. Her nickname is "Speed" (though my Apple watch thinks it should be "Loud Environment").
Someone can likely give you a more technical explanation - but to give an anecdotal example, my parents have German Shepherds which are grazers. They put a few cups of food in their bowl in the morning, and the dogs will eat throughout the day as they're hungry. They like treats, sure, but I wouldn't call them food motivated.
My dogs are lab mixes, and if food is out they'll sniff it out and immediately scarf it down. When one was younger, if we left food on the counter or table while he was home alone, he would jump onto the counter and eat it. I would call my dog very food motivated.
How could you know if the German Shepherds are food motivated if they literally have food available to them whenever they want? I would guess if they were fed at discrete times of the day they would start looking at the owners for food.
Some cats are certainly more food motivated than others. One of my cats will get up 24/7 if I shake the treat container and will run to me from anywhere in the house. My other cat will only come for treats if he isn't feeling sleepy or lazy.
I had a cat that would beg like a dog and as a kid I definitely slipped her things I shouldn't have.
You moved the bag of treats and there she was. Lasagna was a hit.
Angel food cake was her favourite, she would fight you for it, and 18 lbs of cat packs a punch. Probably my fault. Lured her out of many places with crumbs though. Worked better than the Temptations.
It varies from dog to dog though just how much of a lever it is, or how necessary it is.
e.g. our border collies will do things for you just because it's interesting to them or because they figure it might please you. Without treats. Look at a collie herd sheep or ducks, and they're totally blissing out on it, and they don't get food rewards after. It's just something they love to do.
There's other dogs who won't do anything unless they get a tasty treat out of it.
Food motivation isn’t merely “does it want food”, it is more “will it do a complex action for food”. My GSD will spin, sit, stay, speak, shake hands, play dead and do a whole host of back to back commands for a tennis ball, but do maybe half a command for a standard treat. The GSD would not be considered to be very food motivated unless a “high value treat” like a hot dog is being offered.
Even in a mostly smooth walnut brain, there exists a genetically diverse hierarchy of desires. My dog was the runt of the litter, a different puppy was the glutton that ate every scrap in 10 seconds.
All animals are motivated by food. If you look at what those "talking" apes that can sign actually communicate, most of their discernible communication is just requests for food.
When we first got one of our dogs off the street, she was incredibly food motivated. She would hop the fence and roam and bring back cabbages, avocados, cauliflower, chips, and anything else she could find to snack on. Those are just examples we witnessed. But she always came back before we got home from work.
Now, 7 years later, she's picky. She'll spit out some food I give her if it isn't appealing enough. She can still obviously be motivated with food and treats, but it's far less unconditional.
Never underestimate the focus on food of a person or any animal who experiences(d) true hunger. I haven't come even close to it, yet the crave for any sort of energy when you are long over burning any sort of energy reserves was gradually overshadowing my mind.
In war times there are stories of people boiling and eating leather belts, boots and similar stuff. Imagine the drive to spend non-trivial amount of time and energy to eat that.
Food motivated is also observable in people imo. I'm pretty food motivated - I'm a lot more interested in doing something if there's a meal associated with it than if there's not. I've definitely observed this variance in both people and dogs. Some people seem to get more joy out of it - probably partly just some genetic disposition.
Food motivated is usually the degree to which a dog responds to food in conjunction with other stimulus. When food is used for training as opposed to their normal meals.
Some dogs when training don't respond to food as much as other dogs.
There are dogs that are not food motivated. Some are play motivated while others can be attention (petting, praise) motivated. You come across the occasional one that isn't really motivated by anything and they are quite the training challenge.
My non working breed 30lbs dog will not care about food. He just looks at the bowl in complete disgust every time I give him food. It was extremely hard to train him because of that. I then I realized he’s praise motivated. Now I give him hugs and cuddles for good behavior and that’s how he gets trained.
I will apologize to dogs in advance for any insensitivity I might show here.
My relationship with dogs is complicated. Once I read that their eyes rounded in response to their long adaptation to humans, I started feeling a little remorseful. Their Family is fundamentally altered and some of their natural self has been remolded to serve as our adjunct.
I know we didn't set out to do that but I regret it some, nonetheless.
In regard to all pets, I've come to feel a debt for sacrificing their independence. I feel an obligation to understand them, to accept them as what they are and to treat them in a way that respects that being. Hopefully they'll receive some fulfillment they otherwise wouldn't have.
But with dogs, that obligation feels uniquely expansive. I don't really know how to do it justice.
> Their Family is fundamentally altered and some of their natural self has been remolded to serve as our adjunct.
You're assuming we weren't also remolded to them.
Growing up on a farm, the relationship with the dogs made sense to me. They worked, we worked, we both got food and shelter, and were better off than if we didn't have each other. After work, there was time to be friends. A dog who is just a pet that sits in the house all day and waits for the family to come home is harder for me to understand.
I've thought about the same. Dogs have "eyebrow" muscles that wolves do not which make their expressions more human-like. Domesticated dogs have William's syndrome [1], which is a human genetic disorder which leads to many changes, one of which is hypersocial behavior. Essentially, I think that our modern relationships with dogs are just plain weird. I don't think pet ownership is for me but am happy so many people find their companionship valuable.
I don't think this is a rational feeling, but I can relate.
I've successfully trained my dog to be non-reactive towards squirrels/birds/etc. on walks. The other day she walked by a rabbit from within a few feet, and hardly gave it even a look. And I felt bad, as though I've suppressed her natural self and ability to be excited about such a thing. She's now pacified to live in my world.
An irrational feeling, because she's now at much less risk of being run over by a vehicle, but it was a feeling nonetheless.
Dogs are social pack animals. It is their nature to work with the pack following social rules of order and behaviour. That is paramount and fulfilling that obligation is more important than chasing a lagomorphic snack to the detriment of the pack.
By following your (the pack's) rules your dog is being truer to their nature than chasing a rabbit would be.
>And I felt bad, as though I've suppressed her natural self and ability to be excited about such a thing. She's now pacified to live in my world.
> An irrational feeling, because she's now at much less risk of being run over by a vehicle, but it was a feeling nonetheless.
I think this respects my position and my intent. You're being a pragmatist, giving her the best life possible.
Speaking to changing her nature and protecting her. They might not be in harmony but they both suggest thoughtful, considerate reasoning. And it's okay if they aren't in harmony; a future understanding might reconcile them.
Domestication is an evolutionary strategy that has ensured that many species will exist for as long as humans will.
Assuming humans don't wipe themselves out, dogs and cats and many other species will outlive the Earth itself.
If humans are the most successful species on the planet, dogs are second.
Dogs as an entire species would not exist at all without humans. If dogs hadn't co-evolved with humans, we'd only have wolves. It's more than just simple domestication like cats and goats, dogs evolved into a new species alongside early humans. They aren't simply wild animals that tolerate humans, this is an entire species specifically evolved to be the ideal companion to humans. The entire point and purpose of this species is only to be companions to humans, that's what they evolved to be. By and large dogs need human companionship and suffer without it.
While the relationship between humans and dogs is very symbiotic, I think dogs get the better end of the deal. All their needs and wants as a species are taken care of by humans, the species will exist forever, and all the dogs have to do is learn the best way to beg for belly rubs.
> Domestication is an evolutionary strategy that has ensured that many species will exist for as long as humans will.
I agree. Outcomes always matter. Not exclusively but they're up there.
> Dogs as an entire species would not exist at all without humans. If dogs hadn't co-evolved with humans, we'd only have wolves.
True. And I appreciate the existence of dogs. I also appreciate what they gave up to be. One notion doesn't quash the other. The two viewpoints coexist and make the relationship complex.
I should clarify that my perspective doesn't demand that something must happen or that some thing must not be. At most, it suggests 1) that we value the independence of animals - to our benefit as well - and 2) it's okay to morn a little for what dogs gave up to be dogs. The worst you'll get from #2 is finding more reasons to treat dogs well.
As humans we've shaped the lives of most animals (pets, livestock, and wild animals). I don't think it's a bad thing to have changed their evolution, every animal is molded to their environment. What I feel bad about is that we've been rather poor stewards of animals, many domestic animals are mistreated but also we've been perpetrators of mass extinctions of wild animals.
The more I'm around animals the more I feel like they really matter, I've looked into their eyes and seen love and frustration and grief. It's a tragedy how callously we treat them in general.
> I know we didn't set out to do that but I regret it some, nonetheless.
This is not correct. Humans have been selectively breeding animals and plants for thousands of years.
Also dogs, for most of human history, provided services (hunting and security) to humans in exchange for "petship". It's only a very recent phenomena that (many but not all) pet dogs have to provide nothing to humans besides companionship. It is now that the maladaptation in dogs have started to appear because of the one way relationship.
But they aren’t useless. My in-laws had a Doberman and a Chihuahua at one point. The little dog can’t guard you, but she was an excellent watch dog. She woke up the Dobie.
“Yip yip yip yip [lots of scrabbling on wood floor] WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF”
People don’t mess with you when a 90-pound Doberman looks to you for guidance. I used to take her for walks in remote areas. I saw sketchy people. They saw me put her back on her leash when I saw other people. They knew I could drop that leash at any second.
Well companionship is a type of service too. Dogs that are emotional service animals do many compassionate things for their human owners to make them feel better.
> You must deep down actually hate yourself or all of humanity
I don't. I'm not less for thinking more of something that isn't me. I'm arguably more for embracing more value than I started with.
Your assertion seems stark. Do you really feel my perspective is likely fueled by self-loathing? If so, what is it about human nature that led you to that?
All the dog owners I know feel the same sense of comradery with their animal companions so your obligation to understand them is not a particularly unusual one.
The model showed that over 15,000 years, natural selection could potentially drive dog self-domestication. But for this to happen, two conditions had to be met: Wolves had to choose to stay near humans to eat food scraps, and they had to select mates with a similar temperament.
Why would humans feed wolves scraps without them providing something of value in return?
Wolves have to provide something to humans in order for humans to keep feeding them right? In this case, humans would want some wolves around them. Therefore, it seems very unlikely to be self domestication because humans would have a heavy sway in how dogs evolved.
On this point I’m convinced that bears are well on the way to domestication.
National parks have a name for the ones starting to show domesticated behaviours - ‘problem bears’. Bears that go out of their way to interact with humans. I feel that’s a case study for domestication right there.
> Why would humans feed wolves scraps without them providing something of value in return?
Human beings aren't all always that transactional. "Homo economicus" is joked about for good reasons.
You can easily imagine situations where a) food is in a temporary surplus due to a successful hunt, so there is little downside to wasting some and b) a sentimental child has access to it.
close, but of course far more complex, Wolves are
savy negotiators, highly social, and often (not always) fun loving, the variations in personality
amongst them is large.Wolves team up with Ravens, another species with complex behaviors, ravens work as airial spoters, and wolves take out the targeted prey, with both sharing the kill, in exceptionaly close quarters, it's easy to see that
those roles could change, with humans around, and
there is a limited window to prepare and consume, and drag off a large kill, before it atracts an apex preditor, or just a huge flock of hungry birds, that can decimate an untended carcas in miniuts.So teaming up, rather than dependency, is the most likely begining.
Archiological work on wolf dens, show that choice sites in the Canadian High Arctic, have been in continious use for 10000 years, by Canadian Wolves
showing that a core group, will maintain a teritory, indefinitly.....even with humans and other large dangerous animals around...
Peoples view of dogs, is often based on experience with what are breeds that are strictly house pets
and have been inbred to the point of bieng helpless morons or neurotic edgy wierdos, but that
one central behavior, of guarding what and where they are instructed to, remains.
There are plenty of humans that got a 100% wolf and managed to keep them around, even in modern times.
In the past, people were always looking for ways to automate hunting, just like we do with technology, as this was the hardest thing.
And if you ever hunted, imagine having a wolf around when you hunt, it's nuts. They are so powerful and can so easily find prey, they have sick instincts too, much better than humans.
Pair them together and you can understand why that combination works so well.
Our ancestors also gave up lots of surviviability skills to become homo sapiens together with our beloved doges.
modern people are so capitalism brained the idea of feeding the animals without them paying is out of scope. Humans love animals, and feeding animals, and keeping them around, people will go to huge lengths to take care of animals for no reason at all.
Humans have always like having pets and frequently interacted with all kinds of nature before the industrial revolution, which is an extremely recent event in human history.
Although it turns out domesticated dogs have a wide number of uses _now_, early humans had no idea that would be the case, they probably just liked feeding the wolves.
Edit: there is also speculation that "feeding" wasn't entirely deliberate, that wolves started eating scraps from the garbage piles close to early human settlements and the ones that were friendly to humans (likely children especially) evolved closer and closer into dogs.
Yeah I wouldn’t imagine that “feeding” was anything but wild animals realizing that human encampments have food and therefore need to follow them around or be in their proximity. The animals that would present themselves with aggression, would potentially be killed by the humans and the ones who would keep a more tame approach would be tolerated by humans. Over centuries, the tame behavior turned into domestication.
Providing them less desirable—to humans—-scraps would have likely prevented competition with them in hunting game. Why hunt living game if you can wait around and get scraps for free? So original intention of humans likely not domestication, but still leads that way if the wolves get what they want.
So humans give them food so they don't compete with humans in hunting. The wolves would get full from humans, don't have to hunt, and spend all their time reproducing, which will create even more competition for humans.
Human groups that intentionally or unintentionally fed surrounding wolves are at an advantage. The presense of wolves near the humans would drive off more aggressive predators, which also helps up the local prey populations.
Human groups that did not feed or intentionally drove off wolves are at a disadvantage and more likely to be eaten during the night, or be out-competed for food.
Repeat for a million years or until your wolf grows eyebrows.
Additionally, wolves share their hunt with their pack. It's possible that some early groups were fed at least partially by the wolves hunting for them. If that dynamic ever got established, that group would be at a tremendous advantage.
Well without wolves around it would leave more room for other, potentially much more dangerous, predators. And big cats once roamed most the entire world and are definitely more dangerous to humans than wolves.
humans have a natural drive to do this, not everything is some quid pro quo. How could you see a wolf puppy and not light up? Humans think almost every animal is cute in its own way, its very in our nature.
Just to expand on that, humans keep dogs not just as pets but as guard animals. It could be imagined that early humans feeding wolves to keep them around might also present a deterrent to aggressors.
I would also guess that in some early stages of domesticating other animals feeding the animals that might prey on those animals could effectively lessen the predation.
Yes, the theories in that article don't make a lot of sense. For example this about cats:
> settling into a mutually-beneficial relationship in which they hunted and ate rodents in exchange for food.
Cats mostly hunt birds, because rondents are smarter, faster, stronger and have weapons (teeth).
Also humans and primates throw rocks and sticks at predators. Early dogs must have been caught as puppies, or their parents killed by humans and their flesh eaten.
The whole model has been domesticated to portray a cartoony interaction.
"Cats mostly hunt birds, because rondents are smarter, faster, stronger and have weapons (teeth)."
Where did you get that from? I'm pretty sure it's not accurate, both from reading and personal experience.
Cats don't tackle rats often, and they are at a low risk of being bitten by mice (the hunting technique for mice involves first stunning the mouse by whacking it as hard as possible, ideally using body weight). Mice are smaller than most birds.
Cats do have instincts for rodents, birds and fish. But in most areas rodents are more available, so the cats don't get very good at hunting the other two.
>But work in Mendelian genetics was essentially illegal at the time in the Soviet Union, because of a pseudo-scientific charlatan by the name of Trofim Lysenko (Joravsky 1979; Soyfer 1994).
>In the mid-1920s, the Communist Party leadership, in an attempt to glorify the average citizen, began to promote uneducated men from the proletariat into the scientific community.
You cannot fix science through ideology, especially when that ideology is actually just loyalty, and is mostly being used as an excuse to get rid of people who keep telling you that you are wrong.
In my study, (n=2), I can attest, indeed, that both of my dogs will willingly give up roaming outside in the wild for snacks, scritches, and belly-rubs.
My current dog wouldn't give up. It really depends on the breed.
Some ancient races still have those very old instincts of hunting and being independent, even doing some weird scream when given a bone or a having found a potential "hunt". (that's how people used to hunt!)
Youtube shiba scream :-)
All my previous dogs (>5) would always prefer the snack though.
Like terriers, Jack russel etc. lol. They will just go. They will ignore you. Yes we tried having meatballs. They don't care. Hunt hunt hunt. (Male, non snipped)
Wheat domesticated us because agriculture put the politics and power into the hands of the landowners (whoever is big enough warlord to control arable territory)
No that's just basic control and domination of resources that exised eons before humans did. Lots of animals have and guard their "territory" and don't farm. Plenty of human tribes did the same before they had developed agriculture.
I find the self-domestication theory quite plausible for cats, but I'm having a hard time accepting it for wolves. Why would human tribes tolerate wolves in close proximity?
Small cats are largely harmless and get rid of pests. Wolves compete for the same food sources, kill children, and are otherwise a nuisance.
Granted, selective breeding of captive animals also doesn't jibe with what we know about the Stone Age, but we don't know all that much.
> Why would human tribes tolerate wolves in close proximity?
Wolves will scavenge if they are hungry enough, and will eat food humans may have found unfit, such as bones. So they may have come to view humans as a source of food, but were too timid to attack, and followed around hunter/gatherer tribes. The wolves would be little more than an annoyance, if the humans even notice them at all. Generally the wolf is going to notice you before you notice it - they have superior sense of smell and hearing. In an environment with heavy vegetation (i.e. forest), thats going to count for alot more than vision.
On the other side of the coin, its possible the humans also followed around the wolves who would have been superior trackers with better sense of smell/hearing, mutually beneficial hunts may have been possible.
Eventually, a tolerance could have developed and the tribe found the wolves useful for things like, keeping away more dangerous predators such as large cats/bears/etc. or even rival packs of wolves. They would also be useful as a alarm system. Given enough time, the more sociable wolves, yet less dangerous, wolves may have selected for. There is a theory that dogs are basically wolves whose mental developed stopped at the younger ages, and lack independence like adult wolves have.
Wolves keep away other animals, and are more alert than humans. If I'm a Paleolithic human, having a wolf nearby that isn't eating my kids precisely because I give it snacks instead, and that is going to just naturally ward off bears or other pests, even in the dark of night, seems like a great win.
Consider the megafauna situation of 20-30k BP: huge, scary animals more dangerous than wolves. It might've started as a temporary alliance against other apex predators.
You are talking about the second domestication period, not the first. The first domestication period was not intentional by humans. It was that some wolve packs scavenged scraps from around human settlements, and so were in slightly closer contact. Over generations, the humans and wolves became slightly more comfortable with each other and humans started seeing some benefits from the proximity (early warning system, additional deterrent against other predators, etc.). This likely reinforced the developing relationship and prompted some humans to occasionally actively feed scraps/leftovers to the least skittish wolves, which again over generations, led to some wolves being close to what we would call “friendly” towards humans.
Right, but the argument here isn't that humans domesticated wolves, but that wolves self-domesticated themselves (i.e., humans tolerated adult wolves in close proximity).
Hunting parties may have cooperated with wolves to route or take down prey. Humans have smarts and persistence, but they aren't sprinters. A wolf can run 30-40 mph.
Readit News
My dog for instance is not particularly food motivated. He believes strongly that there is “food” and “better food” and will hold off until he’s really hungry to eat something that’s just food. But he’s very motivated by attention. He will do tricks for treats he doesn’t like and then drop the treat on the floor once you give it to him.
Dead Comment
The rescue org asked all fosters to crate train their dogs. The first I fostered was a lab mix. He hated his crate, but all I had to do was throw one piece of kibble in and he would sprint inside. As soon as I locked the door he would whine, for upwards of 30 minutes, which was hard for a first time dog owner. I kept checking the camera I setup until he finally settled down and I was able to relax. This routine happened every time.
The other one was a Boxer/Pit mix. He would not go into his crate for all the kibble in the world. He just didn't care. He knew what would happen if he went in, so he wouldn't budge. When I eventually managed to coax him inside, and I closed the door, he was totally silent. He made the choice to go in knowing what would happen. This happened every time.
So based on my limited experience, food motivation is not about whether or not a dog wants to eat, but what other desires that desire for food (even when not particularly hungry) will override.
For them food is absolutely ignored if there’s a possibility of something to do. Food in a bowl and a ball nearby? Food is secondary to ball. We used to worry about our border collie and have to constantly make effort to lock him in a room with food so he’d eat and not just allow the other dogs to take the food.
Cats can be similarly ‘fussy’ as well. I have two indoor cats, a Garfield (can’t leave food out near him or he’ll eat to the point of throwing up) and one thats play obsessed and not at all interested in food except as needed at the most minimal levels. Makes it hard to feed them since one needs food left out to graze and the other has to be controlled.
Sure, they like a ball, or better still a squirrel to chase, but they'll give up that chase instantly for a piece of bacon.
You moved the bag of treats and there she was. Lasagna was a hit.
Angel food cake was her favourite, she would fight you for it, and 18 lbs of cat packs a punch. Probably my fault. Lured her out of many places with crumbs though. Worked better than the Temptations.
e.g. our border collies will do things for you just because it's interesting to them or because they figure it might please you. Without treats. Look at a collie herd sheep or ducks, and they're totally blissing out on it, and they don't get food rewards after. It's just something they love to do.
There's other dogs who won't do anything unless they get a tasty treat out of it.
My other cats are all at least normally motivated by food.
As an adult it becomes a relationship, and the dog is more responsive to praise and criticism.
That is what is meant IMO by "food motivated"
Feeding time is best, best ever, joy joy, for their entire lives
Even in a mostly smooth walnut brain, there exists a genetically diverse hierarchy of desires. My dog was the runt of the litter, a different puppy was the glutton that ate every scrap in 10 seconds.
Now, 7 years later, she's picky. She'll spit out some food I give her if it isn't appealing enough. She can still obviously be motivated with food and treats, but it's far less unconditional.
In war times there are stories of people boiling and eating leather belts, boots and similar stuff. Imagine the drive to spend non-trivial amount of time and energy to eat that.
- the treats you have are good-enough (better have delicious chicken, otherwise, no dice)
- she hasn’t decided that there isn’t something else she’d rather be doing
- hours much of a process she feels like being today.
You can motivate her with food only on her terms. Conversely, my partners dog would commit crimes just to be near the cheese packet.
Food motivated is usually the degree to which a dog responds to food in conjunction with other stimulus. When food is used for training as opposed to their normal meals.
Some dogs when training don't respond to food as much as other dogs.
My relationship with dogs is complicated. Once I read that their eyes rounded in response to their long adaptation to humans, I started feeling a little remorseful. Their Family is fundamentally altered and some of their natural self has been remolded to serve as our adjunct.
I know we didn't set out to do that but I regret it some, nonetheless.
In regard to all pets, I've come to feel a debt for sacrificing their independence. I feel an obligation to understand them, to accept them as what they are and to treat them in a way that respects that being. Hopefully they'll receive some fulfillment they otherwise wouldn't have.
But with dogs, that obligation feels uniquely expansive. I don't really know how to do it justice.
You're assuming we weren't also remolded to them.
Growing up on a farm, the relationship with the dogs made sense to me. They worked, we worked, we both got food and shelter, and were better off than if we didn't have each other. After work, there was time to be friends. A dog who is just a pet that sits in the house all day and waits for the family to come home is harder for me to understand.
1. https://www.science.org/content/article/what-makes-dogs-so-f... (Link to the primary text is in here but I find the scientific news articles to be easier to read)
I've successfully trained my dog to be non-reactive towards squirrels/birds/etc. on walks. The other day she walked by a rabbit from within a few feet, and hardly gave it even a look. And I felt bad, as though I've suppressed her natural self and ability to be excited about such a thing. She's now pacified to live in my world.
An irrational feeling, because she's now at much less risk of being run over by a vehicle, but it was a feeling nonetheless.
By following your (the pack's) rules your dog is being truer to their nature than chasing a rabbit would be.
> An irrational feeling, because she's now at much less risk of being run over by a vehicle, but it was a feeling nonetheless.
I think this respects my position and my intent. You're being a pragmatist, giving her the best life possible.
Speaking to changing her nature and protecting her. They might not be in harmony but they both suggest thoughtful, considerate reasoning. And it's okay if they aren't in harmony; a future understanding might reconcile them.
Assuming humans don't wipe themselves out, dogs and cats and many other species will outlive the Earth itself.
If humans are the most successful species on the planet, dogs are second.
Dogs as an entire species would not exist at all without humans. If dogs hadn't co-evolved with humans, we'd only have wolves. It's more than just simple domestication like cats and goats, dogs evolved into a new species alongside early humans. They aren't simply wild animals that tolerate humans, this is an entire species specifically evolved to be the ideal companion to humans. The entire point and purpose of this species is only to be companions to humans, that's what they evolved to be. By and large dogs need human companionship and suffer without it.
While the relationship between humans and dogs is very symbiotic, I think dogs get the better end of the deal. All their needs and wants as a species are taken care of by humans, the species will exist forever, and all the dogs have to do is learn the best way to beg for belly rubs.
We have dogs because dogs want us to have them.
I agree. Outcomes always matter. Not exclusively but they're up there.
> Dogs as an entire species would not exist at all without humans. If dogs hadn't co-evolved with humans, we'd only have wolves.
True. And I appreciate the existence of dogs. I also appreciate what they gave up to be. One notion doesn't quash the other. The two viewpoints coexist and make the relationship complex.
I should clarify that my perspective doesn't demand that something must happen or that some thing must not be. At most, it suggests 1) that we value the independence of animals - to our benefit as well - and 2) it's okay to morn a little for what dogs gave up to be dogs. The worst you'll get from #2 is finding more reasons to treat dogs well.
Second likely goes to a bacterium species, hell they might even be first. There are 10x more bacteria cells in your body than there are human cells.
The more I'm around animals the more I feel like they really matter, I've looked into their eyes and seen love and frustration and grief. It's a tragedy how callously we treat them in general.
This is not correct. Humans have been selectively breeding animals and plants for thousands of years.
Also dogs, for most of human history, provided services (hunting and security) to humans in exchange for "petship". It's only a very recent phenomena that (many but not all) pet dogs have to provide nothing to humans besides companionship. It is now that the maladaptation in dogs have started to appear because of the one way relationship.
“Yip yip yip yip [lots of scrabbling on wood floor] WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF”
People don’t mess with you when a 90-pound Doberman looks to you for guidance. I used to take her for walks in remote areas. I saw sketchy people. They saw me put her back on her leash when I saw other people. They knew I could drop that leash at any second.
Deleted Comment
Having compassion for another living, feeling, emotional creature means they must hate themselves?
Oof what a lame take.
I don't. I'm not less for thinking more of something that isn't me. I'm arguably more for embracing more value than I started with.
Your assertion seems stark. Do you really feel my perspective is likely fueled by self-loathing? If so, what is it about human nature that led you to that?
Deleted Comment
Wolves have to provide something to humans in order for humans to keep feeding them right? In this case, humans would want some wolves around them. Therefore, it seems very unlikely to be self domestication because humans would have a heavy sway in how dogs evolved.
What 'value' outside of entertainment does that provide to the humans?
National parks have a name for the ones starting to show domesticated behaviours - ‘problem bears’. Bears that go out of their way to interact with humans. I feel that’s a case study for domestication right there.
Human beings aren't all always that transactional. "Homo economicus" is joked about for good reasons.
You can easily imagine situations where a) food is in a temporary surplus due to a successful hunt, so there is little downside to wasting some and b) a sentimental child has access to it.
In the past, people were always looking for ways to automate hunting, just like we do with technology, as this was the hardest thing.
And if you ever hunted, imagine having a wolf around when you hunt, it's nuts. They are so powerful and can so easily find prey, they have sick instincts too, much better than humans.
Pair them together and you can understand why that combination works so well.
Our ancestors also gave up lots of surviviability skills to become homo sapiens together with our beloved doges.
Although it turns out domesticated dogs have a wide number of uses _now_, early humans had no idea that would be the case, they probably just liked feeding the wolves.
Edit: there is also speculation that "feeding" wasn't entirely deliberate, that wolves started eating scraps from the garbage piles close to early human settlements and the ones that were friendly to humans (likely children especially) evolved closer and closer into dogs.
So humans give them food so they don't compete with humans in hunting. The wolves would get full from humans, don't have to hunt, and spend all their time reproducing, which will create even more competition for humans.
> Wolves had to choose to stay near humans to eat food scraps...
I don't read that humans fed the wolves scraps, just that wolves ate scraps, probably discarded by humans.
Then one day maybe a bold doggo decides to hang out closer, and bam, a shitty disney movie is born. ;D
Human groups that intentionally or unintentionally fed surrounding wolves are at an advantage. The presense of wolves near the humans would drive off more aggressive predators, which also helps up the local prey populations.
Human groups that did not feed or intentionally drove off wolves are at a disadvantage and more likely to be eaten during the night, or be out-competed for food.
Repeat for a million years or until your wolf grows eyebrows.
Additionally, wolves share their hunt with their pack. It's possible that some early groups were fed at least partially by the wolves hunting for them. If that dynamic ever got established, that group would be at a tremendous advantage.
It's the same reasons they feed dogs.
Human feces is very attractive to a dog. So perhaps not deliberate?
Deleted Comment
> settling into a mutually-beneficial relationship in which they hunted and ate rodents in exchange for food.
Cats mostly hunt birds, because rondents are smarter, faster, stronger and have weapons (teeth).
Also humans and primates throw rocks and sticks at predators. Early dogs must have been caught as puppies, or their parents killed by humans and their flesh eaten.
The whole model has been domesticated to portray a cartoony interaction.
Where did you get that from? I'm pretty sure it's not accurate, both from reading and personal experience.
Cats don't tackle rats often, and they are at a low risk of being bitten by mice (the hunting technique for mice involves first stunning the mouse by whacking it as hard as possible, ideally using body weight). Mice are smaller than most birds.
Cats do have instincts for rodents, birds and fish. But in most areas rodents are more available, so the cats don't get very good at hunting the other two.
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.118...
>In the mid-1920s, the Communist Party leadership, in an attempt to glorify the average citizen, began to promote uneducated men from the proletariat into the scientific community.
You cannot fix science through ideology, especially when that ideology is actually just loyalty, and is mostly being used as an excuse to get rid of people who keep telling you that you are wrong.
But don't worry, that could never happen here.
Some ancient races still have those very old instincts of hunting and being independent, even doing some weird scream when given a bone or a having found a potential "hunt". (that's how people used to hunt!)
Youtube shiba scream :-)
All my previous dogs (>5) would always prefer the snack though.
Like terriers, Jack russel etc. lol. They will just go. They will ignore you. Yes we tried having meatballs. They don't care. Hunt hunt hunt. (Male, non snipped)
Small cats are largely harmless and get rid of pests. Wolves compete for the same food sources, kill children, and are otherwise a nuisance.
Granted, selective breeding of captive animals also doesn't jibe with what we know about the Stone Age, but we don't know all that much.
Wolves will scavenge if they are hungry enough, and will eat food humans may have found unfit, such as bones. So they may have come to view humans as a source of food, but were too timid to attack, and followed around hunter/gatherer tribes. The wolves would be little more than an annoyance, if the humans even notice them at all. Generally the wolf is going to notice you before you notice it - they have superior sense of smell and hearing. In an environment with heavy vegetation (i.e. forest), thats going to count for alot more than vision.
On the other side of the coin, its possible the humans also followed around the wolves who would have been superior trackers with better sense of smell/hearing, mutually beneficial hunts may have been possible.
Eventually, a tolerance could have developed and the tribe found the wolves useful for things like, keeping away more dangerous predators such as large cats/bears/etc. or even rival packs of wolves. They would also be useful as a alarm system. Given enough time, the more sociable wolves, yet less dangerous, wolves may have selected for. There is a theory that dogs are basically wolves whose mental developed stopped at the younger ages, and lack independence like adult wolves have.
You don't start with the adults.
You kill the adults and raise the pups.
Even today, there are wolf sanctuaries with wild wolves who've become quite friendly and acclimated to their carers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gePE-_lrJUU
You are talking about the second domestication period, not the first. The first domestication period was not intentional by humans. It was that some wolve packs scavenged scraps from around human settlements, and so were in slightly closer contact. Over generations, the humans and wolves became slightly more comfortable with each other and humans started seeing some benefits from the proximity (early warning system, additional deterrent against other predators, etc.). This likely reinforced the developing relationship and prompted some humans to occasionally actively feed scraps/leftovers to the least skittish wolves, which again over generations, led to some wolves being close to what we would call “friendly” towards humans.