On Fox and Dog Domestication

There was a study pointing out that Belyaev’s use of domesticated foxes to deconstruct dog domestication is flawed in that not only did these traits already shown up a few decades earlier (perhaps even earlier in Canada around the late 19th century), but that domestic fox populations are more akin to what dog breeds are to dogs. Another problem that they didn’t point out is anthropogenic usage, while dog meat does exist in parts of Africa and Asia even then it’s mostly pretty niche as it’s nowhere as common as say raising goats and pigs for meat.

Dogs are more commonly kept alive for hunting, herding and guarding even if the way they’re trained to do so differs from Western expectations in that some are even starved or drugged in order to hunt, actually some Cameroonians do the same things to their cats. While cat meat is also a thing in Africa and Vietnam, I don’t think they’re really that as common as Westerners make it out to be since it’s rather niche and that more Africans do keep cats alive both as pets and as pest control. As for foxes, they’re more commonly kept as livestock (especially for the rather odious fur industry) and rarely ever kept as pets.

While it is possible to train or make a fox hunt vermin in the same way people have done with cats and dogs, I don’t think it’s ever going to be mainstream not just because foxes are kept as livestock but also because not too many people even bother making them hunt something. There are people like Joseph Carter who do the same thing with American mink but they’re in the minority and as far as I know about Europe, ferrets occupy this role. Albeit far longer and relatively more frequently since Roman times when it comes to hunting rats and rabbits.

You might argue that one can make foxes hunt animals, but the problem’s that it’s not even attempted yet and there aren’t that many people who own foxes to hunt vermin the way they have with cats, dogs and ferrets for ages. Okay, ferrets aren’t that common globally speaking but there are more ferret owners than there are mink and fox owners together.

Another one would be cultural/social attitudes, which means if foxes are associated with witchcraft in China and Japan not only would fox owners be stigmatised but also reinforce their unpopularity (though times have changed for the better). That is the case with cats in southern Nigeria, although there are some people who associate cats with witchcraft in Cameroon and Ghana they’re more commonly kept there if because more people tolerate them. But this proves my point that fox ownership’s rather unpopular.

Even if it were possible to make a fox hunt vermin, that role’s more popularly occupied by cats, dogs and ferrets. I could say many of the same things about American minks, even if it’s already possible to make them hunt vermin they’re not going to be popular and they’re less popular than ferrets, which in turn are less popular than cats and dogs. Foxes may be the genetic relatives of dogs, which they also share morphological and behavioural similarities with but they’re practically livestock more in common with chinchilla, rabbits and mink when it comes to fur.

Cats and dogs can be and are kept as livestock, but not to the same extent as goats, sheep, pigs, cattle and carabao are as they’re commonly kept alive for companionship and hunting vermin. It’s even like that in many African countries, though it does vary between countries but the shoe still fits. If pet fox ownership’s rare, there aren’t a lot of people who keep foxes for hunting vermin either. The role’s long occupied by cats, dogs and ferrets while it is possible to use foxes and mink to do the same thing, it’s not going to be this popular.

If fox domestication isn’t a good proxy for dog domestication, perhaps a comparison to macaques (both rhesus and pig-tailed) would be a better fit. Much like beagles, rhesus macaques are also used in scientific experiments. Like dogs, there are people who train pig-tailed macaques to do something (well, getting coconuts) and there’s even a monkey training school in Thailand. It’s far from perfect, but it’s more analogous to dog domestication when it comes to anthropogenic usage well to an extent but greater than with foxes.

In terms of anthropogenic usage, dogs have more in common with cats, ferrets and monkeys than they do with foxes when it comes to things like picking up something and hunting vermin. You might argue with me in here, but it’s not going to change facts in any way. If foxes and dogs don’t have much in common when it comes to practical usage, perhaps cats and monkeys would provide a better model even if it’s just as imperfect. The only reason why would someone compare foxes to dogs is because they are genetic and morphological relatives.

But fox domestication isn’t and will never be a good analogy for dog domestication when it comes to anthropogenic usage, one gets killed to be made into fur and the other’s commonly kept alive for hunting and guarding. If people were to continue pushing the fox-dog analogy, why not push the lynx-cat analogy since the former’s also commonly made into fur and the other’s kept alive for hunting. Nobody has ever attempted this analogy before, even if lynxes being made in fur is also there before.

Actually even if lynxes and cats are relatives, they differ in anthropogenic usage which’s why the fox-dog analogy’s not a good analogy when it comes to unravelling the secrets of dog domestication. You might as well be shooting yourself in the foot when it comes to coming up with examples of foxes used for hunting and guarding the way dogs have. An analogy to geese would be better, since geese are also used for guarding premises and livestock.

But it still proves my point that fox domestication’s not analogous to dog domestication.

Lands of the invaded

While this isn’t unique to Australia and New Zealand, some countries have lost many species to invasive plants and animals such as dogs in Brazil and Argentina for instance, it is a problem worth talking about. Sometimes they come with good intentions, however with unintended consequences. It’s like the thing with ferrets in New Zealand, they came to New Zealand with the intention of hunting down rabbits but they got out of hand and now get culled themselves. In fact, they’re even banned as pets save for a select few who own them at all.

Some like rabbits and foxes were sent there for the purpose of game hunting, which’s proof that hunting and conservation don’t always go hand in hand together. Rabbits are even considered Australia’s most damaging invasive species, affecting 300 plus species. If I’m not mistaken, Australia doesn’t have Easter Bunnies but rather Easter bilby as rabbits are seen as a serious invasive threat there. Some Australians had to release a virus to keep their numbers in check, though their numbers have rebounded since then. (Some New Zealanders have done or tried doing the same.)

When it comes to the nature of invasive species, they’re very adaptive often to the detriment of native species affected by them. There are attempts at controlling their numbers, but they’re sometimes met with opposition by animal rights movements. As what somebody else said, there’s no fun solution when it comes to invasive species.

The use of animals in domestication part one

According to one study on fox domestication, domestication occurs when an animal’s reliant on anthropogenic environments especially when they’re commensal. Commensal in that one animal is benefitted but the other one’s neither harmed nor helped. So by this definition, urban foxes are domesticated with fur farm foxes being compared to say dog breeds than it is between dogs and wolves.

I suspect the other reason why fox domestication is not a good model for dog domestication has to do with usage. Not that dogs aren’t reared for their meat and fur, though to a lesser extent as they’re more commonly kept alive for guarding and hunting. The same goes for cats, I’d even say that dogs have more in common with cats than they do with foxes when it comes to using either one or both of them for pest control.

There was this study in Eswatini where it stated that using both cats and dogs for pest control reduces the incidence of rodent attacks on resources. If cats are used for pest control so are dogs. There are cases where dogs have been used to hunt rats and there are others where dogs hunt rodents on their own, just like what cats do. (I have a cat that hunted rats and another that ate a mouse.)

So far, while it’s possible to make a fox hunt rodents the way you do with cats and dogs it’s a sad fact that foxes aren’t commonly kept alive to hunt vermin. The possibility’s there, it’s however not going to be that popular. It’s the same with American mink, like foxes they’re also commonly bred for their fur. They have been used for hunting, if Joseph Carter’s any indication but it’s not that common.

It still proves my point that dogs do have something in common with cats (and ferrets) than they do with foxes, when it comes to them being commonly kept for hunting something. Like cats, dogs are proven to be used for hunting rodents. (Both of them are even starved to hunt something.) Like ferrets, dogs have been and still are used for hunting rabbits. I’d even go on record saying that dogs have something in common with monkeys.

Much like monkeys, dogs have been used for scientific experiments (especially beagles). Like dogs, monkeys have been trained to get something though in the latter’s case it’s getting fruit and coconuts. In fact, some people keep baby monkeys as pets and others feed them a lot. If monkeys are commensal, then they are domesticated to some extent. Though one could say the same thing about foxes, fox training has yet to exist.

Though there aren’t any cat trainers either, I still think dogs have something in common with cats and monkeys when it comes to usage by humans. The former for hunting rodents, the latter when it comes to being trained to get something. Now that’s where the comparison to foxes falls apart despite being blood relatives.

The Prince Edward Island Foxes

There was this study about domestic foxes in Prince Edward Island where it’s been shown in the surviving photographs that they were already sporting traits before a Russian scientist got hold of it decades later, according to the study the foxes were selected for a trait that was already there in the population. Albeit to a lesser extent, which hints at a founder effect for these creatures. The comparison, as the study pointed out, is more like the differences between dog breeds than it is between dogs and wolves.

To put it this way, as far as I know about it, fox domestication isn’t like dog domestication. Yes, dogs are and can be kept for fur and meat but it’s not on the same scale the way foxes, pigs, goats and cows have been subjected to. Dogs are more commonly kept alive for pest control, hunting and guarding so they’re closer to cats and monkeys (to an extent) than they are to foxes in terms of usage. True, foxes are closer to dogs both genetically, morphologically and to an extent behaviourally.

But when it comes to anthropogenic usage, dogs are actually more like cats and monkeys. Like cats, dogs are kept for pest control and like monkeys, they are trained to get something. (Dogs are trained to catch things like balls, monkeys and especially pig-tailed macaques have been trained to get coconuts.) It might be possible to make foxes hunt vermin the way you do with cats and dogs, but the fact that they’re commonly reared for their fur suggests something.

Fox domestication isn’t like dog domestication when it comes to the way these canids are used and raised, one is raised for fur and the other’s kept alive for hunting and guarding. No amount of mental gymnastics will change this fact, whether if you like it or not. There has to be a reason why some scientists don’t regard Belyaev’s observations as giving good insight into dog domestication, usage could be one of them or at least subconsciously so.

You can argue with me all you like, but it doesn’t help when dogs do have something in common with cats and monkeys in terms of usage that’s where the fox comparison falls apart.

Invasive species: what you should know

An invasive species is any introduced species with a negative impact on the environment, whether if it’s predation, pathogenesis, hybridisation or competition over food and prey. To put it this way, when it comes to the entire continent of Africa all dogs, pigs, chickens, cattle and horses are introduced but only the dog is invasive in that it has not only introduced a disease that severely reduced the lion population but also prey on native wildlife such as Barbary macaques in Morocco and Vervet monkeys in Uganda.

Dogs are even considered an invasive species in South American countries such as Brazil and Argentina, that’s not to say they hate dogs (actually a lot of Brazilians and Argentinians own dogs themselves). It’s just that there’s more awareness of what they do to the environments than with North Americans. But the thing here’s that if dogs do have a negative impact on the environment, then they’d rightfully be considered an invasive species regardless of the mental gymnastics you say to prove otherwise.

Then there are the invasive species that are endangered or near-threatened in the old world but invasive in the new world, that’s the European rabbit in Australia and Argentina. At home in Spain and Europe in general, it’s near-threatened but in Australia and Argentina where there’s not much threat from predators they not only spread rapidly but also harm the environment by eating vulnerable plant species and destroying the native soil there. I’m not saying rabbits are bad and like dogs, they’re fine animals in their own right but they’re also invasive.

When it comes to combating the impact of invasive species, one of the methods used is hunting and another is poisoning but this is met with controversy among some characters. While a humane method is possible to an extent, the neutered animal’s still capable of destroying the environment so another method used is to keep the pet indoors. My wish is that people need to stop walking their dogs outdoors so that they won’t harm the environment whenever they prey on vulnerable species.

Somewhere there’s even a study where people who walk their dogs risk endangering some bird species and there are news reports of dogs hunting wildlife whenever their owners aren’t looking, which suggests that dogs really do have a negative impact on the environment. Yes, dogs can be used to combat invasive species but they can become one themselves when the opportunity arises. When it comes to invasive species, they can take many forms and sometimes the use of them starts out as rather noble or understandable.

Rabbits and foxes were first introduced to Australia for the sake of game hunting (hunting for sport), likewise cats and dogs are introduced for pest control and guarding. Once feral or let loose, their populations go out of hand and wreck havoc on the environment when they do eat or prey on vulnerable species. Despite liking animals, this is a sad fact of life when invasive species like cats and dogs are around. But we must confront this subject matter if we were to save vulnerable species from them.

The other speciesism

When it comes to speciesism, it technically means discrimination against other species but usually used to mean why one animal’s used as a pet and the other’s used for food and clothing. While this is understandable, it ignores animals that are actually despised and seen as vermin. Especially those that are really endangered, but I suspect this is mostly covered by conservationists even if they’re not without their own problems like say favouring the more charismatic species over the other.

Some frog species are so endangered that they risk being extinct at any given moment, I could also say the same thing about some reptile species as well. Some mammal species also risk extinction, though those that are less charismatic are especially prone to this. The aye-aye is one example of an ugly not so charismatic mammal, it’s even the subject of ugly superstitions that has led it to being ruthlessly poached and persecuted. Likewise the dog, even if some despise it, is generally beloved despite being an invasive species (same with the cat).

While all animals deserve to be treated kindly, those that tend to be actually despised and persecuted deserve to be protected more often than is usually done.

A better candidate for active social domestication

I’m starting to think that dogs are poor models for deliberate domestication by humans (to a degree) in that some owners allow their dogs to roam freely, dogs do roam freely when given the chance to (same with hunting and preying on their own) and that there are recorded academic instances of dogs eating human faeces so a degree of commensalism, especially in prehistory where there weren’t any toilets, would’ve happened anyways.

If dogs aren’t always a good model for deliberate domestication by humans, since feral and semi-feral dogs exist, perhaps livestock and horses would be better candidates for it. That’s in the sense of being not only extensively monitored in ways dogs aren’t until recently (while dogs can be and are used for herding, as well as hunting there are also many people who keep dogs for guarding from experience) but also heavily relied on prior to the arrival of mechanised vehicles.

While dogs are domesticated first, yet wild relatives of cattle and horses no longer exist so they might be far better candidates for deliberate domestication by humans in the sense of being so extensively tamed and domesticated that their wild counterparts cease to exist. It does make sense in that cattle and horses are used not only for dairy (it does exist for horses to some extent when it comes to kumis, which’s fermented mare milk) but also for pulling vehicles with.

Hence horsepower because for a long time, horses were used to draw vehicles with though it does exist to some extent for dogs when it comes to sledding and even then it’s not that common so horses take their place. It’s not that there weren’t any dogs of a certain gender that weren’t culled, though from my experience it’s not that common though it’s more common for goats of a certain gender to be culled and made into meat.

Especially for goatherders in that female goats are spared for their ability to produce milk, though that may not be true for all goats especially if they’re reared for their wool and that not all goat owners do this either. Again I could be wrong about this, but if extensive artificial selection for dogs happened rather recently it would’ve been older for livestock considering they’re bred for specific purposes such as meat, clothing and dairy.

Some goats, cows and sheep are bred to produce dairy, some are bred to produce wool and others for their meat. Though dogs can be and are reared for their meat, it’s not that common not even in Asia (speaking from experience again) so it’s more common for people to rear pigs, goats and cattle for meat and I know somebody who said that dogs are good for guarding, while pigs are good for meat.
(There’s only one practice for keeping pigs both alive and useful and that’s for finding truffles.)

The active social domestication model posits that dogs are deliberately domesticated by humans, but the exists of feral and stray dogs throws this into sharp relief which means that if there are cases of owned dogs roaming freely and leading semi-independent lives then the earliest dogs (being tamed wolves) would’ve done the same thing too. It wouldn’t happen that much for livestock, in that they’re extensively relied on for something.

While semi-feral numbers do exist, it doesn’t exist in the same quantity as semi-feral cats and dogs do so the active social domestication model works better for livestock than it does for dogs.

It works better for sheep and goats

While there’s a theory stating that dogs were deliberately domesticated by humans, it ignores certain aspects like say owned dogs roaming around freely and that in some hunting communities, in order for a dog to hunt it has to be either socialised to other dogs, drugged, be given the blood of a certain animal or even starved to get the job done. (Some Cameroonians do the same last thing to their cats.) These dogs would be treated harshly later in life, even if not all hunters do this and that they also scavenge from time to time when being fed scraps isn’t enough.

If not all hunters necessarily feed their dogs a lot, given the hunting practices do and sometimes dogs aren’t always reliable hunters for other game (just as some dogs aren’t always reliable guards). This may depend on the individual dog and dog owner, but it does make sense that the active social domestication theory/model might not entirely explain the existence of semi-feral owned dogs. (I still think the actual domestication process would’ve involved a bit of both at the same time.)

Perhaps the active social domestication model works much better for another species altogether, it’s not what you think it is because I think sheep and goats would’ve benefited a lot from this. Or at least to a greater extent than dogs do, in the sense that sheep and goats tend to be more extensively monitored than dogs do. This model actually works better for sheep than it would for dogs, in the sense that it’s actually the less timid sheep that cozied up to people.

Not that dogs didn’t do the same when they were wolves, but going by anthropological reports as well as anecdotes some were treated roughly so it’s likely the case for their prehistoric counterparts. Sheep and goats by contrast were more likely to be fed well, some even spared from being made into meat to be used for other things like milk and wool. Not that dogs weren’t deliberately domesticated, but it makes far more sense for the active social domestication to work for sheep and goats.

Far greater than with dogs, though all three animals are highly social dogs however spend half their time roaming on their own independent of humans whereas sheep and goats spend a lot of their time monitored by humans so there goes the fault of theorising that dogs were completely deliberately domesticated by humans.

It complicates things

I do think dog domestication’s much more complex than whether if dogs are self-domesticated or not due to that some owners allow their dogs to roam freely, that makes me think it would’ve also been the case in prehistory as well. In Tunisia, a good number of rural owned dogs roam freely. There’s also another study conducted in a few countries where dogs were also allowed to roam freely, so if some owners allowed their dogs to roam freely today then some prehistoric wolf owners would’ve done the same thing too. As strange as it sounds, it does complicate things when it comes to the real origin of the dog.

It’s not a complete deliberate domestication in that there are studies where the dogs are left to their own device at will, hunting animals against their owners’ wishes and desires and that they roam on their own as it is in some parts of Mexico. It’s not a complete self-domestication in that dogs are kept for hunting and guarding, even if they may even be starved or fed a special diet to do so either. So it could be argued that it’s somewhere in-between in that although prehistoric dogs were owned and trained, they also roamed at will and were even allowed to do so.

The existence of semi-stray dogs does through both theories into sharp relief in that it doesn’t neatly fit either of them, given there are people who allow their dogs to roam freely. It could even be a relic of a culture long gone in that dogs weren’t always tethered and sheltered, though I could be wrong in here it would’ve been the case in antiquity and prehistory. I do think semi-stray dogs give a better idea of what dog domestication’s like, in the sense of the way they’re raised and that they exist in a state between wildness and domestication.

They’re not entirely feral, but they’re not completely domesticated either so they’re semi-feral at that. The earliest dogs would’ve been free-roaming owned wolves that were fed scraps, hunted on their own and may even be starved to go hunting with their owners. That’s based on me reading up on studies about dogs in some communities, but in addition to the revelation that some owners allow their dogs to roam freely that means dog domestication may not be that straightforward.

Compare this to sheep and goats, where they’re not allowed to roam freely to avoid being eaten by predators and both of them are livestock. This means they’d be more closely monitored than what you usually get with dogs, especially if nobody wants their resources gone. If dogs were domesticated like sheep and goat, then more dogs should be kept for meat but dog meat’s not that popular so many more dogs even in Asia and Africa aren’t generally kept as livestock.

(I’m Asian and from my experience, not too many people eat dogs.)

Goats and sheep are also social animals, they even tolerate humans a lot as well but Retrieverman (to my knowledge) doesn’t admit it and whatever his theories about dog domestication may be turn out to be better suited for sheep and goats. It’s actually the case for some dog owners to allow their pets to roam freely, that it’s even the subject of some studies that sheds better light on what dog domestication’s really like.

In search of roots

While not all African Americans use DNA testing to find their origins, it’s still fairly common practice for them to do it to find out about where their ancestors come from and which ethnicity they genetically belong to. Tracing African Roots is a website that extensively tracks down which ethnicities African Americans belong to as well as the genetics of African ethnicities such as Igbo, Yoruba and Fula that’s helpful for those curious about their genetics and how it corresponds to the communities and cultures they come from.

Since Africans are very genetically diverse and separate from each other, it makes sense that each ethnicity would have their own genetics and admixtures. Igbos for instance are closer to those living in Cameroon and Congo, Hausas are genetically closer to those living in Senegal and to an extent North Africa. This reflects not only where they genetically come from but also the people they intermarried, especially for the Hausa and Fulani where they could’ve had any real contact with North Africans and Middle Easterners before.

Not to mention being influenced by them that marrying them would be a logical step. The ancestors of African Americans were taken to the Americas by force, with their histories obscured this means that genetic testing is a necessary step some African Americans take when it comes to uncovering their genetic origins with regards to where their ancestors came from and who they were. This is also useful for everybody else in the African diaspora of the Americas.

Some websites like 23andme have refined their way of genetic testing, especially in how they’re becoming more precise in teasing out which ethnicity a Nigerian or Ghanaian belongs to such as the Yoruba and the Akan for instance. It’s not perfect, but it is helpful for not only differentiating certain African ethnicities from one another but also for finding out which ethnicity an African American’s ancestor belonged to. There are some surviving slave narratives where the slaves write about their lives and where they came from, but for others DNA testing’s the way to go.

The former gives a better idea of what the life of a slave’s really like, the latter’s reliant on figuring on which genes come from and which community they genetically belong to. African Americans are an admixed people, they have around 16-20% European DNA and 70-80 is African. But they want to know which places and ethnicities their ancestors came from, so DNA testing has refined itself to the extent that it’s now useful for figuring which ethnicities they precisely come from.

Genetic testing is useful for finding out one’s ancestry, though a slave narrative’s necessary for deconstructing what a life of slavery’s really like. Using both methods can give a fuller picture of what their ancestors were really like, which’s a good thing for deconstructing what African American ancestors were like. African Americans are always in search of their ancestors, so some of them look to Egypt, others look to DNA testing to find out where they come from. Both of them have their uses, though the latter has an advantage in deconstructing their ancestry more effectively.

Especially if any surviving reports of where the slaves come from are either scant, unreliable or require more context with regards to where they came from. Many modern African states are based on earlier African empires and kingdoms such as the Akan empire (where Ghana and Cote D’Ivoire come from), the Yoruba kingdoms and the Hausa empire. So it could be as precise as it’s tricky as modern African states emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Nonetheless it’s helpful enough to find out where one’s ancestors really came from.