Of Wolves and Dogs

As for finding sources, I'm just a stupid electrician with Google saved in my favorites. You might try the Maned Wolf of South America.

 
I don't believe anybody called you stupid. If you're going to get all upset about it because I'd like to have an educated discussion I'll ask the mods to delete the thread and drop it. I could not post in the other thread about this without derailing. Anyway, I LIKE to see sources for myself, not because you are stupid or whomever is saying anything is stupid because I want to see sources. As pointed out earlier, sources can be interepreted different ways by different people. Any scientist is more than happy to share his or her findings (whether it be research or sources).
 
Anyway, the Maned wolf (Chysocyon brachyurus) is not a wolf at all and does not even belong to the Canis genus. The only other non Canis lupus species that is considered a wolf is the Red Wolf Canis rufus.
 
As for the wolf eating the berry... it is evidence of nothing more than eating a berry. Again, I ask, why does Mech fail to mention plants as being an important portion of the wolves' diet if it is? On top of that, it's been documented that White Tail Deer will catch and eat fish... does that make them omnivores?
 
Again, I ask, why do wolves have difficulty digesting whole plant matter and why do carbohydrates effect their teeth?
 
Biologically speaking, they may be able to survive on such a diet, but it seems to me they won't unless it's absolutely necessary. Honestly, if they could survive so well with so much plant matter, I don't think they would be such adept hunters.
 
 
Anyway, just a few sites that I have found that say wolves are carnivores... I would think the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology is reputable enough about it:
[linkhttp://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Canis_lupus.html]http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Canis_lupus.html[/link]
 
[linkhttp://wolfsource.org/]http://wolfsource.org/[/link]
 
I have to go, but I will find more.

don't believe anybody called you stupid. If you're going to get all upset about it because I'd like to have an educated discussion I'll ask the mods to delete the thread and drop it

 
Of the points I made, you  responded to my use of the word stupid in a self-deprecating manner. I meant to show that I am not a dog expert, or a computer expert. I'm just a tradesman with a computer. As for electricians being stupid, ask any plumber. And now your going to wield your might influence because you misunderstood my intent. I did not think you were calling me stupid, nor was anyone calling me stupid. Relax.
 
And stating video of a wolf eating a berry is only proof of eating the berry and not behavior of an omnivore is along the same lines as the comment you made about cats that might accidently eat some of the stomach contents, only for moisture, of course. But you have not disproven the wolf to be an omnivore by stating such. That is, you haven't introduced other evidence, such as a video or even a text or a clinical analysis that the wolf did not get benefit from eating the berry. A debate of what I saw does not change the biology of wolf or dog.
 
There are other sources stating that dogs and wolves, to an extent, are omnivores. And I'll probably use Google to do it. It's pretty easy. Even an electrician can do it.
(Note, the preceding was self-deprecating humor, not to be taken literally.)
 
Here's a L. David Mech reference for you.
 
[linkhttp://www.boomerwolf.com/redcors.htm]http://www.boomerwolf.com/redcors.htm[/link]
 

[linkhttp://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/nutrition.html]http://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/nutrition.html[/link]
DOGS... OMNIVORES OR CARNIVORES?
According to Rebecca Remillard, DVM, a Specialist in Veterinary
Nutrition:
"Canines are in the order Carnivora, but I think their feeding
behaviors are best described as omnivorous. The term carnivore applies
to their taxonomic classification, not their feeding behavior.
Taxonomically, dogs are members of the order Carnivora, a very diverse
group, that includes 12 families of more than 260 species, some of
which are herbivorous mammals (the panda). There are three types of
feeding behavior (omnivorous, herbivorous and carnivorous) all of which
can be found among different members of the order Carnivora."  (From an
email response to the question of dogs being looked upon as carnivorous
or omnivorous in the newsletter of the American Academy of Veterinary
Nutrition.)
[linkhttp://www.cvm.uiuc.edu/petcolumns/showarticle.cfm?id=189]http://www.cvm.uiuc.edu/petcolumns/showarticle.cfm?id=189[/link]
[linkhttp://www.azdrybones.com/canids.htm]http://www.azdrybones.com/canids.htm[/link]
 
There's some links.
 
As for semantics, if humans are omnivores, then are vegans not really humans because they refuse to engage in ominvorous eating? If their most observed behavior is to only eat fruits and vegetables, one would assume by their action that they are herbivores when they are, in fact, not. In the same breath, a wolf or dog can be omnivorous even if you don't always catch them eating some plant matter. Though, I have.
 

why do wolves have difficulty digesting whole plant matter and why do carbohydrates effect their teeth?

 
How do you know that carbs affect a wolf's teeth or that they have difficulty digesting plant matter?
 
Why is it that when this debate comes up, people automatically assume that omnivore means eating "so much" plant matter? I don't think that anyone would contest that canids need a larger portions of animal protein in comparasion to carbs, but even a small dietary requirement (or ability to utilize such material) makes it an omnivore.

I guess our definitions of carnivores and omnivores are different. IMO, and it seems the same of the experts I have found (as I haven't really found otherwise), wolves are carnivores. Just becuase an animal eats a minute amount of something, IMO, doesn't cast it into a whole other category. Just like an animal that is mainly and insectivore but occasionally eats a mouse doesn't make it any less an insectivore. Anyway, yes, a wolf may be able to survive on Beneful, but, IMO, that doesn't make the species omnivorous (check out the Purina Indoor Cat Formula). They have evolved a great deal around catching large mammals and, in the wild, it seems to me, they have eaten little veggie matter and may go months at a time without it at all. That, to me, is a carnivore. Just like, even though a deer may occassionally dine on a fish, it is still a herbivore.
 
As for wolves teeth, well, I guess that is my "assumption" considering our companions, if not given raw meat, need regular dental cleanings?  Why must I puree plant matter so my dog can get most of its benefits? And, I did ask if they do get nutrients from unprocessed veggies (in significant quantities) in all seriousness, not tongue in cheek [].
 
Ron, I have "conceded" if you will, that dogs are omnivores, although I think the severity still depends on how "primitive" the breed is. My original point, in all of this, was that dogs were bred from a carnivore and should get far more meat in their diets than what you find in most grocery store level foods.
 
Your Mech link was also that of a red wolf; when I say wolf, I mean the grey wolf and I apologize for any misunderstandings on it.
 

Of the points I made, you  responded to my use of the word stupid in a self-deprecating manner. I meant to show that I am not a dog expert, or a computer expert. I'm just a tradesman with a computer. As for electricians being stupid, ask any plumber. And now your going to wield your might influence because you misunderstood my intent. I did not think you were calling me stupid, nor was anyone calling me stupid. Relax. 

 
I'm sorry. Generally (at least in my disfunctional family []) what you said would be meant as an indirect attack. I didn't want it that way (as the intent of my post was not to call you stupid) and was a bit upset by your response as it seemed as though you'd taken it completely the wrong way. Again, I apologize.

And our thinking is not that far apart if we can get around this pesky thing called language. Emoticons aside, it is hard to convey some inflection or tone in written words. The same phrase actually spoken has a far different intent than it may appear in words.
 
I do think some canids eat less plant matter than others. But I'm not defining their taxonomy simply by behavior. And the scientific community, including L. David Mech, can change their view, as they have done before. It was in the mid 90s, thanks to canid genome work by Robert K. Wayne at UCLA, that the Smithsonian Institute and American Society of Mammalogists adopted species changes to reflect his genetic theory that all other candids descended from the gray wolf. That is still a theory but it seems to have support because of the genetic similarities. There is approximately the same genetic distance between dog and wolf as there is between man and chimpanzee. For example, man is technically a great ape. And there are other primates that have been observed eating meat.
 
And no one knows for sure exactly how the taming process occured. If Man did most of the taming, then the dog would eventually evolve to eat whatever a man gives it. In the last century and in the last 20 years, man's understanding of canine nutrition has evolved to where I think we are feeding them better than some of the last 100,000 years.
 

? Why must I puree plant matter so my dog can get most of its benefits? 

Easily answered.  It deals with mastication.  True herbivores have teeth that are designed for crushing plant matter into a pulp.  Carnivorous teeth are designed for ripping and tearing and holding.  So it has to do with surface area of the substrate or food bolus.  Also the available nutrients in plant matter are sometimes harder to extract than those same nutrients when suspended in animal flesh. (ie: iron, selenium, zinc, and certain others)

I would also add that true herbivores, as well as some omnivores, such as man, are capable of lateral mastication, true grinding. I would venture to say that lateral mastication in a canid is defined somewhat by the coronoid process. And that coronoid process is different in dogs than it is in wolves. Wolves have a triangular jagged mandibular hinge and a thicker bone structure to the zygomatic arch. I think they also have larger or more developed massiter muscle sets. The dog's mandibular hinge is a simpler posterior recurve and a less thick zygomatic arch and allow so more room for play in the massiter muscle group. This may allow the dog a limited amount of lateral mastication. And there are pre-molars behind the carnassials. BTW, I have physically seen my dog eat a pecan. He will crack the shell and do whatever it takes to get the meat of the nut out and eat that. Though they have limited if any lateral mastication, this does not prevent them from being omnivores. For one thing, evolution is not perfect. Plenty of things don't make sense. We still have a tailbone, yet no tail. We have an appendix we don't really use. They just get infected and then we pay lots of money to remove them.
 

We still have a tailbone, yet no tail.

It's not an uncommon birth defect to be born with a tail.  I don't know what the percentages are but it's not unheard of.  And because of our upright status humans have anchored specific muscles to the tail bone (coccyx) to help with certain processes, and to support our internal organs.

I agree with you Ron, dogs are omnivorous.  Certain ones more than others.  I didn't know that there was that much difference in the musco/skeletal region of the jaw between dogs and wolves.  As for lateral mastication, that type of movement would be detrimental in an animal that seizes it's prey like a dog or other canid would. Not that it would impact the predation upon smaller animals, but on larger prey that would encourage dislocation of the jaw during the life/death struggle.

On the other hand, it would enable our "grazers" to digest more completely these tasty grasses and other vegetation that they eat. 

I had a dog that would raid the compost pile for tomatoes, potatoes and other vegetables, as well as wait patiently for the rasberries to ripen so he could eat only the ripe ones.  He also hunted and ate bees with a fervor that would have made anyone proud.

Not that it would impact the predation upon smaller animals, but on larger prey that would encourage dislocation of the jaw during the life/death struggle.

 
I'm glad you raised that point. Shadow's only brought down a squirrel, a mouse, and maybe a bird, though I think the latter was probably one of the cats from the neighbor behind us.
 
A wolf may have no lateral mastication, which allows it the rigidity to bring down a large ungulate, like a bison.
 

I might point out here that medium to large sized dogs are very well capable of bringing down and killing large prey, also.  I have livestock guardian dogs for this reason in the main - ie, enemy number one of the east coast farmer is not wild animals but my neighbor's free roaming aussie or shepherd mix.  Whatever skeletal adaptations they have developed on the road to domestication has certainly not hampered them in that respect.  And I'm certain that in evolutionary terms 200K years is not anywhere near enough to change something as vital as a major coronoid process.

One of my closest friends is a self-described "cave man scientist" - she has her PhD in anthropaleontology.  She has a deep interest in dogs and went into this topic in some detail (the recent development of dogs).  She summarized what she found "out there" currently as "the jury is still out." 

There's two camps at the moment - some say wild canids essentially tamed themselves through their attraction to our castoff food scraps, humans found their presence useful, and we went from there.  Some say we deliberately, after observing wild canid pack behavior, adopted orphan pups to act as hunting partners and fireside guardians, and selected future generations for their functionality in that respect. 

My friend is a strict behaviorist and closed-world theorist, so she's pretty firmly in the first camp.  I think people have always been pretty smart, for as long as there have been people, and I feel the answer is closer to the second.

We'll never know for sure.  We can go round and round about this but a definitive answer is simply outside the realm of science.  That's why I never personally use the "dogs should eat like wolves" argument.  I think dogs should eat like dogs, but dogs eat a lot of stuff and always have.  How's that for a non-committal position?  []

I'll ask my friend about that coronoid process deal and let ya'll know what she says.

My knee-jerk reaction is that the coronoid process should not make much of a difference.

Dogs don't do lateral grinding.  If any dog would, it would be [my dog] and it's beyond even a canine of his capabilities.

The dog lineage may have separated off from wolves (and it's a soft separation since they're still interfertile) anywhere between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago -- with 100,000 being at the upper end of the error bar, basically.  I would not be surprised if they have been selected for a more omnivorous diet but [t]his anatomical argument doesn't impress me.

Dogs, or wolves for that matter, don't bring large prey down alone.  And wolves don't bring them down the way big cats do.  Wolves, and wild dogs (African wild dogs, AKA Cape Hunting Dogs) basically win through attrition.  The most common method of killing is for many individuals to grab a different bit of the prey animal and basically the animal dies of blood loss, shock, and injuries while being eaten alive.  Not very pleasant. . .

Her last point was to demonstrate why she thinks small structural differences simply don't make adaptive differences in terms of hunting ability.  Domestic dogs, wolves, and wild dogs all still make kills the same way.

Feel free to write me privately if you want the name of the individual here.  I forgot to ask her whether she wanted public credit for this or not but since it's not really polished for public consumption I'd rather err on the side of caution.

I might point out here that medium to large sized dogs are very well capable of bringing down and large prey, also. I have livestock guardian dogs for this reason in the main - ie, enemy number one of the east coast farmer is not wild animals but my neighbor's free roaming aussie or shepherd mix.

That's a bit different than bringing down a prey species.  Intruding canids are often chased off of the territory when faced with the "owners" of that territory.  If they turn to fight, that fight is not similar to an attack of predation. 

I do agree, however that a medium sized dog can bring down a larger prey, especially if that prey is in a weakened state, or is "hounded" to exhaustion.  Dachshunds have been going after badgers as well as terriers going to ground or salukis/sloughis and other sighthounds successfully predating on gazelles and large hares or deer. 

I think it would be an interesting endeavor to study native Azawakhs in northern Africa.  The reason being that they are in the mid-stage of domestication.  They have the job of protecting the village and going on hunts with the hunters, yet aren't considered pets.  In fact the majority of Azawakhs that have been exported aren't exactly friendly dogs.  There are a few breeders that breed for temperment, due to the fact that this breed/type has many issues similar to what one might expect from a "wild" dog.  The interaction between the dogs and the villagers would be quite interesting.

20 something years ago, there was a division of thought in evolutionary theory. It surrounded radial adaptation. Radial adaptation is the theory that an animal evolves or mutates if the need arises for survival. Non-radial adaptation, which was coming into vogue, says that animals do not evolve in response to environment (in our discussion, domestication). A mutation that allows survival in the new or changed environment is what gets passed on. A good example of the non-radial adaptation evolution is the original carnivorous canid that existed around the same time as early omnivorous canids. The carnivorous canid chased ungulates that it could catch. Some ungulates were born with mutation or change that allowed them to run faster. The carnivorous canid did not suffer such a mutation and could not catch them. And, could not radially adapt to catch this new, faster ungulate. So, it followed the slower ungulates into extinction. The other mutated canids that were able to digest and get benefit from some plant matter or cast-off from humans lived. And lived long enough to have mutation that allowed them to run faster and keep up with the faster ungulates.
 
As for doubting that the coronoid process makes a difference, this is a board of opinions and you have every right to doubt it. Whether it turns out to make a difference or not does not change the omnivorous behavior I have seen in my dog and some wolves. Nor does it change what I have learned about the GIT and biology of dogs that makes them omnivores. You can tell me all day long, ala Robert K. Wayne, that my dog is essentially a domesticated wolf and it will simply not change the fact that I have personally seen him eat grass and not throw it up. I have seen him eat a pecan that he popped out of the shell. I have seen him eat a wheat cracker, unadorned. Or that my in-laws' Lhasa Apso will eat cooked vegetables. No amount of debate, rhetoric, semantics, or hair-splitting definitions change change what I have seen. Nor can any amount of, say, rebuttal of the importance of the coronoid process deny the scientific texts Kennelkeeper has quoted on the GIT of the dog. Again, though, that is my opinion and we are all entitled to one.

Domestic dogs, wolves, and wild dogs all still make kills the same way.

I can't agree with that.  Does a dog like a Saluki kill by ripping and tearing?  Does a Wolfhound essentially pounce upon his quarry?  Do packs of wolves "hound" a rabbit to ?  Do packs of foxhounds, beagles, harriers, or other types of hounds essentially hunt the same way that other canids do?

Hunting or prey drive may be instinctive, but the actual behavior is learned by observation and mimicry.  I personally believe that certain dogs did descend from wolves but others descended from jackals, african wild dogs, and/or coyotes or coyote like canids.  If you watch certain ancient breeds of dogs, and some modern breeds, you will see behaviors that hearken to survival behaviors such as the eating of vegetation.  I could go on further to pack behaviors that do not mimic wolves but mimic african wild dogs but that's a topic for another forum.

So I know that Ron and I agree that dogs by nature are omnivorous, whether or not they have evolved crushing teeth or lateral mastication, these adaptations do not eliminate or preclude the ingesting of plant matter.