African Wild Dogs

Zirantun

Banned
So I have seen some very brief suggestions about their domestication on this forum but I haven't been able to find any kind of serious discussion. If there is, could someone link me to the thread? If not, why would you guys say these animals were not domesticated OTL? They behave very similarly to wolves, have a natural altruistic instinct over other members of the pack, and a somewhat flexible social hierarchy.


I have done some poking around on the internet, but the only thing that I can come up with is an article that says: "But for some reason, the wild dog-human relationship never caught on." They have a long history of scavenging our garbage and hanging out around our camp sites. So, why weren't they domesticated? And is their domestication plausible?


One theory that just popped into my head, is what I suggested in my timeline The Fox and The Ptarmigan (that's the desired name change anyways), that the wolves that scrounged on human garbage were exiled from the pack because of a calmer temperament that made them unable to compete in the violence of the pack hierarchy. African Wild Dogs aren't as violent in establishing pack dominance, and hence, exiles and solitary dogs are not as frequent as they are in wolves. Therefore, the dogs that are not doing so because they're desperate for food and alone, but because as a pack, they're seizing an opportunity for a free meal. Am I wrong? What do you guys think?

EDIT: I'm going to the gym right now. I hope to see some replies when I get back ;)
 
Looking at their natural range it would seem that a major reason they were'nt is because the core of their range is in an area that did'nt see large scale Human settlement until the last 1,000 years and overall don't necessarily seem to live in areas they'd be useful to domesticate.
 
The whole dominant wolf theory appears to not be accurate, so I don't think that's a good explanation.

As for wild dogs, I don't think they need to scavenge from human camps. They have an incredibly successful hunting rate by the standards of most predators, and so are less likely to find themselves scrounging around human camps. Hyenas do, but hyenas have very complex and constantly shifting social structures, which IMO makes them less likely to domesticate.
 

scholar

Banned
While second hand information, I believe I came across a couple of references that point to complex animal behaviors disappearing in zoos. Animals appear apathetic or even aggressive towards their young, mothers that in the wild would be fiercely protective of them.

Of a same vein, what of human culture and behavior would be learned if you pick up a few babies and only interact with them to give them food or to make sport of their movements? Would they love a child or even care for it if they never encountered one or observe how to provide for it? Would they see a growing child as a threat? Would they care if it lived or died? Some Zoo studies tend to point to animals in these situations and most of the time it ends up with a dead cub unless a zookeeper takes it away and cares for it.
 

Zirantun

Banned
Looking at their natural range it would seem that a major reason they were'nt is because the core of their range is in an area that did'nt see large scale Human settlement until the last 1,000 years and overall don't necessarily seem to live in areas they'd be useful to domesticate.


Ummm... I can give you that, except I think we can move the date to around 4,000 years ago with the Bantu expansion. Although they also had a much wider range during earlier times, particularly during the Wet Sahara period of the early Holocene.


While the Bantu expansion might not have been "large scale" per say in the same way that the Neolithic Revolution of Eurasia saw "large scale" human expansion, there is a lot of evidence that dogs were already domesticated in Eurasia a long time before then.


But why do you say they live in areas they would be of no use? Surely if nothing else, they'd be good as draft animals in a similar way that the Native Americans used their dogs, and I'm sure they'd make excellent hunting companions. Plus, Africans over their range keep dogs?


The whole dominant wolf theory appears to not be accurate, so I don't think that's a good explanation.


Hmmm... it seems I will have to modify my explanation for the domestication of dogs slightly for the timeline then. I know that wolves do get exiled from packs, but with this new knowledge of how their social hierarchy works (parents/children), the reasons why are probably a little bit different.



As for wild dogs, I don't think they need to scavenge from human camps. They have an incredibly successful hunting rate by the standards of most predators, and so are less likely to find themselves scrounging around human camps. Hyenas do, but hyenas have very complex and constantly shifting social structures, which IMO makes them less likely to domesticate.


Yet, they DO scavenge though, which is why I pointed to the manner and the reasons behind the scavenging being a little different than why lone wolves would. And I agree about hyenas, although I wonder if it's possible. Personally, I hate spotted hyenas. I think they smell like ass, they're ugly, creepy, and just plain nasty with their "pseudopenises" (wtf?). Seriously... why? It would be great if the striped hyena were domesticable. Now that is a majestic looking animal. But... they're solitary, so it's less likely.
 
Ummm... I can give you that, except I think we can move the date to around 4,000 years ago with the Bantu expansion.

The Bantu expansion did'nt fully reach Zimbabwe (the core of the AWD's range AFAICT) until aroun 900-1000 CE.


Although they also had a much wider range during earlier times, particularly during the Wet Sahara period of the early Holocene.

I'm not really sure Humans were domesticating animals that far back, atleast not in North Africa which was still small groups of Hunter Gatherers during the Wt Sahara.


But why do you say they live in areas they would be of no use? Surely if nothing else, they'd be good as draft animals in a similar way that the Native Americans used their dogs, and I'm sure they'd make excellent hunting companions. Plus, Africans over their range keep dogs?

Their's evidence their were other domesticated dogs in parts of Africa as it was, so their would'nt be much point in domesticating a different breed when you already had one and of the areas that their were'nt domesticated versions, well put it this way; a dog is useful for defending a herd against a fox or coyote, not so much against a lion.
 

Zirantun

Banned
The Bantu expansion did'nt fully reach Zimbabwe (the core of the AWD's range AFAICT) until aroun 900-1000 CE.


Ummm.... what? There is too much of this text language stuff going on in this forum. AFAICT? What does that mean? lol. I'm sorry man, I just barely got my first cell phone 2 years ago and didn't do a whole lot of texting until about a year ago. While we're at it though, what do IMO, TTL, and ASB mean?


But to respond to their range, their range wasn't always so limited, especially during the last ice age when Eurasian wolves were being domesticated.


I'm not really sure Humans were domesticating animals that far back, atleast not in North Africa which was still small groups of Hunter Gatherers during the Wt Sahara.


Dogs were almost definitely domesticated by this time elsewhere.


Their's evidence their were other domesticated dogs in parts of Africa as it was, so their would'nt be much point in domesticating a different breed when you already had one and of the areas that their were'nt domesticated versions, well put it this way; a dog is useful for defending a herd against a fox or coyote, not so much against a lion.


I was merely pointing out that they have uses. They can be used for draft, to aid in hunting, and to alert to danger, as well as guard camps. Maybe not that efficiently against lions, but lions aren't the only predator in Africa that will be approaching a human camp. And dogs OTL (I know what that one means, but I didn't start using it till today) in Africa were probably introduced with other Eurasian domesticates like cows and goats sometime after the advent of agriculture.


So, so far, the only thing I can see really standing in the way is A) their social structure means that packs scavenge as opposed to individuals B ) their social system is rather the opposite of wolves, with packs forming of unrelated individuals thus allowing solitary individuals to find new packs, meaning that scavenging off of garbage is unlikely to move past anything other than an opportunist meal and C) once in a pack they have a rather outrageously good hunting turnout and therefore the NEED of humans is unlikely to develop. Am I missing anything?


Because of they truly are undomesticable by natural means (as in the way wolves probably domesticated themselves), then I'm sure they could've been domesticated if a society forced by trapping and breeding in captivity the way we have done with foxes and pigs.
 
Ummm.... what? There is too much of this text language stuff going on in this forum. AFAICT? What does that mean? lol. I'm sorry man, I just barely got my first cell phone 2 years ago and didn't do a whole lot of texting until about a year ago. While we're at it though, what do IMO, TTL, and ASB mean?

Yeah, sorry, I was sort of multitasking.

AFAICT - As far as I can tell
IMO - In my opinion
I/TTL - In/The Time Line
ASB - Alien Space Bats (something that could only happen with the intervention of a supernatural being or an alien species much more technologically advanced than us)

Don't feel to bad, it took me a long time to figure all of them out (I did'nt figure out TL;DR until a few months ago).


But to respond to their range, their range wasn't always so limited, especially during the last ice age when Eurasian wolves were being domesticated.

Outside of North Africa and the Sahel I don't think the AWD's population range would've been that different, I mean it is pretty widespread as it is.


Dogs were almost definitely domesticated by this time elsewhere.

True, but the populations at the time in the Sahara region would'nt have needed to domesticate them as the Sahara was such that food and security would've been relatively simple matters.

They might have had some domesticates, but it's likely they died out when the desertification began and people fled to the river valleys where things would've been hard enough with just other humans in the beginning.


I was merely pointing out that they have uses. They can be used for draft, to aid in hunting, and to alert to danger, as well as guard camps. Maybe not that efficiently against lions, but lions aren't the only predator in Africa that will be approaching a human camp.

While they would be useful in some parts of Africa, others I'm not so sure of.


Because of they truly are undomesticable by natural means (as in the way wolves probably domesticated themselves), then I'm sure they could've been domesticated if a society forced by trapping and breeding in captivity the way we have done with foxes and pigs.

I don't think they're undomesticatable, I think it's just a case of their never been a need to domesticate them.

That said I think South Africa and East Africa are the most likely areas where they'd be domesticated.
 

Zirantun

Banned
So do Dachshunds and yet, people still adore them as pets...



That said I think South Africa and East Africa are the most likely areas where they'd be domesticated.
[/QUOTE


Well, West Africa was not as covered in tropical rainforests during the last ice age. In fact it wost mostly savanna and tropical grassland, which seems to be their prime habitat. I imagine this would've been a good place at the time if the human population were high enough.
 
Top