[WolfPack]

I just want to share my taught about dogs. This can be seen as a debate, after you read this you can share your taughts about this thread.

Why humans messed up an entire species.
I: Selective breeding:
Since the domestication of the wolf, people tried to create dogs to fit their needs using "Artificial selection". Many of you know what this means, I will explain it however:
The difference between artificial selection and natural selection is found in the name. The artificial selection is made over way shorter periods of time and is done by man. For instance, someone in the far past taught: "This animal might be able to help me hunt". And then he breed it, and the cubs that he observed that are better sniffers or are faster and overall better hunting skills, then the ancient man bred those cubs and the better new ones were chosen and bred and since dogs have a shorter lifespan than humans, the average human(let's say lives about 30 - 40 years back then), he could do about 20 artificially selected reproductions they made a dog that's better at hunting and then the future people continued the work of the one that started artificially bred and that's why we have so many and different breeds. The natural selection happens in millions of years and works in large terms this: A small mutation that appears in the wolf traits might end up benefic, for example, a wolf might be born with a fluffier fur, in the cold zones this is an advantage and because of that it is able to survive longer than the ones with lighter fur and have more time to breed and pass the fluffy gene to wolves. In the warm climates the fluffier wolf was overheating and the quality of his life was overall weaker and he couldn't pass the fluffy coat to offsprings and the lighter coat was more advantageous here and this is why african canines have short hair and artic wolves have fluffy double coat. There is a flaw in this theory about the "disadvantage of the partial advantageous traits" that someone addressed to Charles Darwin about his theory, however he explained in some way and I really have forgotten his explanation however the proposed flaw was like this: Let's say the transition from land creatures to flying creatures. They have grown wings slowly and smoothly over millions of years. And the biologist that told Darwin he had a flaw in his theory was saying: If the wings have grown gradually, that means some creatures had at some point half a wing which was a disadvantage even if half a wing is the path to full wings which is an advantage, how could nature know that the half of wing that creature had was a sacrifice for the further generation to grow full wings? Darwin had explained how this is now a flaw in his theory then, however I forgot the explication. However, back to dogs(even if natural selection is a theory that can be argued over, dogs human artificial selection is proofable just by looking at your dog).
Why is artificial selection made on dogs bad. Well, the bad thing is that humans exaggerated with this to a point where dogs are born with big handicappes, the well know examples are with flat-nosed dogs: bulldogs, pugs, they are damned to a life where they can't breath in a healthy way just because someone taught a dog like this would be amusing. Even healthy dogs are unnatural, for instance, beagles, given the fact that all dogs were artificially created from wolves, we can consider the wolves traits the natural ones, unaffected by mankind. Wolves have medium sized sharp years standing up. beagles have big floppy ears. When you see a beagle on the street you don't say anything, now, think if you see a human with ears that hang and stretch to shoulders. This would be awful to look at, you would say how such an abomination could be born, the poor human, however because we are so used to floppy ears in dogs that doesn't make them natural. In fact, the more a dog resembles a wild wolf, the more natural and unaltered it is. That's why I bought a husky, they look like arctic wolves.
Why I consider this unnatural and not correct?
Because wolves and dogs are the same species(Dogs can breed wild wolves and the resulting cubs can breed too). They are "Canis lupus"(genus: Canis, species: lupus), there are more species in the genus "Canis", for example "rufus" which is the red wolf. The difference between wolves and dogs is in the subspecies dogs are Canis lupus familiaris and wolves are Canis lupus lupus, dingoes are for example Canis lupus dingo. Arctic wolves are Canis lupus arctos. A chihuahua and a doberman are both Canis lupus familiaris which means they are basically the same subspecies, genetically identical, an grey wolf is Canis lupus lupus and an arctic wolf is canis lupus arctos, they are the same species, different subspecies, so that means that these 2 animals are closer genetically speaking one to another:

than these 2:

This is just insane to think of. And all of the 4 above are interbreadable, the chihuahua can breed with the wolves and obviously with the doberman too.

This paradox shows how much humans messed up the species. If I would be able I would press button that wipes out all those unnatural breeds of dogs and start over with taming wolves then domesticating the species and leave them how nature intended them.

II: Human madness over dogs:
Someone in the dog park told me once that they feed the dogs just vegan. And I asked if the dogs have allergies to meat and she said that they didn't know of any allergy, the reason she feed the dog vegan is because she is vegan and I almost wanted to take steal her dog and adopt it. Now there are three reasons you might feed your dog vegan:
a) It is allergic to meat(understandable, however this is humans fault too)
b) I saw many saying that vegan kibbles are healthier than meat based kibbles
c) You are an IDIOT and you make your dog vegan because you are like the lady in the park

Reason a: It is an understandable reason, however it is humans' fault because the artificial selection I talked earlier. Because dogs are so altered by humans, they develop such allergies. Would you imagine a wolf being allergic to meat? As far as they stop drinking milk from mama wolf their dad brings them meat which they enjoy and I can't imagine a wolf cub being allergic to meat and you know why, because the natural selection. Let's say a wolf is born with a meat allergy, all they receive is meat, so they can't really survive in the wild since they can't really find vegan and rich enough to feed them and they won't pass the meat allergy gene. When humans intervene this auto-regulation stuff isn't anymore and dogs develop these allergies.

Reason b: I agree that pedigree or other meat based kibbles are kind of bad, however this isn't an excuse to buy plant based kibbles. Feed raw meat your dog, find high quality meat kibbles, ask many vets about kibbles, just don't base your dog's diet on plants, because they really need meat even if they can survive well with vegan diet. Vegan diets in dogs might be harmful for certain breeds and is simply unnatural and I will have a better explanation of this after I explain the reason c

Reason c: Not much to explain, if you do this you are simply an idiot, psychopath and you really don't love animals. If you are a vegan and feed just vegan food to your dog because "you hate animals being killed for their meat", you are just imbecile and you shouldn't own a dog. I really consider to have a serious discussion with the lady in the park about her dog's needs.

Now why feeding vegan to dogs in unnatural. This is the denture of a rabbit:

No canines just incisive teeth because rabbits are plant eaters and incisive teeth help them chewing greens and other veggies. They have no canines so meat is really bad for rabbits and they don't even eat meat if you offer them.


This is a dog's(husky) denture:

Really big canines/fangs so they can break down meat fibers in their mouth and also hunt with fangs, very tiny incisive teeth, so they need a few plant based things, almost nothing. And sharp molars also for chewing meat.


Even small dogs have the same denture(Yes they are stock images, enough to make my point):

This is a chihuahua denture and you can see also big canines compared to incisive

This is an ape's denture:

Equally incisives and canines and flat molars, so that means they are made to eat both greens and meat, similar to us humans. Now I know that in the process of domestication the dogs received some of the humans dietary and it is best to give your dog grains also, however this does not mean to give your dog just plants. In fact even if dogs have been "omnivorized" by humans since they domesticated them, I believe dogs do have an inclination for meat so they are not fully carnivores like wolves (90-100% meat), neither omnivores(50% meat, 50% plant) I would place them somewhere at (70% meat, 30%plant) or 60 40, however many experts believe the ration shouldn't be fifty fifty like omnivores, a fair more meat than plant. Similar to bears. Bears are considered omnivores, however the balance is towards meat, and that is visible in their denture also:

In the bear denture you can see large canines, and incisives are also fair sized(the incisives are bigger than wolves' incisives which are carnivores) so the bear is omnivore, with the balance towards meat eating.


III: Neutering and Spaying:
I said exactly this on another thread started by me and I will repeat it:
Life is impossible to define. We can define it by what it does, from bacteria to elephants to ants to humans have in instinct to do these 3 actions:

• eats(any creature will extract nutrients from around it, even bacteria)
• defends(any creature will try to survive by defending)
• multiplies(unicellular creatures divide and other multiply in other ways)

The most important is the multiplication because as I said natural selection which ensures evolution is based on multiplication and a creature eats to survive until reproduction and defends to reproduce, and some animal "moms" sacrifice them for the cub to live to ensure that her gene and the gene of the father will be part of the species.
If we define life as a "thing" that does these 3 actions, neutering/spaying will make the dog 1 third dead since you take 1 third of what makes him alive.
I don't say that we should let our dogs to breed uncontrollably and make the world full of puppies that no one is taking care of, I say just, if possible I will live my dogs intact. And I can't recommend you to do the same, however if your dog is healthy and you want to neuter/spay because many people neuter/spay their dogs, or because your dog is aggressive and you think neutering/spaying might reduce the aggression, just remind that ", neutering/spaying will make the dog 1 third dead since you take 1 third of what makes him alive". Of course there are situation where you can't leave dogs intact, let's say your dog interacts with many other dogs while unwatched, it is understandable,, however as much as possible I would leave my dogs intact to keep the life more natural because no one was neutering/spay wolves for ten of thousands of years.


You saw me using the world "unnatural" many times, and you might ask, what's wrong with unnatural things? Phones and computers are unnatural because humans didn't have them for tens of thousands for years and I am using a computer right now. Well, I don't see the situation the same, dogs are living things and and nature made them so that's why I think they should stay natural. Computers are not alive and they might be able to influence humans which are also a living thing, however I can throw my phone and PC anytime to liberate me from unnatural technology, however dogs can't get their glands back after neutering/spaying to be natural again.

Conclusion:
The situation of dogs is pretty bad because of humans and we can't really repair it, a complete reset of how dogs developed near humans is impossible and not much can be done right now, it is too late. What I try to do is keeping my dogs intact IF POSSIBLE, feeding them accordingly to their nature, and overall not contribuing to the artificial selection. Now it is more dangerous than ever, because we are close to discovering the genetic manipulation which might be able to create dogs with special traits, faster and even more aggressively. I read somewhere that humans might be able to bring dinosaurs back on Earth by 2050, which is also the kind of thing I 100% disagree and also Spielberg told us it is a bad idea via 3 movies he made.

If you read all of this, then congratulation. I wait to hear people's opinion about the "essay" I wrote. And what you think about artificial selection, veganism for dogs and neuter/spay.

 

[BigBlackDog]

You and @Jack Naylor should hook up via PM.

 

[3GSD4IPO]

There is a lot more to all this than the three basic needs of life (food, defense, reproduction) that make up higher life forms.

By providing food and shelter and a safe place to live the other 2/3rds of the dog are also "dead." It could be argued that leaving all dogs intact but denying breeding opportunities they are just as 1/3 dead as if physically altered.

While science seems to agree that dogs descended from a now extinct species of wolf the timing and where and how is debatable and likely of deeper genetic origin.

Take a look at this if interested.

How Accurate Is the Theory of Dog Domestication in 'Alpha'?

The "boy and his dog" tale is a piece of prehistoric fiction, but scientists are uncovering the true origins of our incredible relationship with dogs

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[RonE]

That is one gigantic wall of text.

 

[WolfPack]

While science seems to agree that dogs descended from a now extinct species of wolf the timing and where and how is debatable and likely of deeper genetic origin.

The article doesn't specify the exact extinct species of wolf. It might be direwolf, a species of wolf that went extinct between 40000 - 16000 years ago. However, it is undeniable, that dogs are wolves, they can interbreed. If you read White Fang, the main character called White Fang was an wolfdog, his mother was a malamute owned by native americans and his father was a grey wolf and White Fang has an interior conflict because he don't know if he should be a domestic dog, or follow the wild half of him. The extinct species that dogs came from have to be "Canis lupus", otherwise dogs wouldn't be able to breed with today wolves.

 

[DaySleepers]

Some thoughts here, in no particular order.

Most current research suggests that dogs self-domesticated. What that means is that early humans did not go out and find proto-wolf pups to raise and breed selectively, but that proto-wolves that were less genetically fearful of humans started hanging around human settlements and eating their garbage. Aggressive individuals were likely killed or chased off, but less aggressive individuals were allowed to stay, as their presence deterred other predators and them cleaning up the garbage reduced the number of pests. Over time, these less aggressive, less human-shy animals diverged from the other proto-wolves in the area and became their own population. There's also evidence that this happened at least twice. Humans deliberately selecting and breeding for desirable traits came much later.

I'm using the term 'proto-wolves' for two reasons: first, evolution is a process that is never 'over'. Evolution has no specific end goal, which means every population of living things is constantly changing in tiny ways. The 'wolves' that dogs evolved from are not the modern grey wolf. Modern wolves are just as evolutionarily distant from the common ancestor of wolves and dogs as a chihuahua. This is especially true because recent studies suggest that modern dogs mostly evolved from the same ancestor as the extinct Japanese wolf - Canis lupus hodophilax - and not the European grey wolf (Canis lupus lupus). Extinct Japanese wolf is the closest wild relative of dogs yet found

Interestingly, many of the traits we associate with domesticated dogs - like floppy ears and piebald coats - appear to be directly related to the process of domestication. In the decades-long Belyaev fox experiment, foxes were selectively bred solely based on their 'tameness'. The population of the 'tamest' foxes, despite only being selected for that single behavioral trait, started developing dog-like traits; floppy ears, short or curly tails, piebald coats, extended reproductive season, even reduced odor. Essentially, many of the 'non-wolfy' traits we see in dogs probably began in those early days of domestication, long before humans started deliberately breeding for different traits.

It helps to remember that species designations are manmade categories that don't behave in nice, easy, predictable ways, because they're artificial boxes we try to shove nature into to make it make sense to us. The idea of 'a species is a group of organisms that can mate and produce fertile offspring' is extremely rudimentary and patently false (especially when you start looking outside the animal kingdom). Canids are actually a great example of how messy species categories are, because not only can dogs breed and produce fertile offspring with the European grey wolf and its subspecies, but the Western coyote (Canis latrans) and the golden jackal (Canis aureus). They can also interbreed with the Easter timber wolf and red wolf, though the taxonomy of both of these are hotly debated, with some people believing them to be distinct species and others believing them to be subspecies of Canis lupus. The red wolf is actually especially interesting, because it turns out that all 19 animals that formed the foundation of the conservation breeding and re-introduction efforts were not pure red wolf, but red wolf/coyote hybrids. I highly suggest this article for more details. The hearty ingredients of Canis soup

Dingoes, for the record, evolved from early dog breeds introduced to Australia, likely from Asian seafarers. The New Guinea Singing Dog has a similar story. There are other, younger populations of 'pariah' dogs as well - groups of dogs that live and interbreed with limited to no human intervention. And guess what? They don't look like wolves. They do tend to be prick-eared, with a double coat and pointed snout, but they're typically only medium-sized, often have curved or curled tails, and the most common coat color is tan or yellow.

From an evolutionary perspective, the dog-human partnership has been extremely successful. Dogs are one of the most prolific species on the planet. 'Wolf' isn't some kind of 'true form' of dogs, and deviating from that template isn't inherently damaging to individuals or the dog population as a whole. Are there some extreme traits that are detrimental to quality of life and unethical to breed for? Absolutely. But the answer isn't to say that breeding any dog that isn't wolf-like is unethical. Ironically, many of the breeds that are most closely related to wolves genetically don't look like them at all - the list includes the Shih Tzu, Saluki, Lhasa Apso, Pekingese, and Chow Chow.

I'm not even going to address the idea that we should just allow dogs with genetic faults or illness to die. Sure, we should make sure they don't reproduce and not support any breeder who does breed them. But it's also unethical to suggest we just let them die/euthanize any animal with a genetic problem, even if it's extremely easy to manage or treat with modern medicine.

 

[3GSD4IPO]

The article doesn't specify the exact extinct species of wolf. It might be direwolf, a species of wolf that went extinct between 40000 - 16000 years ago. However, it is undeniable, that dogs are wolves, they can interbreed. If you read White Fang, the main character called White Fang was an wolfdog, his mother was a malamute owned by native americans and his father was a grey wolf and White Fang has an interior conflict because he don't know if he should be a domestic dog, or follow the wild half of him. The extinct species that dogs came from have to be "Canis lupus", otherwise dogs wouldn't be able to breed with today wolves.

I read White Fang as a child. In my opinion it would be disingenuous to base much of any argument about dogs/wolves on any of Jack London's Fiction (especially after reading about Jack London himself).

The behavioral conflict in modern wolf dog hybrids is well documented and one of many reasons why such animals are not legal to own in most places in the U.S.

While the original "self domesticating" wolves (as the article I linked discusses) were probably genus and species Canis lupus, those now extinct animals were likely a subspecies. It is also likely such domestication did not occur "only here in a specific location" and "only from this" singular ancestor. It is likely over many thousands of years the domestication took place from several different ancestors/subspecies in many different locations.

I have working line German Shepherds. When Max von Stephanitz created the breed he added wolf in to get upright ears and he did quite a lot of line breeding and inbreeding to create the breed.

The genetic traits he sought live on today in well bred Working Line German Shepherd Dogs.

Today, at this point, I am not sure "how it happened" is anything more than academic.

I also do not see where altering a dog (spay or neuter) removes 1/3 of their life (I personally don't neuter males unless medically necessary; females are spayed after age 2 if not being bred). We have removed that 1/3 by not allowing intact dogs to breed. We have also removed the other 2/3rds in your OP by readily providing food and a safe place to live.

 

[WolfPack]

ogs are one of the most prolific species on the planet. 'Wolf' isn't some kind of 'true form'

Weather or not wolves are the true form of dogs, you can't deny that, for instance, pugs are some man-made aberration that shouldn't exist.

ancestor as the extinct Japanese wolf - Canis lupus hodophilax - and not the European grey wolf (Canis lupus lupus). Extinct Japanese wolf is the closest wild relative of dogs yet found

This is not valid for all dog breeds, for example for huskies, the ancestor is found to be an ancient extinct siberian wolf called Taimyr wolves, which resembles more or less the today arctic wolf, which is basically an ecomorph of grey wolf, so domestication happened many many times in history, with many types of wolves and we can't point exactly one common ancestor, the fact is that all possible ancestors of dogs are "Canis lupus", even the japanese one you cited(and the bones of Canis lupus hodophilax and our guesses of how it looked, resembles the european wolf of today, probable they looked almost identical to gray wolves since Japan and Europe have the same kind of ecosystems) I don't see any reconstitution of japanese wolves to have floppy years like the hunting dogs of today(beagle, german brac).

 

[WolfPack]

I read White Fang as a child. In my opinion it would be disingenuous to base much of any argument about dogs/wolves on any of Jack London's Fiction (especially after reading about Jack London himself).

I didn't based anything on a fiction book. I just mention that wolves and dogs can interbreed and I told that the book is based on this interbreeding of wolves and dogs. The fact the Jack London wrote a book about this interbreeding isn't something I mentioned to prove a point, wasn't an argument, I wanted to point out that people do now about this interbreeding and even fiction books were written. We don't need a book to see that dogs and wolves can breed, you can theoretically leave a female dog that is in heat in a forest and wait for a wolf to come and breed with her.

 

[DaySleepers]

There are pug breeders out there who exclusively select breeding animals without BOAS (brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome) symptoms/features and from lines with as little of the issue as possible. Who screen for structural issues like hemivertebrae and aim for a functional, athletic build, and who prioritize females who can breed and birth naturally. So no, I don't think that all pugs are abominations that shouldn't be bred for. I think dogs with extreme stenotic nares, elongated soft palates, and extremely narrow trachea shouldn't be bred for, nor should dogs with crippling spinal or joint malformations. There's a difference. The breed has issues that need to be addressed, no argument there, but saying every pug is suffering from poor quality of life is just false. I also personally feel outcrossing to other breeds is appropriate if that's what's necessary to support the long-term genetic and structural health of a breed.

The finding about the Japanese wolf is very new - within the past four or five months - and they are actually close relatives of the Siberian wolf (Mysterious, extinct Japanese wolf may hold clues to origins of dogs), so not everything is yet clear about how and when things happened, nor how they fit in with the Siberian wolf connection. But they are genetically the closest 'modern' wolf relative to dogs (they went extinct officially in 1905, which is still very modern when looking at an evolutionary timescale). This suggests that they split off from the same ancestors as domestic dogs, so they wouldn't have had floppy ears, because they took a different evolutionary path that didn't include domestication. As I said, based on what we know about the morphological changes caused by domestication, it's the ancient dogs that split off from the ancestral wolf that were likely the first to start showing 'doggy' traits. My point with the Belyaev fox experiment was that features like floppy ears develop during domestication without needing to be selected for. Ancient dogs likely developed them spontaneously at some point in the domestication process, but after they split from their common ancestor with wolves, long long before humans started selectively breeding for ear shape (among other things).

And, of course, there's a long history of dogs breeding back to various wolves since their domestication, which muddies the waters when trying to pinpoint evolutionary history through genetics. Again, there's much we don't know; when and where dogs were first domesticated, how they moved across continents, how various dog or wolf populations wound up where they are now. But you are right: domestication has changed dogs morphologically, behaviorally, and even metabolically. Feral or wild dog populations don't even have the same kinds of social behavior as modern wolves. Which is why I feel like it's important to recognize how wolves and dogs are tens of thousands of years removed from each other, and while they can be compared in many ways, it's important to recognize their differences as well and refrain from assuming that if something is true for one, it should be true for the other.

 

[WolfPack]

In one word, I strongly believe that human-dogs relation was and is successfully just for humans, for dogs, it would have been better for them to remain wild wolves of any kind, weather japanese, siberian, grey, or other Canis lupus. They have a worse life as a pet being "Canis lupus familiaris"

 

[DaySleepers]

Which is absolutely your right to believe. I'm not sure I understand why someone who feels that way would own dogs, or why they'd want to try to convince a forum of dog lovers that their beloved and well cared for pets would have been better off having never existed.

 

[Toedtoes]

So why have a pet dog then?

Just because your pet looks "like a wolf", doesn't make it any less a man-made dog.

 

[Khecha Wacipi]

In one word, I strongly believe that human-dogs relation was and is successfully just for humans, for dogs, it would have been better for them to remain wild wolves of any kind, weather japanese, siberian, grey, or other Canis lupus. They have a worse life as a pet being "Canis lupus familiaris"

Considering that many of the wild canines have been and are being slaughtered in great numbers by cruel means I am not so sure that domestic dogs, could you ask them, would agree with you on that.

The thing is dogs are dogs and they are here now and will remain until all human beings die out and then they will become something else. I don't personally believe that my or anyone's opinion on how something "should" have evolved has any pertinence to anything.

And like DaySleepers I don't see why a person would even bring such an opinion to a dog forum. Unless you are just looking for a fight.

 

[RonE]

We get users on this forum that swear they love dogs and hate humans, which seems odd from someone joining a forum made up of humans talking about dogs.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone here insist that domestic dogs should not exist. It's a symbiotic relationship. I do think that we sometimes have more to gain from it than the dogs. But for my dogs, at least, it's a pretty sweet deal.

 

[Khecha Wacipi]

We get users on this forum that swear they love dogs and hate humans, which seems odd from someone joining a forum made up of humans talking about dogs.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone here insist that domestic dogs should not exist. It's a symbiotic relationship. I do think that we sometimes have more to gain from it than the dogs. But for my dogs, at least, it's a pretty sweet deal.

And it is a good deal for my dogs, too.
I happen to like dogs a lot more than I like people in general, although it is really only in moments of serious frustration that I might be heard to say I hate people!

My passion is to help dogs in whatever say I can. This means helping the people who have the dogs, of course. So often when I am helping someone with their dog problem I am really helping the dog with a people problem. But that doesn't usually mean the person is bad or hate-worthy; usually that person just hasn't learned the right way to do things.

On a forum like this, getting to know a tiny bit about the regular posters and what they do with their dogs is part of the fun.

 

[Toedtoes]

If there was no benefit to the dog, they never would have started hanging around man. And they never would have embraced the human-dog bond.

In the beginning, man simply took that bond and encouraged it for various purposes. It wasn't until much later that breeding started causing genetic defects.

Also, even street dogs retain a relationship with humans. It's on their terms. And in some countries where letting your dog roam at will, the dogs will find food on their own, sleep and interact with one another, and then go home. So something must be good about being "home" with people or the dogs wouldn't return.

 

[Khecha Wacipi]

So true, Toedtoes.
People tend to think that human beings domesticated dogs, but it is almost impossible for it to have happened that way.
Early humans had no time for capturing wild animals and taming them, nor any reason to do so.
And selective breeding occurred originally by the wild canines themselves. Some ran away from the people, and others hung around to eat the scraps and, if tolerated and not chased away, had puppies who were used to eating those scraps. So they followed the people and eventually just lived with them. It became a mutually beneficial arrangement and it still is.

 

[3GSD4IPO]

In one word, I strongly believe that human-dogs relation was and is successfully just for humans, for dogs, it would have been better for them to remain wild wolves of any kind, weather japanese, siberian, grey, or other Canis lupus. They have a worse life as a pet being "Canis lupus familiaris"

The only people I know of who believe this are those with an extreme "Animal Rights" agenda. If that is your agenda WolfPack, then say so up front, please.

 

[Toedtoes]

And it that is the case, it is pretty hypocritical to have a pet dog.