Talk:Dog

Classification

The article refers to dogs as omnivorous. It is true that they sometimes eat foods other than meat and that in some species those foods can form a substantial part of the diet. However, dogs are belong to the order Carnivora and are officially carnivorous. If dogs can cross-breed with wolves, they'd better be in the same order. Probably the canid with the least meat in its diet is the fox, if we're going to quibble. Bears are Carnivora although they eat quite a variety of foods. Remember that animals can secondarily develop different modes of life, but that doesn't change their evolutionary history: they have the teeth and inheritance of a carnivore. The cross-reference should go to Carnivore or, better yet, to Carnivora, both of which refer plainly to diet vs. taxonomy, unlike the entry for Omnivore.

P.S. A series of fossil discoveries in the 1990s showed that whales developed from a meat-eating hoofed animal (artissodactyl?).

Monado 10 April 2005

Scientific name

Isn't the scientific name now refered to as just Canis familiaris, without the lupus? Canis lupus is the name for the gray wolf - so isn't "Canis lupus familiaris" saying that the domestic dog is a subspecie of the gray wolf? I have learned in school that the scientific name is indeed just Canis familiaris. Perhaps a note about the differing opinions on the scientific name should be included in the article? Shadowlink1014 19:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It seems to have gone the other way--used to be canis familiaris, but now is more generally considered to be a subspecies. (They can interbreed and produce fertile offspring...) I don't know what the various current genetic studies will reveal. A couple of years ago they were saying that the DNA showed that there was virtually no difference between dogs & wolves let alone most breeds; most recent articles in the last month or so say that in fact they can even tell what breed the dog is in many cases. So you might be right that the jury is still out, but I'm not confident enough in what I've read and where to make intelligent-sounding statements about it. Elf | Talk 20:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hasn't there been a change to calling the domestic dog canis lupis familiaris?

Daniel C. Boyer

External links

This is wikipedia, not yahoo. The "external links" should be used in rare cases when external sites contain useful, but copyrighted (and hence cannot be incorporated into Wikipedia) information; The "external links" should not become a huge list of every site that is about somehow relevant to dogs. The latest link added, supposedly to a very specific health problem (dry eyes) in dogs but actually on a cat site (!) - is a prime example of what should not be on the external links link. The link to the amstaf site is another good example - why link to this specific site and not to one of the other 100 breads? After all, there's a seperate dog breeds article, and perhaps even a separate amstaf page - so move that link there. I'm not bold enough to trim the link list myself because it appears that there are several frequent contributors to this article who are better knowledgable about the philosophy of this article. Nyh 14:18, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Expanding article

Added sentence expanding on jobs of dogs. --Daniel C. Boyer

Dogs vs wolves

The article implies that wolves are dogs. Isn't this false in any sense? They're both canines, but they aren't both dogs. (Is there an older or specialized sense of "dog"? If so, it shouldn't be the first one listed.)

In fact, it's the other way around: dogs are wolves. It's just that there are far more dogs than wolves. Dogs are unquestionably descended from wolves that adapted to the presence of early Man. However successful dogs are as a species, they are quite recent in origin. They are all a mere 10,000 years away from being wild wolves. Dogs and wolves interbreed easily so long as differences of size don't preclude mating.

Wasn't there a controversy a few decades ago about whether dogs were descended from wolves or from hyenas? Genetic evidence has settled it in favour of wolves, but it might be interesting to mention the hyena theory...? --JamieHall 23:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading about dogs for many years (only a few decades) and don't remember ever seeing anything about this. If someone can find a solid reference for this, certainly would be worth citing. Elf | Talk 00:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Photos

I have a picture of a dog that can be used, but what is the size of the picture have to be? - fonzy

Missing image
Shepador_Chewer.JPG

This puppy is part German Sheperd part yellow Labrador retriever.

There is still a request for a dog pix on the main page. Would this one work? ~~(Copy "Image" designation and remove "_Thumb" to get a larger image.~~ Patrick0Moran 04:12, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure about the breed/mix? Looks an awful lot like a pure-bred Anatolian puppy to me!

If it's hard to tell the breed of an adult dog, it's even harder to make guesses about puppies: They're all short-haired, fuzzy, round-faced, and flop-eared. I've left a note on the photographer's talk page asking to clarify, but I have no reason to doubt the statement. Elf | Talk 02:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm the owner. I bought the puppy for about $30. I saw the sire, who was supposed to be a German Shepard but looked pretty scruffy for a purebred. I didn't see the dam, but was told that she was a yellow Labrador retriever. The owner of the dam blamed the owner of the sire for letting him get loose, so the former took over the task of selling the puppies to good homes. The now-adult dog has a band of darker color right down his spine, as though somebody had dipped a wide paint brush in a color darker than his side and traced it from head to tail. He has a blue-black spot or two in his tongue, which would argue for some Chow in his family history somewhere. He's a very nice dog, not inclined to attack before anybody has done anything to him, and in some ways timid, but very protective if he suspects that I am coming under danger of attack. My horse stepped on his right rear foot by accident one time, which he interpreted as an attack and he lept up to bite the horse at the lower end of her mane. Fortunately he didn't actually succeed in biting her, but I was surprised that he could jump to the height of my own throat with an injured paw. He's not large, less than 50 lbs. In all he's a pretty good argument for hybridizing to avoid genetic problems of hip or whatever. P0M 19:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Medical

The instructions about how to administer medicine to a dog calls me to question to this to the limited extent that each of my two dogs would not take a plain pill out of my hand if it were given to them "cold" (they would either not take it in their mouths at all, or take it in their mouths and immediately spit it out), but they would take the pills if I said to them, "You need to take this to make you well!" and took them out of my hand and swallowed them plain. Thus I think the implication that every dog would need to be administered medicine by this method (or the idea I have sometimes heard stated that dogs have to have pills wrapped up in meat or cheese) is untrue. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:52 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Obscure food reference

"There are dog farms in South East Asia, where dogs are grown as source of meat. While Philipine outlawed the consumption of dog meat, it upset a local tribe which regarded dog meat as their traditional food. In 2000, animal rights activists criticised the Korean practice of eating dog meat and some angry South Koreans instead decided to promote dog meat culture during the Olympic Games" - Does anyone else think this is too obscure? Evil saltine 06:13, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it is a fact and it is usually the news headline (not in America or Europe, of course) when animal rights activists crash with those dog eaters. While half of the article is about dog-as-pet, we have the duty to tell the readers about the "dark side" of the dog-human interaction. It is sad, you can rewrite the paragraph but you cannot simply delete it and ignore this fact. Sorry. -wshun 06:40, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I wasn't going to delete it, and i know it's sad, it just seemed like it could use a little clarifying, that's all.

Wish the rewriting is better. wshun 23:55, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

re: Dog lovers

"Understandably, the conflicts between dog lovers and dog eaters occasionally appear as headline news."

From a strict NPOV, couldn't both groups be described as "dog lovers"? (As in, "steak lovers" or "fish lovers".)

Seriously, this sentence might be better re-written, or deleted.

Cockadoodle?

"Adult Female Cockadoodle"? Perhaps I'm exhibiting ignorance, but I do have interest in dog breeds and this is the first time I run across this particular one. Google cross-referencing only turns up a Tom & Jerry episode named Cockadoodle Dog. And if not the breed, what does "Cockadoodle" exactly refer to? In case it is the name of that particular dog, my vote is for putting the breed instead of that... --AceMyth 05:36, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Never mind

The last edit by Elf is seemingly a good one. ~~but information has been lost. What happened to Trophallaxis, e.g.? Can I revert?~~ Paul Beardsell 03:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. Paul Beardsell 03:58, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite/reorg

I think the paragraph on chocolate is out of place. I appreciate the intent of the author to try to save dogs' lives, but find that paragraph disproportionately emphasizes one specific health issue, as well as being written in a style that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (e.g. exclamation point, etc) If there was an article on dog health, then a section on chocolate would be fine, but otherwise it seems as random as putting something like "always have young children ride in the back seat" in the article on homo sapiens.

Also I think the section on dogs as food seems a little strange, given the size of the overall dogs article, I'd think one sentence would do it, rather than a whole section.

Just my suggestions....

-rob ( user:Robbrown )

and good suggestions they are, too. Actually the whole article needs a rewrite, taking into account the more specific articles that we now have. Some of the bits in it look decidedly amateur now. seglea 07:57, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The general organization is very similar to the Horse article and that seems to work fairly well. Not that the article couldn't use work, as it has definitely expanded in bits and pieces. Based on thoughts above, I was going to start an article on Dog health but I couldn't find a similar model to base it on (like Horse health, Feline medicine, or similar), so I didn't do it. Yet. Any opinions on the best title? (E.g., Canine health?) Elf | Talk 00:46, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I agree with everyone--how's that for tact? I do see the article as needing a rewrite, but as there's so much work yet to do on this project, I'm not going to stress over it. Perhaps if we all re-read at our convenience and edit or add when something strikes us? I began this today.
Elf, I'd go with something like 'Dog Health'. Canine Health implies that you're also going to speak to wolves and ferals and the like. Quill 23:15, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I did a little reorganizing in an attempt to start refining this section. I added some headings, and added a new section that I named 'Diseases and Ailments'. I'm no expert on either, so feel free to add...edit...etc., etc. Quill 06:23, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Additions and removals

Thinks to add: dog vision, I'm told they see in black and white, is this true, if so can somebody add it to the article?

The article mentions the effect of feeding a dog chocolate, maybe we could add the effect of alcohol.

I did. --66.231.38.91 20:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edward 13:05, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Black & white is an old belief; recent info is that they see color but are red-green colorblind. If I can find more info perhaps I'll add it to the article. I don't have details about alcohol; presumably it has the same effect as it does on people, but because dogs are smaller, it would take a much smaller amount to be toxic. Something else to research. Elf | Talk 21:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just removed this addition:

Dog is also used as a derogatory term for a woman, and as a jocular term for an unscrupulous or sly man. The latter usage was formerly an insult, but its use in this context has declined.

I don't think it's wrong or bad, just misplaced.

a) this is really a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia reference b) term is more often used for a man, use for a woman is modern and less frequent

I thought of creating a disambig. page but thought the text would be better placed at a dictionary entry. Left it here so someone could work with it if they were so inclined.

Quill 00:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Page needs references

The page needs technical references to some parts (example: "Intelligence" -> Kaminski paper; "diseases" -> medical papers; "sense of direction"). The way it's currently written doesn't sound too serious. (anon. user 200.161.219.103 8/1/04)

This article is more of an overview. References to detailed info about diseases would be better on individual disease articles; if there were an article on canine intelligence (which would be nice to have), someone could add detailed references if desired, but probably not here--as it is, this does mention Kaminski. If you had more info to add to sense of direction and external links to references, that would be fine, too. Elf | Talk 23:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Caption deleted from Elkhound photo

I'm loathe to revert since I believe the user was trying to do an important fix. I've requested that user Ardonik put the caption back. Quill 00:00, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mixed breed vs mongrel vs mutt

Someone just replaced mixed-breed dog with mongrel. The latter is considered pejorative, a change for the worse with no particular technical advantage. I had a mixed-breed "Italian husky", that is brown-eyed, and I never called her a mongrel, even though I frequently called her a mutt. Ortolan88 20:31, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've always preferred mutt to mongrel--the latter does seem to have acquired a pejorative inference, although technically I believe it's the most correct term for very-mixed breeds. Mixed-breed dog is probably a much more recent coinage and preference, and I don't really know how widespread it is outside the U.S. or Britain. HOWEVER, we did end up with the article about these dogs at mixed-breed dog, in part to avoid the negative connotation of the other words but also in part because mutt and mongrel are both disambig pages, so to have such pages for dogs, it would have to be mutt (dog) or mongrel (dog) which aren't the most optimum titles. ANYWAY, mostly because that's the article name, I readjusted that paragraph in this article to emphasize the mixed-breed terminology. Elf | Talk 21:31, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's a good thing that...

...dogs are not human beings, and thus it isn't sexist to have this article at Dog based on what the second paragraph of this article says. 66.245.69.5 00:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Caption

I don't know why anyone is using <small>; it looks like about a 4-point font on my screen, as if the default font in the display wasn't small enough. I removed it and used a different format that I've seen in some other areas. However, in the WikiProject:Dog breeds, we use all thumbnails; the goal was to make it clear that someone can click on the image and see a larger one, which information one loses w/out the thumbnail, plus the thumb allows captions which otherwise one has to go through contortions to get. I've left off the <wiki>|thumb|</nowiki> again for the moment, but I'd really like to see it put back. Elf | Talk 01:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The thumb gives a clear indication that the full size image is available to view (and, as the photographer, obviously I would like the full image viewed to show off my work ;). I also think the image looks better with the border. And the caption is easier to place and better formatted with "thumb" too -- sannse (talk) 10:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

addition of info about mixed breeds

This has been added--I removed it because (a) the topic is covered elsewhere (mixed-breed dog) and (b) it's just not true--then it was readded:

"" Pure-bred dog shows notwithstanding, mixed breed dogs often combine the best qualities of the breeds mixed and are usually heathier than purebred dogs. Even prize winning purebred dogs are sometimes the victim of crippling genetic defects due to inbreeding."

To be true, it would have to read:

" Pure-bred dog shows notwithstanding, mixed breed dogs sometimes combine the best qualities of the breeds mixed, although sometimes they combine the worst, and are sometimes healthier than purebred dogs, although sometimes they are not. Even prize winning purebred dogs are sometimes the victim of crippling genetic defects due to inbreeding, but then, so are mixed-breed dogs."

This ends up being a nonstatement. There's no evidence except anecdotal that I'm aware of that says that mixed-breed dogs are "usually" healthier than purebred. This needs to come out for both reasons. If there is empirical evidence somewhere contrary to what I've seen and experienced, I'd like to see it referenced and the info needs to go into the mixed-breed article, not here. Elf | Talk 02:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Moreover, inbreeding does not cause genetic defects; rather, it increases the likelihood of genetic pairings, good and bad.Quill 04:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that most information regarding mixed-breed dogs belongs in that article but a brief introduction to the major issues also belongs in this article. I understand that mixed breed dogs present problems as well as opportunities, for example, regression towards the mean. I have edited the added material so that is clearly an attributed opinion, not a proclamation of truth. Other opinions can also be included with appropriate attribution. Fred Bauder 12:01, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I still disagree that mixed-breeds are *usually* healthier than purebreds. If that's a direct quote from your source, it seems irresponsible on his part. I've just been through a dozen books looking for any statistics or anything that definitive statements, and I found a couple who said something like "hybrid theory is a nice theory but it's still just a theory" and most who say essentially that inbreeding of purebreds has resulted in an increased incidence of genetic problems--some mention behavioral, some mention physical. That still falls a long way short of mixed breeds "usually" being healthier than purebreds. Of all the books I checked, one says that the easiest way to avoid genetic problems is to adopt a mixed breed. That still doesn't say that they're usually healther--all that says to me is that, if you have (pick a number out of a hat) 10 purebreds, 2 of which have genetic problems, and 10 mixes, 1 of which has genetic problems, your odds are better by picking a mixed breed. But that's not "usually" healthier. Elf | Talk 16:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is not a direct quote. Perhaps it could be rephrased in some way. A lot of this is breed specific and applies more to prize-winning purebreds than to run of the mill dogs. It's the collie with the long nose that is most likely to have eye problems, not some collie off a farm. Some breeds were developed from very few original individuals. That also aggravates the problem. The chapter in the book I quote in the references says over and over that health is a problem. The hardcover: ISBN 1558211403 is much cheaper than the paperback. Fred Bauder 16:35, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the material. I just re-read the book and although he says a great many thing that would argue against trying to keep a purebred dog as a pet, at no place does he argue that mixed breed dogs are more healthy or desireable. I simple drew that conclusion from the information he presents. His solution is for breeders to do better and buyers to be very careful. I apologize for upsetting you. Fred Bauder 20:58, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Usually

Thanks. I'm not upset about that. Just trying to make sure that the article is accurate. In that light: Fred, please stop putting incorrect "usually" back into "'Mixed-breed dog are dogs that do not belong to specific breeds, **usually** being mixtures of two or more." I've removed it for the 3rd time. Are you saying that mixed-breed dogs sometimes aren't mixed-breed dogs??? Elf | Talk 21:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm rereading the edit history and see your comment "Not all dogs are descended from a purebred dog of any breed" which I misinterpreted earlier, too. So I apologize. But that's not what this sentence says. I think then you're saying that "mongrel or mutt also refers to dogs that are not descended from a purebred dog of any breed, which might be the case in some countries with a large feral dog population"?? Something like that. But mixed-breed dogs are always mixed breeds! :-) Elf | Talk 21:49, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feral dogs are wild dogs, for example, I have read that in Mexico one may encounter feral Chihuahuas. As to mongrel and mutt, they are negative terms I just didn't remove or make an issue of. I would not describe any dog by those terms. In the United States due to our fascination with purebred dogs, dogs which have no purebred dog in their ancestry may be vanishingly small but they probably exist. In other countries, particularly India, unless you wish to call the pariah dogs of India purebred they are the most common dogs. Fred Bauder 12:14, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

A pack of starving voracious feral Chihuahuas is a scary thought. You'd have to wear ankle protection every time you ventured into the wilderness. BTW, mutt and mongrel do sometimes have a negative connotation mainly because of people's aforementioned fascination with purebreds. I do prefer to call my dogs mixed breeds. They are, however, perfectly valid words that can be used for mixed breeds or any dog of uncertain ancestry. This is an encyclopedia, after all. Per websters in regards to dogs, Mutt = mongrel dog; Mongrel=an individual resulting from the interbreding of diverse breeds or strains, esp one of unknown ancestry. Per OED, Mongrel = a dog of no definable beed, resulting from various crossings; Mutt: Oddly enough, not in my copy? Is this In neither case does it define them as being insulting terms for the dogs; only for people. Elf | Talk 18:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dogs as Working Partners

Excellent info, but too much for here.

I would much rather see the information added to the article on working dogs. This particular article can't be all things to all people--er--dogs. Quill 07:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dangers

This section has run amock as well. It now reads as if everyone's pet pooch is a canine timebomb. Much of the cautionary information applies to strange dogs (strange as in 'unknown', not 'peculiar'). For example, one should be able to take food from one's own dog--a dangerous item, for example, and one's own dog should be trained to allow it. Quill 08:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taking food from dogs is tricky. While I can take food from my dogs who are to my knowledge super tolerant, a visiting child may be badly bitten. Fred Bauder 21:08, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Which is why I think a distinction should be made if this is being added to the article. Quill 23:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought of such an inclusion. The rules for one's own dog differ from those for someone else's.

As the introducer of this section, I have stated much that should be obvious. It's worth noting that the dog-man relationship is one of instinctive respect, and any violation of that instinctive respect makes one of the world's most dangerous creatures out of even the gentlest of large creatures. Most persons get the message whenever a dog shows any aggression. Where human stupidity meets the animal world, severe injury or death is possible. Dogs are large predators, and they have much in common with cats of like size. The largest dogs approach the size of lionesses, and have obvious similarities of behavior and build. The threshhold of behavior that can get one hurt is far higher for a dog than almost any other large predator, whether a bear, big cat, giant snake, or crocodilian, but it still exists. The dog is one of the last animals that one wants as an enemy -- which explains why dogs usually scare off burglars, and why police canine units are so effective in apprehending suspects.

Yes, dog claws are sharp, and dog scratches are prone to infection, as I can attest from my own experience from an inadvertent scratch. --66.231.40.135 01:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I feel this section needs an extensive re-write - and I have to wonder at where 'world's most dangerous creatures' (from this discussion, not the article) comes from! Some of the things that are supposedly prohibited are things that responsible dog-owners do regularly as part of properly socialising dogs, and the part re why children are especially prone to attack is only relevent to babies still crawling! No mention of the fact that the the relative size of dog and child is crucial. No mention of the importance of avoiding eye-contact with strange dogs that are acting in a threatening manner. (Molony)

I also think it overemphasizes some aspects & underemphasizes others. Feel free to edit it as needed. Elf | Talk 02:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dogs and cats

Article could benefit from some information on how dogs interact with other pets, especially cats, since it is fairly common to have dogs and cats (and possibly other pets) together in one household. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 04:41, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Dogs as Sporting Partners

Since this article quickly becomes too long, I would like to see the new additions in this section moved to their own entries. We already have an article on setters e.g.; anything new should be merged. Quill 22:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Starting article on dog training

Fools rush in, but I am starting an article on dog training. Plenty of opportunities for all to giv their favorite theories, etc. Ortolan88

You're a brave & unsung hero. Thanks for plunging in! Elf | Talk 02:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A lonely one at this point. See Talk:dog training for a list of stuff that needs to be added. Ortolan88 18:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center

I added the link to the Poison Control Center to the section on Dangerous Foods rather than External Links because I felt that it should be easy for readers to find in the event of an emergency. Although Wikipedia is probably not the best source in cases of possible poisoning, I think it probable that at least a few people will end up at this section. The ASPCA site has a lot of good, authorative info, and although it is not free ($50.00 US), its telephone service can be a literal life saver. Dsurber 20:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dogs hearing range

I've found one book (The Dog, David Alderton) that says that dogs & humans hear down to about 20 Hz (and dogs up to 100 KHz); another book (The New Dog Handbook, Hans-J. Ullman), says dogs hear 70Hz to 100KHz. Another book (The Complete Dog Owner's Manual', Amy Marder, VMD) says only "dogs are able to hear sounds of much higher frequency than humans--50,000 to 60,000 cycles per second compared to 20,000 cps" in humans. Not quite a rhetorical question: Why the variations in highs and lows? Does it depend on the breed? I'm adjusting the text for the futz factor until/unless we can answer this question. Elf | Talk 14:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dogs are dependent on humans?

Quote from 'Dogs as Pets': "Dogs are quite dependent on human companionship and may suffer poor health without it."

What evidence is there of this? If there is evidence, is any of it conclusive enough to warrant speaking of it as a scientific fact?

Um, compared to, say, an unscientific fact? ;-) Good question. If/when I have time, I'll go in search of supporting info. It's certainly true in the case of many oddly modified breeds who wouldn't be able to hunt or reproduce without human assistance--some can't even swim (and don't really know it) because of the way they're built. But whether that's generally true for all dogs--hmm. Elf | Talk 00:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It not that dogs as a species cannot live without humans, but rather that individual dogs can develop great emotional bonds with their companions, and when separated from them, they can emotionally suffer. I don't think this is a scienfic fact, I've always thought it was common knowledge. --Berkut 08:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know, they say that a pet rabbit lives for only a few days if its released into the wild by its owner. My question is, how do you know, unless you release a bunch of pet bunnys into the woods and count the bodies? I think a better way to say this would be "emperically, it appears that dogs are dependent on humans...."

JMHO... 166.20.114.10 19:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

needs section on distemper

It needs a section on distemper for the medical piece, just something small, if somebody knows enough to write a quick summary. Gzuckier 03:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Lost dogs

I removed 2 US based lost dog services. This is an international encyclopedia, and it is just so much spam for the rest of us, SqueakBox 22:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Dog"