Define: "Primitive" dog/breed [Part 2]
I'm bringing this thread back, this is part 2. The original thread can be found here.
As I continue my research and learning acquired through reading, chatting with other dog fanciers, and studding my own dogs, I have found some very large holes in the logic of my arguments and definitions of what a "primitive" dog is. I think these holes are what turned the last thread into a circular argument.
I think the main issue is that my original argument was based on some assumptions, and these assumption do not "feel" correct when you really start to apply logic to them.
Here are the assumptions that I feel cause issues, and my arguments against them:
*When I use the term "wolf" or "wolves" assume I mean any Canidae that is not a "dog" [like a Fox, Coyote, Dingo, etc.].
1) Dogs evolved from wolves with the help of humans - in other words, humans domesticated dogs.
> It is highly unlikely that the people that existed around the time dogs appeared had the skill and forethought to domesticate a wolf and selectively breed it into a dog. It is far more likely that wolves domesticated themselves and thus evolved into dogs. If you take an untamed wolf into captivity, no matter how tame that wolf can become, if you breed that wolf you end up with untamed wolf cubs. The tameness that a dog innately posses would have to be evolved into the species and that type of thing, without a massive operation and selective breeding, usually only occurs in small groups that evolve as a community - collectively.
2) A mixed breed dog is a mongrel [aka "mutt"] because when humans domesticated the wolf they selectively bred it and started creating the different breeds.
> This kinda goes with what I said above. It is logically more likely that during the natural evolution from wolf to dog the dogs took on their own form that resembled more closely a mutt. Once man started to breed the dog on his own then the selective breeding would start and form new breeds.
3) The term "primitive" implies, to some, less-advanced.
> Look at humans, for a long time people thought that technology had made our civilization more advanced and technical than when compared to civilization of the past. Once we started studying current civilizations that use less technology we found that they where just as complex and socially advanced. Same applies to dogs, the social structure of a dog when compared to a wolf shows the same level of complexness.
4) A "primitive" dog aesthetically and/or behaviorally resembles a wolf.
> Going back to 1 and 2, if dogs evolved naturally from wolves then they probably looked more like a "mutt" than a wolf since genetic mutations in the community would have been mixed together through natural evolution as the new species grew and evolved.
5) Another assumption that is sometimes made is that mixing a wolf's bloodlines into a dog breed's bloodlines some how "improves" the breed and therefor implies that a wolf is some how better than a dog [faster, stronger, healthier, etc.].
> The issue I have with this is that it kinda implies that some how a wolf is more evolved than a dog when in fact that is not true. It is actually kinda an insult to dogs as they were selectively bred to perform a specific task that is, in most cases, far more advances than a wolf. For example, grey hounds run MUCH faster than wolves - how could mixing a wolf's bloodline into that breed improve it?
So based on all that I have come to the conclusion that we need a set of new terms to properly describe dog breeds and their [what we formally called] "primitiveness". This is my proposal...
Primitive: This term can be used to describe a dog that is more similar in "type" to what a dog would have been at it's earliest inception. In my opinion the perfect example of this would be a true "mutt". A village dog, the type of dog you would see eating the trash at a dump or running around the streets of remote villages. This, to me, seems like it would be closer to a "primitive" dog. This dog is a mix of all the dog breeds man created and is not the result of these breeds being mixed but instead the starting point for the creation of man's dog breeds.
Aboriginal: This term can be used do describe traits of a dog breed that trace back to very early in the breed's life. For example, one may call the pointier head with very little stop of a Kai from long ago "aboriginal" and not "primitive" [like I have described it in the past].
Ancient: This term can be used to describe very old breeds. A breed can be very old without possessing either an "aboriginal" type or "primitive" type/traits. The Akita is a good example of this, it is an ancient breed but shows very little "aboriginal" type since it has evolved so much over time and clearly the Akita is not "primitive" because it does not at all resemble a "mutt" - it's type is very defined and refined.
So that is where I am on the "primitive" debate. What do you guys think? Am I crazy?
----
As I continue my research and learning acquired through reading, chatting with other dog fanciers, and studding my own dogs, I have found some very large holes in the logic of my arguments and definitions of what a "primitive" dog is. I think these holes are what turned the last thread into a circular argument.
I think the main issue is that my original argument was based on some assumptions, and these assumption do not "feel" correct when you really start to apply logic to them.
Here are the assumptions that I feel cause issues, and my arguments against them:
*When I use the term "wolf" or "wolves" assume I mean any Canidae that is not a "dog" [like a Fox, Coyote, Dingo, etc.].
1) Dogs evolved from wolves with the help of humans - in other words, humans domesticated dogs.
> It is highly unlikely that the people that existed around the time dogs appeared had the skill and forethought to domesticate a wolf and selectively breed it into a dog. It is far more likely that wolves domesticated themselves and thus evolved into dogs. If you take an untamed wolf into captivity, no matter how tame that wolf can become, if you breed that wolf you end up with untamed wolf cubs. The tameness that a dog innately posses would have to be evolved into the species and that type of thing, without a massive operation and selective breeding, usually only occurs in small groups that evolve as a community - collectively.
2) A mixed breed dog is a mongrel [aka "mutt"] because when humans domesticated the wolf they selectively bred it and started creating the different breeds.
> This kinda goes with what I said above. It is logically more likely that during the natural evolution from wolf to dog the dogs took on their own form that resembled more closely a mutt. Once man started to breed the dog on his own then the selective breeding would start and form new breeds.
3) The term "primitive" implies, to some, less-advanced.
> Look at humans, for a long time people thought that technology had made our civilization more advanced and technical than when compared to civilization of the past. Once we started studying current civilizations that use less technology we found that they where just as complex and socially advanced. Same applies to dogs, the social structure of a dog when compared to a wolf shows the same level of complexness.
4) A "primitive" dog aesthetically and/or behaviorally resembles a wolf.
> Going back to 1 and 2, if dogs evolved naturally from wolves then they probably looked more like a "mutt" than a wolf since genetic mutations in the community would have been mixed together through natural evolution as the new species grew and evolved.
5) Another assumption that is sometimes made is that mixing a wolf's bloodlines into a dog breed's bloodlines some how "improves" the breed and therefor implies that a wolf is some how better than a dog [faster, stronger, healthier, etc.].
> The issue I have with this is that it kinda implies that some how a wolf is more evolved than a dog when in fact that is not true. It is actually kinda an insult to dogs as they were selectively bred to perform a specific task that is, in most cases, far more advances than a wolf. For example, grey hounds run MUCH faster than wolves - how could mixing a wolf's bloodline into that breed improve it?
So based on all that I have come to the conclusion that we need a set of new terms to properly describe dog breeds and their [what we formally called] "primitiveness". This is my proposal...
Primitive: This term can be used to describe a dog that is more similar in "type" to what a dog would have been at it's earliest inception. In my opinion the perfect example of this would be a true "mutt". A village dog, the type of dog you would see eating the trash at a dump or running around the streets of remote villages. This, to me, seems like it would be closer to a "primitive" dog. This dog is a mix of all the dog breeds man created and is not the result of these breeds being mixed but instead the starting point for the creation of man's dog breeds.
Aboriginal: This term can be used do describe traits of a dog breed that trace back to very early in the breed's life. For example, one may call the pointier head with very little stop of a Kai from long ago "aboriginal" and not "primitive" [like I have described it in the past].
Ancient: This term can be used to describe very old breeds. A breed can be very old without possessing either an "aboriginal" type or "primitive" type/traits. The Akita is a good example of this, it is an ancient breed but shows very little "aboriginal" type since it has evolved so much over time and clearly the Akita is not "primitive" because it does not at all resemble a "mutt" - it's type is very defined and refined.
So that is where I am on the "primitive" debate. What do you guys think? Am I crazy?
----
Comments
Primitive;
1. being the first or earliest of the kind or in existence, esp. in an early age of the world: primitive forms of life.
2. early in the history of the world or of humankind.
3. characteristic of early ages or of an early state of human development: primitive toolmaking.
Aboriginal
1. of, pertaining to, or typical of aborigines: aboriginal customs.
2. original or earliest known; native; indigenous: the aboriginal people of Tahiti.
Ancient;
1. of or in time long past, esp. before the end of the Western Roman Empire a.d. 476: ancient history.
2. dating from a remote period; of great age: ancient rocks; ancient trees.
3. very old; aged: an ancient folk tale.
But I'm still confused about the wording. I mean, all three words seem very similar to me, I can't tell how one would really be different than another.
And what characteristics are we defining as...uh..."Primitive?" [ the old primitive ] Are we basing this on aesthetics, behavior, temperament, mentality, etc?
Not trying to be argumentative, just confused is all
Basically "primitive" refers to traits of DOGS at their earliest form, "aboriginal" refers to traits of DOG BREEDS at their earliest form, and "Ancient" refers to DOG BREEDS that have been in existence since [close to] the creation of dog breeds.
In primitive dogs there were no breeds.
The characteristics are anything that fall within those three terms and apply to the dog/breed you are referring too...
- Akita is an ancient breed.
- A Gampr has a lot of Aboriginal traits.
- A wild dingo is a primitive dog.
++
- Akita are only ancient.
- Gampr are both ancient and aboriginal.
- A dingo is ancient, aboriginal, and primitive.
- A wild "village dog" is a primitive dog but not necessarily ancient and isn't aboriginal.
----
In reference to shiba, the shiba (cute and foxy, moderate stop, tightly curled tail) is not a primitve dog anymore although it retains many primitive traits. Am I correct in saying it is still an ancient breed as it has been "touched" by the hand of man, whereas the Jomon shiba/Shibaho shibas may be Aborigional as they are physically true to their origional form/close to the Japanese wolf (shallow stop, rangy, sickle tail)? Is the Mikawa the primitve successor of the shiba after the Japanese wolf, or is the mikawa just another pariah/ totally seperate extinct primitve breed?
I don't think early humans selectively were breeding in their first dealings with wolves or dogs. Wolves are the building blocks and have all the genes needed to be succesful but depending on what is needed, some are on, some are off. I believe humans, being sloppy little campers, made it easier for wolves to eat and forage from them so over time some of the genes wolves would need to have keen hearing with upright ears, or ceratin coat colours to hide, turned off. In addition, wolves with previously disadvantageous genes (spots, curled tails, bright colours, short legs, floppy ears) which normally would have died from starvation, lingered around campsites and lived to reproduce because they had easier meals. So, I'm guessing this is the genesis of the primitive dog. It may have sacrificed some very useful traits for survival, making it increasingly dependent on humans, but genes that aided in survival turned on as well (longer or shorter coats, different colours, better noses, a bark), most importantly, over time primitive dogs were learning to apply themselves to focused tasks and changed their survival behaviors-they grew bigger brains-which wolves didn't do.
Brad, is this about right, or am I way off?
I need a bit more time to digest this, but at face value it all seems to make a lot of sense. Where I'm having some trouble, is in relating some of the things that were said in the last thread to the ideas in this thread. IIRC, we came about last time to define the difference between a primitive dog, primitive breed, and primitive trait. It seems your current discussion leaves some of those (previously undefined) concepts out.
Lindsay mentioned that the Shiba "...is not a primitive dog anymore although it retains many primitive traits." How would those concepts fit into your new framework? Also, where would the "traits" that Shibas (or other Nihon Ken) retain that make people refer to them as primitive fit into this new framework as well? Would they be aboriginal?
I'm sure I'll have more to say after I can think about this a bit more, but in general I like where you're head is at.
1) "If you take an untamed wolf into captivity…"
There are studies where wild foxes were selectively bred for 'friendliness' (or selected against shyness) and that after only 5 generations, the cubs were similar to domesticated dogs in their friendless towards people. If you think about it, 5 generations isn't all that long, so a smaller community of 'wolves' following around people picking up scraps, etc. could theoretically become 'tame' fairly quickly.
2) "…dogs took on their own form that resembled more closely a mutt."
I agree. Again, I've read about studies that showed that feral dogs (not dingos, but domesticated dogs now living wild) left to their own accord all eventually revert back to a dingo-like appearance, regardless of initial breed. From this you'd assume that you're right in your argument in 1)
5) "..kinda an insult to dogs as they were selectively bred to perform a specific task.."
I've always considered wolves to be the natural (or stable) state. To me, wolves are optimally designed for survival. As we've selectively bred for specific traits that are desirable to us (speed, friendliness, etc.), you would naturally lose some of the vital 'survival' aspects. For example, greyhounds are fast, but not very powerful and couldn't take down a caribou…and friendliness would likely get you killed in the wild. So adding wolf into a breed wouldn't necessarily improve the breed, but overall would balance out attributes more towards the natural state.
I think the biggest complicating factor is in using the word 'primitive' for describing physical appearance as some compare traits to wolves and others to 'dogs' (or non-domesticated dogs). For this, I'd have to agree with your 3 'new' classifications. But when it comes to using 'primitive' to describe attributes of behaviour or temperament, I think that the term as we've been using it is bang on.
Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. Cheers!
PS - how do you get font to show up in italics or bold??
I like your use of pariah-dogs, that would have been a better choice in my examples where I used the Dingo - I also think "pariah-dog traits" is more decrepit than the term "primitive".
I also think you are dead on with your last paragraph about wolves and their evolution to dogs - you may have done a better job explaining what I was trying to convey.
I really just don't like the ambiguousness of the term "primitive" - that is really the core of my issue and where the posts have come from. I would not mind the complete removal of that term when referring to dogs & dog breed.
----
Dave - It depends on the the trait you are trying to describe...
Lets go back to the root of why I created that first thread... I was having talks with people [other dog fanciers] and often time the term "primitive" would come up to describe a dog [or dog's breed] that , imo, was not primitive at all. It seems the term "primitive" has been so overused that it now takes on a whole bunch of meanings - kinda like the term "dominant". These terms are nondescript and ambiguous and so they allow users of the terms to use them to describe traits that would be better described with some other term - and that creates confusion.
So, I guess I am proposing that we limit and/or remove the use of the term "primitive", and I am offering some other terms that I feel do a better job of describing some of the traits that are often described as "primitive". I am also VERY OPEN to suggestions - I want this to be a brain storm type discussion. I am just starting it.
As for your question...
I would say the Shiba, like the Akita, is an ancient breed that shows very little aboriginal traits but has some "primitive" [pariah-dog] traits that have been maintained as a feature of the breed.
As for the Shikoku, Kai, Hokka, and Kishu...
I would say they are not ancient breeds, but are breeds that show a great deal of aboriginal traits and some "primitive" [pariah-dog] traits.
With the use of these new terms I am proposing, I would say that there are very few dogs breeds that are "primitive" or have a great deal of "primitive" traits, tho there are probably a great deal of dogs that show "primitive" traits and are not pure-blooded.
----
#1 You are referring to Belyaev's example with breeding foxes. That is a REALLY interesting example. You are right, it didn't take many generations to get that "pariah-dog" look but that was a MASSIVE fox fur breeding facility and they had the luxury to over look things like health and inbreeding. They only cared for the fur quality and as long as their selective breeding didn't effect that then all was good.
It would take a LOT of wolves and humans a LOT of time to selectively breed them into dogs. That is why I feel it is more likely the wolf tamed itself and then started hanging around humans and then humans started to breed them. does that make sense?
#5 Yes, I agree. A wolf's bloodlines would improve a dog breed's ability to survive as a wild.
So then - do you think the term "primitive" should ONLY refer to behavioral traits?
----
#1 - I don't know if we are referring to the same thing. The one I was referring to, there wasn't much change in the physical appearance of the foxes, they still looked like foxes, but the 5 generationers were not remotely as timid around people as the original ones (and yes, they were purely selecting for lack of timidness and nothing else). I guess the point was that if you had a smaller group of wolves following around a human tribe/group/etc (and there were lots of individual groups that wolves could be following around), it wouldn't take that long for them to domesticate themselves. Then the subsequent selective breedings by us would have created all the variety we have today.
As for the pariah dog thing, there have been studies of ferral dogs of various breeds that congregate together into packs and after multiple generations all eventually they all end up looking like the pariah dog/dingo. Interestingly enough, this typically only happens in rural environments. Ferral dogs in urban or city areas usually don't join together into packs, they are mostly solitary. The theory is that food is so plentiful, that they don't get the added benefits of being in a pack that they would when food is more scarce (i.e. out in the 'wild')...but that is a WHOLE other discussion in itself!
To your last question, I guess I would have to say yes. It seems to be universally applicable to behavioural traits. As for physical traits, things get a little confusing (per your initial points) and I like the 3 separate terms.
PS - this is killing my productivity today...I'm gonna have to come in to work early tomorrow to make up for all the time I've "wasted"...lol
http://www.britainhill.com/GeneticStructure.pdf
I think it is generally accepted that the domestication of dogs was a two-way street. I'm not sure if its a proper symbiosis in strict terms but to put it in more romantic terms, our species probably owes dogs a great debt for our current existence, and vice-versa.
Anyway, I think the transition of our species from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a settled, agricultural one was an important turning point in the development of dogs.
As hunter-gatherers, we had neither the wherewithall nor the means to control the breeding of dogs, though we socialized them, trained them, and took care of them.
As humans setttled down to grow crops and built cities, we developed the need for more specialized dogs for guarding, herding, tracking, etc.
Anyway, I would tend to call dogs that seemed to exhibit the characteristics of those original, hunter-gatherer dogs as "primitive." I don't know if I am taking steps back from where your reasoning has already led you, but there's my $0.02. Robust dogs that are suited in temperment and morphology to contributing to a mixed "pack" of humans and dogs that live off the land.
I think the pariah dog, and the proto-mutt you have pegged as "primitive," comes later, after humans have settled down and started throwing our trash into the same pile all the time. These dogs probably have more genes from scavenger canids.
The Primitive and Aboriginal Dog Society site:
http://www.canineworld.com/PADS/index.htm
They have also provided some definitions of 'primitive', 'aboriginal', and 'aboriginal breed'.
Anyways, this past year the day before the BSA show, there was a seminar. A Shiba Breeder/Judge talked about what Nippo judges look at and how the Shiba and other Japanese dogs are suppose to be buildt and possess "heart" and "spirit" and look "strong".
He says Nihon Ken are "primitive" because if you were to let them loose in the wild, they will be able to survive.
The way the word "primitive" is used, it seems that it can have multiple meanings. So far, what I've skimmed and scanned. I think everybody has a pretty good idea. Maybe it's neither "right" nor "wrong", just varient.
----
Malek - I have read that before, I think Britain linked me too that article [that is her website]. To me, that article is speaking more towards ancient breeds. The oldest breeds would obviously share some common DNA since they were, theoreticly, created around the same time and therefore from the same common "stock". That's my take anyway.
----
Cliff - Interesting, and thanx. My only thought it, those "dogs" that you are referring to as "primitive" - how do we know those are really "dogs"? Could they not still be a wolf at that point?
Never the less it really feeds my point, that wolves were not tamed by man. They tamed themselves over time. Tameness is defined by a smaller flight threshold, a dog has a much larger flight threshold when compared to wolves [meaning they will hang around humans longer before they freak out and run off]. So I can see wolves slowly taming themselves as they start hanging around humans more and more and then that leads into your point about man training them and then eventually breeding them.
But I see your point. Hmm... So can you suggest a term to use instead of "primitive"?
----
Sarah - I wish I had looked at that site before I started this thread. As usual, perfect link! You and Patrice are like the link Ninjas of the forum! Thanx!
PS: I tried to IM you back on MD but I'm not sure it worked, I got an error msg. Sorry... I'm not ignoring you.
----
Corina - Maybe... but TBQH, I don't really agree with that judge's reason to dub a breed as "primitive". Can you name any breed of dog that would not be able to survive own it's own in the "wild"? If it was the case that only "primitive" breeds could survive on their own then the rescue system would have a lot less dog breeds in their shelter, because all the non-primitive breeds would not make it, right?
----
Maybe the definition of a "primitive" dog or breed is a simple as a measurement of flight threshold - maybe a "primitive" dog has a smaller flight threshold, which would indicate less-tameness???
----
I think the judge might have being using Nihon Ken as an example of "primitive" if that makes more sense? He said something about letting them loose in the mountains to provide for themselves. And yes, if that were case...I believe that there would be a few breeds who would not make it (reguardless of classification). In this case though, "primitive" is a kind of trait.
Brad: I prefer to use "pariah-dog" (I misused primitive) to describe a non-wolf living near people which in some way depends on the presence of humans for survival at some point in it's life. This dog should be capable of foraging and hunting independently (depending less and less on the pack), but at times will find it necessary to live in close proximity to human settlements.
I am guilty of not using "primitive" correctly, but now that this has been clarified a little, am I correct to say "primitive" should be used in reference to physical and behavioral traits such as a pariah-dog may retain? The same should apply to "aborigional" and "ancient," as you stated much earlier.
An example: "the New Guinea Singing Dog, a pariah-dog, is an ancient aborigional breed that retains primitve features. The same is true for the Australian Dingo. "
Primitive features: Behavior traits-Anything a wolf or pack would do in the same situation.
Physical traits-a set of inherited features you would be able to trace directly to the origional ancestor
(pariah-dog or wolf).
For instance, dingo, shiba and jindo all share the same primitive coat colours but clearly live in
entirely seperate areas. They must share a common ancient ancestor.
Something which is interesting to note is how the fact that the Shiba, Shikoku, Kishu, Kai, and probably the Akita seem to exhibit a "natural" dogginess that has had less obvious specialized breeding / interference / manipulation by man is an excellent fit to the Japanese cultural aesthetic.
Well, I relay this information because I am confused by the statement made that wolves somehow originally tamed themselves, and then humans came along and finished the job to somehow transition to what we think of as domestic (i.e. non-primitive) dog. I think that humans had to be in that equation all along for true "taming" to occur.
Just my $.02 worth. I will take the time to read the materials at the links posted, which I admit I have not done yet.
It's probably to some extent true that it was a two-way street - these proto-dogs adjusted their behavior to suit their life as members of mixed human-dog packs, and humans did too. There is probably no way to know exactly what the effects of this dogicization on early humans was, because the humans who didn't have dogs probably didn't survive the last ice age.
About the dog domestication and tameness, if we recall what Darwin said about the "survival of the fittest" and apply it here, I think it's safe to say that when the domestication started there were wolves that were friendlier and more curious that others. This would make them more fit to interact with humans that the not so friendly ones. Admitting friendliness is a genetic trait, friendlier wolves begin friendlier wolves that, being used to the presence of Man, got socialized with Man. (let's admit that the not so friendly offspring "chose" not to stay in the "human circle" and ran away to get back together with the wilder wolves or attacked and got killed by humans, continuing the natural/artificial selection process). This might be a bit romanticized, but doesn't seem impossible as a hypothesis. So I think it's not entirely wrong to say that dogs evolved form wolves (and the other canidae that can cross breed with them) with the help (or by the action) of humans, that help might just not have been entirely on purpose at first, but it existed. Early humans might not have known what they were doing or have the skills to do it the best way, but their interaction with wolves got process started and guided it to some extent.
On the 2nd point, as I wrote before, I think if we let all the breeds in the world roam free together and not control their breeding, they'll turn "back" to a mid-sized dog that will probably resemble the early dogs. The dingo example fits, I think. I don't think selective breeding started right away from the domestication process. To me, it makes more sense that it started when Man started to settle down and started selecting dogs that fit better into their needs. This doesn't mean that the "original dog" wasn't very close in appearance and behaviour to the wolf. I think it just means that Man's actions on Dog brought the whole dog gene pool to be bigger and more diverse that it could ever possibly be without those actions, (pardon me for the poor use of some expressions) and so bigger than the Wolf's gene pool. To explain what I mean with this, I'll use the Chihuahua. I don't think Chihuahuas could exist on their own. We can try to explain their existence through selective breeding over loads of generations, selecting the smaller dogs and all that, but ultimately what it did was to allow genetic information that would not make it in thee wild and probably would be naturally selected out of the gene pool to exist today and if we add it to that "all the breeds of the world" mix, it would help produce something that isn't exactly the original.
I agree with Mike on number 5. "Adding wolf" might not better a determined breed for it's current characteristics but it could balance some breeds from a "survival of the fittest" point of view. I'll exclude from this breeds that I think could actually do better than the wolf such as pretty much all LGDs. I think if LGDs were to somehow turn wild, they'd be "better that the Wolf" at it. But this would be a whole new discussion.
Having said all of this:
I agree (as far as I can see) on the Primitive description. Primitive dogs will look more like the original dog (or the starting point to Dog). I just don't think there's a way to know what that is right now.
I agree entirely on the Aboriginal and Ancient definitions as they apply to this context.
I hope I didn't make a mess of my arguments...and I admit I didn't read the whole thread as I started getting ideas so excuse me if I repeated anyone's thoughts.
You point about LGDs interests me since most LGDs are considered to be "naturally evolved". The only argument I would have is that one of the very most important qualities of an LGD, that give them the ability to do their job, is probably what would hurt their ability to survive in the "wild" and that is their [almost] complete lack of prey drive.
----
I really like the definitions of Aboriginal, Aboriginal Breeds and Primitive found on the PAD's site that5 Sarah pointed out [found here]: ----
What do you guys think?
----
Jess - good points - there is a story of a Kangal [Rui may have even told me about this] that became a habitual wolf eater. He would consume every wolf he killed. Pretty hardcore, huh?
----
But you know me and Kangals/Anatolians...
It's also nice to have a place like this forum where we can all grow together and learn from each other. I know I was stuck in those old school training tequnics once, I probably even tried to help some fellow forum members by recommending that junk. It's a little humbling, but I like it.
----