Talk:Dog

Diet

It's just a general "thought" of the person who wrote it. There is even a "disclaimer" at the bottom of the article the footnote references to make sure a reader knows that it is "written for and by students without any claims of accuracy."

The use of this as a "footnote" boggles the mind.

It certainly does! Farts, what dogs do all the time. I have to evacute my house whenever my dog decides to let out some air. TERRIBLE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.202.110 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who noticed the absurd assertion in the article that dogs are omnivores.

The absurd thing is that Wikipedia normally observant and quick to catch nonsense like this, has completely missed how the concept of the "footnote" to "verify" a fact has been royally abused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolorious (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

More published proof that dogs are carnivores, not omnivores:
Dogs desended from wolves. As dogs got demesticated thay have changed. Their teeth are for punturing but most people give dogs regular dog food. As you probably know dogs will usually eat anything, that doesn't make them carnivors. Canines don't hunt down meat and feed on it. The average dog owner feeds their canine dog food and what is in the food in vitemins and healthy minerals for the dog. Dogs love meat.

As you look into your dog's mouth, notice those huge impressive teeth (or tiny needle sharp teeth). These are designed for grabbing, ripping, tearing, shredding, and shearing meat (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 258.). They are not equipped with large flat molars for grinding up plant matter. Their molars are pointed and situated in a scissors bite (along with the rest of their teeth) that powerfully disposes of meat, bone, and hide. Carnivores are equipped with a peculiar set of teeth that includes the presence of carnassial teeth: the fourth upper premolar and first lower molar. Hence, dogs do not chew, they are designed to bite, rip, shred, scissor/crush and swallow.

However much, we humans have done to tinker with and change the dog's body design (resulting invarying sizes and conformations), we have done nothing to change the internal anatomy and physiology of our carnivorous canines. "Dogs have the internal anatomy and physiology of a carnivore" (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a highly elastic stomach designed to hold large quantities of meat, bone, organs, and hide. Their stomachs are simple, with an undeveloped caecum (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 260.). They have a relatively short foregut and a short, smooth, unsacculated colon. This means food passes through quickly. Vegetable and plant matter, however, needs time to sit and ferment. This equates to requiring longer, sacculated colons, larger and longer small intestines, and occasionally the presence of a caecum. Dogs have none of these, but have the shorter foregut and hindgut consistent with carnivorous animals. This explains why plant matter comes out the same way it came in; there was no time for it to be broken down and digested (among other things). Some educated People know this; this is why they tell you that vegetables and grains have to be pre-processed for your dog to get anything out of them. But even then, feeding vegetables and grains to a carnivorous animal is a highly questionable practice.

"Dogs do not normally produce the necessary enzymes in their saliva (amylase, for example) to start the breakdown process of carbohydrates and starches; amylase in saliva is something omnivorous and herbivorous animals possess, but not carnivorous animals. This places the burden entirely on the pancreas, forcing it to produce large amounts of amylase to deal with the starch, cellulose, and carbohydrates in plant matter. The carnivore's pancreas does not secrete cellulase to split the cellulose into glucose molecules, nor have dogs become efficient at digesting and assimilating and utilizing plant material as a source of high quality protein. Herbivores do those sorts of things" Canine and Feline Nutrition Case, Carey and Hirakawa Published by Mosby, 1995

Dogs are so much like wolves physiologically that they are frequently used in wolf studies as a physiological model for wolf body processes (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation). Additionally, dogs and wolves share 99.8% of their mitochondrial DNA ( Wayne, R.K. Molecular Evolution of the Dog Family). br>This next quote is from Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D., and his discussion on canine genetics (taken from www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html). "The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mDNA sequence..."

Dogs have recently been reclassified as Canis lupus familiaris by the Smithsonian Institute (Wayne, R.K. "What is a Wolfdog?"(www.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.html), placing it in the same species as the gray wolf, Canis lupus. The dog is, by all scientific standards and by evolutionary history, a domesticated wolf (Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pg 472.). Those who insist dogs did not descend from wolves must disprove the litany of scientific evidence that concludes wolves are the ancestors of dogs. And, as we have already established, the wolf is a carnivore. Since a dog's internal physiology does not differ from a wolf, dogs have the same physiological and nutritional needs as those carnivorous predators, which, remember, "need to ingest all the major parts of their herbivorous prey, except the plants in the digestive system" to "grow and maintain their own bodies" (Mech, L.D. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation.).

References: Prof. Dr. Sir John Whitman Ray B.A., ND., D.Sc., NMD., CT. MT.. CI, Cert. Pers., PhD., B.C Dip N, MD. (M.A.), Dr. Ac, FFIM., Dp. IM., F.WA I .M., RM., B.E.I.N.Z., S.N.T.R., N Z. Char. NMP, N P A Dr. Francis M. Pottenger Jr. MD Dr. Kouchakoff of Switzerland Dr. Weston A. Price Dr Tom Lonsdale Carissa Kuehn

Dr. Dr Jeanette Thomason http://www.thewholedog.org/artcarnivores.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.176.5 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It´s classified like a carnivore but is a omnivore... ??? what kind of affirmation is that?

Although there are reported cases (...) of carnivores eating plants, the classification refers to the adaptations and main food source of the species in general so these exceptions do not make either individual animals nor the species as a whole omnivores.

‘Have you ever seen a dog attack a wheat field?’

Professor David Kronfeld

Feldhamer, G.A. 1999. Mammology: Adaptation, Diversity, and Ecology. McGraw-Hill. pág 258 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdónMorales (talk • contribs) 16:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdónMorales (talk • contribs) 01:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions milk as a source of proteins for dogs. But my vet told me that dogs cannot digest milk (We use buffalo milk) and should be given meat or eggs (I have a lab female)?--Nikhil Sanjay Bapat (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The "footnote" used to "backup" the notion that "dogs are Omnivores" is BOGUS! A quick check of the link tells you it is Non-Scientific information written by and for students. That's It. It is NOT a reflection of any sort of scientific thinking or research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokonik (talk • contribs) 22:00, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

I've added some additional/better supporting cites. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Carnivores

The omnivores statement is why wiki is not accepted by any university, much less elementary school teachers. There are countless articles that classify dogs as carnivores. Anyone with a basic science background can look at the anatomy and tell where dogs fall in the classification. Domestication changes nothing. A horse is a horse if it's wild or tame. Wiki calls dogs carnivores under the carnivores section. Here they someone that chooses to feed their dog veggies thinks that changes their classification. Sorry, you just have a bias. Here's some links: http://aspenbloompetcare.com/2009/07/dogs-the-omnivore-carnivore-controversy.htm http://rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore

So, now we KNOW dogs are carnivores and all dietary decisions must conform to this if they are to result in proper, appropriate, nutrition. This is not something we can change to suit our own likes, needs and beliefs. In order to respect animals we need to honor their true nature rather than creating myths to allow for our convenience or even for our denial of living with carnivores in our homes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.44.111 (talk • contribs)

Okay, are coyotes carnivores?--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dogs are actually omnivores. Even though most of them probably do eat more meat than plants if they can help it and may prefer meat, they still do eat plants. Saying that they are carnivores is like saying that people are herbivores simply because most people eat more plants than meat. The truth is dogs do rely on plants for proper nutrition as well as on meat. I have dogs of my own and I know for a fact that they love several types of plants: they snatch carrots every chance they get, adore celery, and like to eat the wild grasses they find in their yard, to name a few. That is one reason why most, if not all, commercial dog foods include vegetables and at least one type of grain, but have more meat than other ingredients, as healthy wild dogs would eat a lot of meat as well. And about the milk: I think dogs are meant to generally be lactose intolerant, so it probably should be avoided unless your veterinarian says otherwise. Zonafur (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Zonafur

^ You're 100% wrong in your assumption. Just because a dog is opportunistic, absolutely does NOT mean it has a nutritional need for plant matter. My dog eats cat poop. Does that mean she has a nutritional need for cat poop? Should you be feeding your dog cat poop?! Of course not. By your logic, my dog must be a catpoopivore!

When's the last time you ate something you don't have a nutritional need for? Yesterday, I ate a piece of cheesy garlic bread. It may have contained some iron and some calcium an a few other vitamins and minerals, but I'm sure I could've gotten those nutrients and calories by eating a much healthier option. On top of that, I have the ability to digest what I ate (well, for the most part) -- dogs do not have a the ability (they're lacking enzymes and a proper digestive tract) to digest whole veggies. If you feed a dog a whole carrot and he swallows it whole, it'll come out whole. And if you're feeding your dog pureed veggies for vitamins and minerals, well guess what, those same vitamins and minerals can be found in meat, bone, and organ which dogs can digest much more efficiently. So, WHY would you intentionally feed them veggies for nutritional reasons when you know 1. they're not going to get anything out of it and 2. there are much more species-appropriate options available?

And, of course most commercial dog foods contain veggies and grains (take note that higher "quality" kibbles do not contain grains) -- they're cheaper than meat, afterall, and *industry* is built on *profit margins*! The pet food industry exists to line the pockets of the people in the industry. Naive and ignorant consumers (and many veterinarians) have been completely brainwashed. One more thing, did you know that your veterinarian most likely receives incentives and kickbacks for pushing certain brands (think how many vet offices you've seen pushing Hill's. And then think about what a horrible quality "food" Hill's is proven to be).

Additionally, I find it very intriguing that this same debate doesn't exist for wolves. That fact in itself really speaks to the fact that dogs are carnivores. Do you realize wolves are also opportunistic feeders? Wolves eat berries and carrots, too! With wolves, like dogs, the fruits & veggies come out just as undigested as they went in. Why aren't wolves classified as omnivores? The diet of a wolf and a wild dog is *identical*. As is quite common, you are confusing preferred tastes/diets to anatomical definitions, which are generally an indication of best and healthiest diets (not preferred tastes).

Weewoah333 (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... a bit of googling turned up this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(added) I noticed an error in the link above. It should point to this. The difference is the spelling of a search term. Just to clarify, the bit of interest reads, "Maned wolves are omnivores, consuming small vertebrates and invertebrates and large quantities of fruit, ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Try reading Carnivora. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Which says, "... nearly all carnivorans today primarily eat meat ... [o]thers, such as racoons and bears, depending on the local habitat, are more omnivorous; the Giant Panda is almost exclusively a herbivore ..." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about even including that dogs are arguable carnivores in the article, since the two sources don't exactly seem to be arguing that: one seems to discuss the "inner lives" of dogs and the other classifies dogs in carnivora, which is not to say that they are obligate carnivores. Could we get more reliable sources on this? The only sources I have say they're omnivores while cats are obligate carnivores, and these sources are veterinary textbooks. Is there an equally reputable source arguing otherwise? Faunablues (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dogs may be meat-eaters, but the typical household pooch is better described as a scavenger than as a predator. But at that, dogs can range (like humans) from vegetarian (by human choice) to 100% carnivorous (traditional Inuit hunter and sled dogs), and still thrive. That suggests that the dog is an omnivore even if it is no less deadly a predator than a cat of like size.--Pbrower2a (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The article does not say that dogs are pure carnivores. It says that they are members of the order Carnivora. They would still be so classified if they all saw the light and turned vegan overnight. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

just one subspecies?!

Wait -- so just the one subspecies encapsules all the different shapes and sizes of dogs? That's freaking amazing. -- anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.160.62.25 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

yup, oddly enough, we consider two animals as distinct as the English sheepdog and Chihuahua to be the same subspecies, check out the article on Species for more info on the trickiness of all this. -- ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and the dingo is classified as a seperate subspecies and sometimes even described as wolves although they are clearly domestic dogs (although not domesticated in the strictest sense just like many other dogs).--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dogs have a genetic peculiarity that allows for a much wider variance in traits than other mammals. Thus dogs can be bred for a wider range of traits much quicker than for example horses or cows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.223.201 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC) All this talk about carnivores... AHH! Calm down it's life ;)

Domestic instead of domesticated?

After checking the article on domestication I wondered whether it wouldn't be better to describe the domestic dog in the article as a "domestic subspecies" of the gray wolf instead of domesticated, or just as a subspecies. According to the article of domestication one characterisation is artificial selection by humans. And although this is true for the majority of the dogs who belong to breeds, this is certainly not true for feral dogs and many (if not the majority) of cross- and mixed breed dogs.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point Flynneffects (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What? feral dogs descended from domestic dogs. Their ancestors were artificially selected by humans. Crossbreed and mixed breed dogs are not decended from domesticated dogs? How the heck you figure that? You mean if you cross two breeds it's gone back to wild again? Amazing!DigbyDalton (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Pack structure

I think this sentence needs to be changed, at least to exclude the part about wolf dominance hierarchies:

"Feral dogs show little of the complex social structure or dominance hierarchy present in wolf packs"

Leading wolf researcher David Mech has spent a good deal of time recanting the whole "alpha wolf" meme that he accidentally started, based on observation of artificially-created wolf packs in captive pens.

Here's what he now says: Rather than viewing a wolf pack as a group of animals organized with a “top dog” that fought its way to the top, or a male-female pair of such aggressive wolves, science has come to understand that most wolf packs are merely family groups formed exactly the same way as human families are formed. That is, maturing male and female wolves from different packs disperse, travel around until they find each other and an area vacant of other wolves but with adequate prey, court, mate, and produce their own litter of pups.

More information here: [1]

Types and Breeds

St. Bernard dogs are not considered "herding dogs" and Labrador Retrievers are not considered "mastiffs". Please change these examples to breeds that make sense, or unlock the page to allow others to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.212.191 (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the issue. --Coaster1983 (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Carbon footprint

I've removed a recently added item on claims about health risks to humans caused by the carbon footprint of pet dogs. This was apparently based on a single book written by two architects, and as such was obvious undue weight. --TS 03:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If dogs are contributing to the death of the human species and flooding the Maldives underwater it is of absolutely more relevance than anecdotal evidence that SOME dogs may have bitten SOME people. Nothughthomas (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Attention, I request fast consensus to keep the carbon footprint edits. PLease indicate your preference below. PLease stop editing this addition until consensus is achieved. Please lodge opinions above and clear votes below. Votes lodged in places other than the appropriate suppport/oppose/undecided columns will be ignored. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: Nothughthomas

Oppose:

Undecided:

Sorry, don't support keeping the "carbon footprint" edits at least in the current form. It's simply not an immediate health issue in the same way that a dog bite is. Thparkth (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't do "votes" to determine consensus. In particular we don't ignore somebody's opinion simply because they do not wish to participate in a straw poll.

I have already expressed my opinions on this, Nothughthomas. Your arguments above about the Maldives seem to be somewhat shrill and are in danger of being mistaken for parody. --TS 04:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Accusing an editor of being "SHRILL" is not only not WP:AGF but is seriously in danger of violating WP:CIVIL. I will remind you that this entry is currently under Wikipedia probation subjecting editors to extraordinary penalties for disruptive editing and discussion tactics. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I referred to your arguments as shrill. I should have said that they do not carry much weight. --TS 04:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

reported for WP:CIVIL violation Nothughthomas (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Nothughthomas, consensus isn't determined by voting. Please see the Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion guideline and Wikipedia:Consensus, which is policy.
• There is no need to do anything quickly here -- Rome wasn't built in a day and Wikipedia:There is no deadline is a good essay explaining why.
• If you think this is important, please try a Request for comment. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

More Carbon Footprint

I'd like to know what people's feeling is regarding having some mention of the carbon footprint thing somewhere in the article. Is the consensus generally against mentioning it at all, or is the issue specifically with that particular wording in that particular section? I would personally be in favour of including it somewhere, in some form, if an additional reliable source could be found. Thparkth (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure. The "Health" section doesn't seem right for it, and at the moment it's almost like "Trivia" or "Miscellaneous information". Perhaps the gist of the article--which is based on a book by a pair of architects--might be well placed on pet, because they apparently assess the carbon footprint of several kinds of pet. But again, this sounds like a case where considerations of weight might go against inclusion. --TS 05:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're suggestion that this information belongs on "pet" rather than here is a good one. Really the issue (if there is an issue) is about the ethics of pet ownership - there's nothing substantively "doggish" about it. Thparkth (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest adding it to a new article - call it Carbon footprints of domesticated animals to place it in the proper context; that could also cover issues such as methane emissions from cattle. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Due to the substantial, stated global impacts of climate change it would only be reasonable to place this information in the first paragraph of this entry. However, I could compromise to see it in another prominent place. I do think it is most appropriate in threats to humans, however. Nothughthomas (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree that there are some articles whose subjects have a strong link to climate change, and others where the link is very tenuous. It seems to me that you see a strong link where others (it seems) see only a weak one. That's not meant to be a criticism - this is a judgement call after all. But as an uninvolved observer who has never edited this article, it seems to me that (so far) there is a consensus against including any major climate change-related information in the article, because most people see the link as too tenuous to be interesting. Do you think that's a fair assessment of the situation? Thparkth (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change#Scope, you first argued for the inclusion of the article probation tag on Keanu Reeves on the grounds that one of KR's films uses climate change as a plot device. You then started edit-warring over dog shortly after mentioning it in that discussion. I'm sorry, but I really don't think you are being serious here. I get the impression that you're trying to prove a point here because you disagree with the concept of article probation on climate change articles. Am I wrong? -- ChrisO (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I get the impression that you're trying to prove a point by the continued levying of these paper-thin and ridiculous accusations against me. I am absolutely tired of having every serious discussion continuously derailed by you showing up and either making a "joke" (that no one but you laughs at) or turning it into a wikilawyer session. This is a good discussion; please don't interrupt it by lobbing a hand grenade into the middle of it, once again. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as long as someone - even if it's only me - laughs, then it's not a wasted effort... -- ChrisO (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) @ChrisO: Oh dude, don't mention cattle, I watchlist that too. The carbon emissions are especially complicated there, depending on feed type and quality. Plus you get to eat them at the end, which is frowned on for dogs in certain parts of the world. (And eating cows is ungood in some parts too) I wouldn't have a big problem with discussing the economic and human costs of keeping dogs as pets, but I'd be thinking first of the vast amount of decent-quality food involved. CO2/CH4 emissions are just one part of that spectrum of waste. But it would need to be balanced with the benefits that pets bring. Franamax (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

EXCELLENT POINT, Franny. The cattle entry does have an entire section devote to climate change impacts of cattle. (We need to tag that under current censorship protocols, BTW.) We should examine this for dog. Nothughthomas (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@Nothught, nah, first paragraph or "threats to humans", I think you'll need to make your case over time to the regular editors of this article to accomplish that. Why has the dog-threat now become so important that it needs to be featured here? Were they sneaking up on us? Has this been a source of regular commentary? Franamax (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothughthomas, attempting to direct people's attention to the alleged climatic impact of pet dogs by placing the information in the first paragraph is proof that you have a POV that you are pushing. One book is a tiny fraction of the books ever written on dogs. The methane emissions and deforestation associated with cattle have far more sourcing. The policies that stand against the addition of this material to Dog are WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:CONSENSUS. Abductive (reasoning) 06:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AGF Nothughthomas (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume you have faith in your POV. There is nothing wrong with having a POV, but this particular POV isn't going in the article. Period. Abductive (reasoning) 06:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Attention everyone - apparently this very vibrant discussion about including carbon footprint has just been concluded by proclamation of User:Abductive. Any further attempt to broach this subject will be in violation of Decree-Law Number 1, issued by User:Abductive on this the 2nd Day of January in the Year of User:Abductive One. Compliance is mandatory. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So far everyone but you says it's not going in. I suspect that you will not prevail. Abductive (reasoning) 07:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Thparkth seems to disagree with Emperor Abductive. Now may be your cue to declare a State of Siege and order the Abductive gendarmerie to arrest Thparkth and ensure your "everyone but you" statement is accepted without question from your pliant subjects. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Thparkth as a full supporter of yours. I will wager that you will not prevail. After all, you have been reverted by a number of users, and all it does is attract the attention of more editors who, on average, say the material should not be included. Again, I take a probabilistic view of this; perhaps enough editors will support the inclusion of this material. Perhaps that will not happen. I say it won't. Abductive (reasoning) 07:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm not anyone's supporter (or anyone's enemy). I'm just trying to assess and establish a consensus. Maybe other people will weigh in over the next few days, but right now it looks as if the consensus is clearly against including this information. Thparkth (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Two in favor and two against doesn't really equal a consensus of anything, despite Abductive's edict that "discussion is closed - PERIOD!" or whatever it was he said. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the discussion was closed, I said the material wasn't going in. Rest assured, it's not going in. Abductive (reasoning) 07:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference then? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) So there's no consensus then to include the material, right? We'll have to see what a few more editors say over the next few days. Franamax (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I must say that unless there are better sources for the assertion that dogs (in particular) have a particular carbon footprint I would strongly oppose this information being added to this particular article. If there is something to say about domesticated animals causing an increased carbon footprint (and there well may be) then I suggest placing this in something like Pet. Otherwise we're going to get this sort of thing in cat, rabbit, guinea pig and even Pet skunk. I think that consensus will be to keep this out of this particular article until better and more reliable sources can be found. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The ecological impact of dogs merits discussion in the article. AS noted by User:Wtmitchell below, there is significant coverage to justify added it to the article. The ultimate goal is to have a comprehensive article on the domestic dog. As such, both negative and positive aspects of dogs need to be discussed. This article is unbalanced discusses the positive aspects more than the negative aspects. Discussing the ecological impact will help balance the article. I think that the an ecological impact subsection should be added to Biology section.

Carbon Footprint 2

This edit reverted the addition of the following from the article, saying, "rv WP:UNDUE weight

In their 2009 book "Time to Eat the Dog, the Real Guide to Sustainable Living," New Zealand scientists Robert and Brenda Vale charged that a medium-size dog had a carbon footprint of 2.1 acres compared with slightly more than one acre for a standard sport utility vehicle. The claim spurred heated debate between climate change theory proponents and climate change theory skeptics about the efficacy of dogs as pets, with Lester Brown, the president of the Earth Policy Institute noting "there is no question but that pets do exert a claim on resources."

The removed material cited this ABC News article as a supporting source. That article highlights this claim, made in the book Brenda Vale; Robert James Dennis Vale (2009), Time to Eat the Dog?: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, Thames & Hudson, ISBN 9780500287903.

This Reuters article quotes the book's authors as saying, "We're not actually saying it is time to eat the dog. We're just saying that we need to think about and know the (ecological) impact of some of the things we do and that we take for granted.", and goes on to say that constructing and driving the jeep for a year requires 0.41 hectares of land, while growing and manufacturing a dog's food takes about 0.84 ha -- or 1.1 ha in the case of a large dog such as a German shepherd.

This Vancouver Sun article identifies the Vales as specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington. and reports that they urge per owners to to make sure their animal is dual purpose, "... Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table."

This article in the New Zealand Dominion Post further quotes the article as saying,

If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around, ... A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact ... is comparable.

This article in New Scientist speaks of the book, saying,

To measure the ecological paw, claw and fin-prints of the family pet, the Vales analysed the ingredients of common brands of pet food. They calculated, for example, that a medium-sized dog would consume 90 grams of meat and 156 grams of cereals daily in its recommended 300-gram portion of dried dog food. At its pre-dried weight, that equates to 450 grams of fresh meat and 260 grams of cereal. That means that over the course of a year, Fido wolfs down about 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals.

It takes 43.3 square metres of land to generate 1 kilogram of chicken per year - far more for beef and lamb - and 13.4 square metres to generate a kilogram of cereals. So that gives him a footprint of 0.84 hectares. For a big dog such as a German shepherd, the figure is 1.1 hectares.

Meanwhile, an SUV - the Vales used a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser in their comparison - driven a modest 10,000 kilometres a year, uses 55.1 gigajoules, which includes the energy required both to fuel and to build it. One hectare of land can produce approximately 135 gigajoules of energy per year, so the Land Cruiser's eco-footprint is about 0.41 hectares - less than half that of a medium-sized dog.

This Yahoo News article says that New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same, reporting that Barret said, "Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat".

This article in Idaho Falls Today asks rhetorically, "Should they be taxed for owing a dog? What about other wild animals? How should we measure their contribution to the carbon footprint? Should countries be given carbon credits for eliminating wild animals that put carbon into the environment?"

Another book, Bernan (2008), "Draft Marine Bill: Oral and written evidence", Draft Marine Bill, Great Britain. Parliament. Joint Committee on the Draft Marine Bill, vol. Volume 2, The Stationery Office, p. 149], ISBN 9780104013533 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help), about a bill designed to establish a new UK-wide strategic system of marine planning, says that research shows that the biggest factor influencing where dog owners exercise their dogs is whether or not they can exercise the dog off a lead; if it is not possible to do this in their local area, over 40% have said they would drive elsewhere (that, of course, has implications re the carbon footprint of dogs). That second book, though not targeted at the topic, goes on to discuss health, social, and economic benefits of dog ownership.

WP:UNDUE says, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." It looks to me as if this has sufficient visibility in reliable sources to warrant a mention in this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good compilation. It seems to be almost exclusively related to a single work, the Vale book. That could all be in an article about the book and maybe that article would meet notability. The question is how much discussion of the recently published views of two authors should be in an overview article. Is there peer-reviewed work on this? Is there a review addressing the quality of the science in the book? And what is the relevance of comparing a dog to a "standard" SUV anyway? Can a dog be compared to paving a km of road? Having a shower once a day? Why are we using an SUV ratio? That's what I mean by undue weight. As far as the general issue of the environmental impact of pet dogs (and their utility), I'm OK with that. Just more widespread coverage than what one book says. Franamax (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

These sound like fair comments to me. I think we don't want to give undue weight to fringe science here. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur. If the book is being taken seriously by serious sources, its ideas should certainly be referred to. But absolutely not in the lede or anywhere close to it - in the context of all the things that can be said about dogs, it's a relatively unimportant and little-sourced concept. The ideal would, as someone else suggested, probably be a separate article on the environmental impact of pets, to which we could link. Barnabypage (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Working dogs - Hearing assistance dogs

I propose a link to Hearing Dogs for Deaf People, which is already a good article. We should make this link within the section of this article named Working dogs.

Fighting Dogs

Although it is inhumane, the sport of dogfighting has greatly shaped and effected the domestication of dogs, lets not forget that many of the breeds we see today are in existance because of the unnatural selection people used to breed dogs. This is why we see pitbulls, boxers, bull dogs, rot wilers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.98.61 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Dendrotek 10:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

Dogs and Law

I propose that a new section in this article or a new article be created on laws that relate to dogs. The dog license article only deals with licensing laws in selected western countries. Dog laws also cover negligence, leash requirements, breeding, dog attacks, noise pollution, etc.

One website with extensive information on dog bites and applicable laws (in the USA, and also relevant to Common Law) is [2]. There should of course be a list of dog laws by country.

Also please note that the article on Dog attacks, which has a brief section on legal issues (US only) is not included in the main Dog template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.47.238.225 (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)