The most aggressive dogs are simply primitive and wolf-like.
Wolves are the dog that has all types of aggression. Do you touch his food? He rips your throat out. Do you look at him too long? He rips your throat out.
There are dogs who will do both, but never all. All as in the different varieties of aggression (dominance, defensive/fear, predatory, maternal.)
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
This thread reminds me of the hound schizo getting linked to the scentwork champs roster after trying to defend dogscums dysgenic breeding decisions
>all mals, gsds, and spitzes
Sounds like OP has a poorly trained husky that bites him and kills anything it can get its jaws around.
Many such cases.
most huscucks are incapable of handling their dog
Oh no did someone insult bassets again?
What…?
OP's perception of the world is very childlike
>wolves are like dogs but EXTREME!
wolves are pretty chill, with few documentations of human deaths by em throughout history. Dogs can be more aggressive depending on breed and upbringing, low content wolfdogs can be much worse than both.
Sulimov dogs > scenthounds
Doggays refusal to accept that natural morphology is superior is why cat People universally view you, and your ugly mutts, as inferior.
and right they are. proper dog people do exist but doggays are the average and they are disgusting and unintelligent individuals who surround themselves with filth and pride themselves on brutally commanding animals like slaves for no productive reason.
>Wolves are the dog that has all types of aggression. Do you touch his food? He rips your throat out. Do you look at him too long? He rips your throat out.
No, actually they're much friendlier than that. They're very skittish animals.
>The most aggressive dogs are simply primitive and wolf-like.
The most aggressive dogs are the least wolf like. Pitbulls, rottweilers, mastiffs, and german shepherds.
>inb4 german shepherds are wolf-like!
Not behaviorally, not genetically. They were originally generic mastiff-spitz mutts in between roman and nordic herding dogs, and then max von stehomosexual quadruple inbred them into little nightmares. The most wolf like dogs are the shiba inu, basenji, saluki, huskies near the bottom but still wolfy and the fricking shih tzu near the top.
>then max von stehomosexual quadruple inbred them
What that man did put the charges of Nuremberg to shame. You can't have nice looking healthy mutts anymore thanks to men like him.
Low-IQ Jack London nonsense.
Dogs dont "Live in a World Between Wolves and Humans". Dogs are more than that. They have surpassed simple equation to wolves. Dogs are different, better and more suited to the needs of nature's new world order led by the supremacy of human leads and leashes. They are the Übersoldaten of a new Anthropocene age and being concerned over the "wolfish-ness" of these animals is pointless. Wolves will be added in the equation of man and if their total benefit does not add up they will be subtracted from the equation just as the undesirable traits that dogs bore untold generations ago were.
Aesthetic deviation from wolf standards is a health issue in itself. Do you like doing more work and spending more at the vet?
>Aesthetic deviation
That is the difference between you and I. Ignoring the fact that I do not recognise such things as "wolf standards" to begin with, you are interested in the aesthetic that the wolf form holds. It is a pleasing form, no doubt. But the form that a dog possesses is formed with human function and interests at heart. Besides, from a materialist perspective that you try to appeal to in vain wouldn't work as care costs would be cheaper in comparison to the price to acquire or insure the regressive offspring of crossing dog and wolf. They are hard to come by for a reason, and that reason is the fact that they are by and large undesirable to human hegemony. Wolfhounds were bred with such purpose, to drive the wolf away from the domain man. To overcome them, tear apart their whelps and lunge at the necks of their elders. What scraps left we fed to the next litter of hound or fashioned into pelts or belts.
TLDR do not give a shit about your fedora tipping edgelord poetry, eugene. Did not read. Do not care. All I saw was you talk like a DND playing frick not a biologist or a vet. Throw your stainless steel sword in the trash and shut it. This is about facts of animal husbandry. The generic characteristics of wild canids are objectively functionally superior.
Floppy ears and wrinkly sagging skin are more prone to infections and injury.
And yet, wild canids still have loose enough skin to withstand grappling bites (with the aid of a double coat), so excessively tight skin is also a flaw (especially around the neck).
Drooping lips are a sanitation issue and more prone to injury ("i like my dog drooling on stuff" - nobody)
Tight lips and visible faces with yellow, not black, sclera enable better communication between dogs, other dogs, and their owners.
The mid-length, curtly carried tail of a wild canid enables better communication and balance without being prone to injury like long, overactive whips or as useless as short, tightly curled and docked tails.
Double coats are objectively the most resistant to parasites and protect the skin better in all climates.
Dogs with longer snouts breathe better.
>sclera
*irises
In fact wolf gaze communication (due to their yellow iris) is well documented.
>BUT MUH WOLFHOUNDS THO
There is a reason your stupid mutt bred by moronic hibernians is a designer pet with an 8 year expiration date and ever competent military on earth is using the physiological approximation of a dingo.
The natural canine form is superior. Your primitive iron age ex-pagans cant out-design God. Sorry.
Too bad we cant bring yellow eyes back to dogs. Only blue (cant stand equatorial sun)/brown.
>and ever competent military on earth is using the physiological approximation of a dingo.
do they? what are they used for?
>wolf gays seething
Don't care. Frick wolves and the gays out there who slobber over them. As for Wolfhounds you have shown you pseudo card moron,.The modern Wolfhound has no relation to the original so your slam dunk on shorter lifespan is mute and shows you do not actual know what the frick you are talking about.
TWD
Not them but you are a fedora tipping midwit and sound fat
The other guy sounds like he looks like this handsome devil (a Wauf browsing paleontologist who lost funding for calling a student a dumb troony)
>wolf gays
Just call them what they are. Furgays and dog rapists.
>Drooping lips are a sanitation issue and more prone to injury ("i like my dog drooling on stuff" - nobody)
I've wondered why this was allowed to develop. Especially in snowy areas. I'd think a constantly drooling dog with exposed lips and mouth would have trouble in places where it gets freezing cold.
its technically only a slight disadvantage which can be helped with human intervention and as you know humans are emotional not logical so funny lip dogs got bred for the sole purpose they were funny.
The term "functionally superior" needs to be defined. Not all canids are social and vary greatly in their abilities. e.g. a fennec fox, maned wolf, and a grey wolf (all wild canids) may not be functionally superior to a Labrador at cold water duck retrieval.
Scenthounds have loose skin, long ears, and jowls that help them stir up and trap scent. Large mastiffs and certain dog breeds have these traits for hunting large predators like bears or guarding in areas with dangerous wildlife - something wild canids fail to do yet domestic dogs have been historically expected to do.
A recent study (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.30.522334v1.full) found that dog tails have little to no biomechanical effect on their movement, so their importance for communication is valid yet irrelevant. The Basenji breed has been around for thousands of years in the Congo and had great success as a pack hunting/village dog (with a tightly curled tail), proving that deviating from “mid-length sickle” tail creates a poorly functioning animal is incorrect.
We should consider adaptations that reduce injury or infection risk. Pointy ears are "superior" due to decreased infection risk, just like natural bobtails of certain breeds reduce tail injury risk. Docking is also a surgical procedure and not a genetic trait.
If the flat double coat is inherently superior, why do many water dog breeds have curly coats? Why do many breeds that adapted to survive or even work in hot climates have their undercoat severely reduced or absent? Domestic dogs have specific traits that make them highly functional in their niche. Some breeds have innate instincts to guard animals that a wild canid would kill.
Brachycephaly doesn't always cause BOAS. Some hardworking dogs are brachy, like Boerboels, Presa Canarios, and American Bulldogs. Some brachy breeds need changes in their breeding practices due to BOAS but not all brachy dogs are less functional. Many are active and athletic.
If you are asking whether most wild canids are better adapted to living in their natural habitat without human intervention as compared to domestic dog breeds, then the answer is yes. Wild animals are naturally better suited to living in the wilderness than domesticated dogs. Assuming they are in their respective climates, wild canids are superior at being wild animals, while dogs are superior at being domesticated dogs (and, for example, are grey wolves “functionally superior" to an Azawakh at running down game in the Sahara desert? I certainly wouldn't expect a coyote to be able to herd sheep, or a raccoon dog to do Search and Rescue.)
>The generic characteristics of wild canids are objectively functionally superior.
Functionally superior for what? This sounds like AI generated word-salad slop.
Existing
AI slop. You said nothing
There is 0 coincidence here:
The best working dogs all look wolf like.
>IF ITS SO BAD WHY DID BREEDERS DO IT!?
Lol. Maybe because their dogs die at 10 if they dont shoot them at 5? Doggays are moronic.
Giant Schnauzers bred for working are excellent working dogs. They don't look like wolves and don't have a wolf coat.
I prefer working line German Shepherds with 'wolf-like' looks, but I don't disregard other working breeds that don't fit my preference.
I have seen Boerboels work as well...
What is 'work'? Border Collies, Kelpies, and German Shepherds all have different phenotypes for working all day on stock farms.
German Shepherds and Malinois were bred to partner with humans, not to survive in the wild.
>If breeders make an aesthetic decision it must be good!
Or, people are putting up with dogs smelling disgusting and drooling non-stop because the average dog person has negative taste and hardly bathes? I like dogs and I have a dog but i'm not going to lie. Most dog people are dirty and stupid. They don't make good financial decisions either. A lot of purebred working dog enthusiasts seem to enjoy vet visits.
>reddit spacing cringelords
coyotes and wolves live in deserts.
>triggered nonsense
I am not sure where this discussion is going or why?
Some moron thinks droopy sagging dogs that smell and leak drool don't have deformities if they're neurotic enough for certain "jobs".
Fact is most dog people are just morons.
>Some moron thinks droopy sagging dogs that smell and leak drool don't have deformities if they're neurotic enough for certain "jobs".
>Fact is most dog people are just morons.
Based and true. Just because your working dawg has a trait doesnt mean that trait is needed or a good thing. Most dog breeders are just morons.
See: hundreds of years of “bloodhound ears funnel scents” and then bloodhounds categorically lose scentwork to fricking toy spitzes
>if I just keep making up arguments via psychosis then I win!
Again, nobody said that and you are quoting a misquote.
So back ON TOPIC.
Is there a reason why you consider “wolf-like" breeds to be the best working dogs? I am not implying that spitz and shepherd (assuming that’s what you’re referring to when you say wolf-like) breeds are inadequate working dogs. However, if they are the best working dogs according to your totally “objective and universal” standards, then why do experienced hog hunters prefer terriers, hounds, curs, bulldogs, and other breeds as catch dogs?
Many professional SAR teams prefer bloodhounds over shepherds because of their appearance, despite the fact that, according to your reasoning, bloodhounds may not be as efficient in their work and therefore may not be able to save as many lives. If you were looking to flush out game from a badger or fox hole, would you choose a husky, or would you opt for a dog that was physically capable of doing the job, such as a Jagdterrier or hunting line dachshund, which possesses the necessary drive and tenacity to get the job done? Have you ever seen a Jagdterrier at work? They are one of the toughest working breeds out there.
If you have a barn that is overrun by rats, would you refuse to hire a team of small terriers that are trained and experienced in ratting and instead hire someone with a Malamute just because you think a wolf-like dog would do a better job? Also, I hope that if you ever encounter a Fila Brasileiro, you treat that dog with utmost seriousness as it is a highly skilled working animal. Despite being "deformed mastiffs," they are among the most alert and powerful guard breeds out there, and they can run very fast. Personally, I would rather face a Malinois than a Fila.
tldr
im not any of these people but this needs re-iterated because it is common sense
just because a working breed has an inadequate trait does not mean that trait is ideal. especially since most dog "people" are objectively disgusting morons who don't mind filth, or else the trait of shit eating would have been nuked from the canine gene pool last century. it means it sucks, but it doesn't interfere with its job.
>leaks drool
>STINKS LIKE ROTTING SHIT, NO MATTER WHAT
>"its ok it picks up birds" - average dog person
>they let this beast in their home and ignore the stench
can dogs be done better?
yes.
but first, dog "people" need to be removed from the equation. they are disgusting morons.
dogs are disgusting because dog people are disgusting. YOU are disgusting if you think it's somehow good that dogs are disgusting as long as the disgustingness doesn't interfere with their job.
that's not alright, disgusting animals aren't alright. but since you insist, us people who are NOT DOG WORSHIPING FREAKS will continue expelling your stinking shit eating mutts from public spaces at every opportunity.
>many professional SAR teams use bloodhounds
when national security is on the line it's all mals on the field
mals ARE better. they are more fit. they don't have to sniff past the scent of their infected wrinkles. but they are harder to train and more expensive to acquire.
>some "professionals" use inferior tools because they are volunteer corps or cheap labor -something people often cant understand
You understand basic logic. You understand that a lot of purebred dogs have objectively bad traits just because they don't get in the way enough to justify removing them, even though they make for awful animals that require extra care.
You do not and seem to think the argument is that huskies should replace other dogs and not that other dogs should be improved to bring their phsyique in line with huskies and GSDs, AKA removing deformities without changing their job-specific neurosis.
Also, it gets much worse than this for doggays
MOST WORKING DOGS "JOBS" ARE NOT ACTUALLY JOBS, THEY ARE ARBITRARY SPORTING FUNCTIONS. THEY ARE RECREATIONAL TOYS, NOT PROFESSIONAL TOOLS. THE MAJORITY OF "WORKING" DOGS, EVEN IF THEY ARE "WORKED", ARE JUST PETS KEPT FOR ENTERTAINMENT.
Therefore, most "working breeds" do not actually have to exist, their purpose is arbitrary and can be dismissed arbitrarily.
Catch dogs for "experienced hog hunters"? There is no form of hunting on earth that can not be done better with bait and a gun.
Flushing game from badger and fox holes? Pest control is primarily done with poisons and weapons.
A barn is overrun with rats? Poison. Traps. A bucket will kill more rats in a night than any amount of terriers without making a dog shit mess.
Pointers? Retrievers? Commercial hunting has no need for dogs, but for nets and punt guns.
These dogs are used for fun, not work. It's recreation, sportsmanship. Glorified pets. You're not getting anything important done.
Working dogs are military dogs, police dogs, SAR dogs, seeing eye dogs, ADA approved service dogs, those are working animals. The general trend is these are all increasingly german shepherds and malinois. Anyone who hasn't changed over yet just can't afford the better dog yet, because the breeders charge more, and the trainers have more work to do with the superior mind. Their physique is superior. Their intelligence is superior. The world is changing. Catch up or fall back.
>Working dogs are military dogs, police dogs are Mals and GSDs
Correct (disregarding any actual proof of this for YOUR sake.)
>SAR dogs, seeing eye dogs, ADA approved service dogs, those are working animals
The ADA doesn’t approve dogs, but anyways this is incorrect. Labs fill this niche almost entirely with Poodle becoming more trendy as well.
I personally prefer dogs that aren’t neurotic (Mals) and filled with hip displaysia (GSDs) but I’m not going to shit on them just because I disagree. Also any dog can be used for the aforementioned roles, especially “military working dogs.” Which have historically been Mastiffs as well as shepherds…
TLDR This paragraph is attempting education without inviting discussion and is clearly just made to infuriate people.
just because a working breed has an inadequate trait does not mean that trait is ideal just because it is attached to a working breed. especially since most dog "people" are objectively disgusting morons who don't mind filth, or else the trait of shit eating would have been nuked from the canine gene pool last century. it means it sucks, but it doesn't interfere with its job (or the lack of good taste dog people are known for)
this is a simple concept you really dont get, instead you went off rambling about malamutes and terriers
I’m unsure why you keep misquoting me and I personally don’t see dog owners as “dog people” just pet owners. They’re no worse than people who own rats which eliminate on their bedding (and urinate on their owners sometimes) or cats which eliminate indoors and require extensive care to avoid dragging litter on to food preparation surfaces.
All pet owners experience some level of dirtiness. That’s what happens when you have animals. With dogs, they usually don’t make more of a mess than a toddler would.
Do you feel the same way about the spread of toxoplasmosis or leptospirosis; two diseases related to specific types of animals (cats and rats)?
Coprophagia affects a small percent of dogs and can almost always be trained out of them and has more to do with neuroticism (and bad breeding) than “dogs being dirty animals.”
>this is a simple concept you really dont get, instead you went off rambling about malamutes and terriers
What do you mean? You tried to derail the thread. If you follow the flow of conversation, and actually, we’re reading the thread, since you got here, you would notice that there’s a clear engagement occurring, and it’s based on the discussion of functional superiority between dogs with wolf like traits and regular dogs. You came in here obsessing about basset hounds/bloodhounds. Putting words in people’s mouth because you’re disingenuous and just trying to get reactions out of people instead of trying to have a discussion.
>You
I repeated someone elses post to confuse morons since I agreed with it anyways
This argument could have been simple
"These traits are deformities, wolves had it right to begin with"
"I agree, we could return these body parts to a non-deformed state without adversely affecting the working ability of deformed breeds"
But no you had to defend le magic doggy breeding just because you hate wolves so much you prefer disease
>Cats outta nowhere
Rent free
>Wolves had it right to begin with
What's your point here? What did they have right?
>return these body parts to a non-deformed state
Oh you're talking about their phenotype again, having “wolf traits” doesn't exempt dogs from having heritable health problems, including structural issues like hip dysplasia. Yes, some "wolf-like" dogs are considered fairly healthy breeds, but again, breeds like Afghan Hounds, Beagles, and Chihuahuas are also considered among the healthiest breeds, and they look very little like wolves. Meanwhile you have German Shepherds, who have a laundry list of heritable disorders, illnesses, and structural problems that breeders need to test or screen for to avoid. Being "wolfy" does not guarantee health or structural soundness.
>you prefer disease
Wolves have shorter lifespans on average in the wild because they get injured and they either heal themselves or pass away without receiving any veterinary care.
If you want to measure success in terms of lifespan, small companion breeds like toy poodles and havanese regularly live into their mid to late teens. Therefore, compared to wolfy breeds, these small breeds are considered to be healthier and “superior.”
If we compare dogs to their closest relative, the wolf, the former are much “better at existing”. It is estimated that there are about 900 million dogs in the world, while the number of existing wolves is only around 200,000 to 250,000. The conclusion is quite evident - reliance on humans has proven to be an extremely effective evolutionary strategy.
>Oh you're talking about their phenotype again, having “wolf traits” doesn't exempt dogs from having heritable health problems
Whataboutism. Then a big tldr... how does wolves dying fighting bison have anything to do with this? What does hip dysplasia have to do with easily injured, infected, drool leaking lips?
Floppy ears and giant bat ears are more injury and infection prone than medium/small prick ears - yes or no?
Excessively wrinkly skin is prone to infection, tight skin is fragile, decently loose but not wrinkled skin is robust - yes or no?
This is NOT complex but you think and argue like a vegana so you're trying to have 50 other arguments.
You prefer disease. It's that simple.
Would you be deformed if you looked like a mastiff? Yes.
Refer to prev.
>refer to tldr rants about unrelated nonsense
Floppy ears and giant bat ears are more injury and infection prone than medium/small prick ears - yes or no?
Excessively wrinkly skin is prone to infection, tight skin is fragile, decently loose but not wrinkled skin is robust - yes or no?
Drooling is not a desirable trait, and droopy lips can be injured more easily than lips kept tight against the face - yes or no?
These are simple questions and the answer is not a cringe essay about how because some morons liked ugly dogs they must be better. That just means some morons liked ugly dogs.
The point is that it does not matter because dogs without those traits have surpassed those with them.
>Some moron bred an ugly/stinky/drooling dog so these are good things
No, that just means some moron was, in fact, a moron, and well over 2 millennia of "dog" being an insult was justified because of their actions.
Let's do it one at a time,
Do you agree or disagree that drooling is not a desirable trait and droopy lips are more prone to injury than lips kept tight against the face? Do you agree or disagree that tight lips are also able to express the dogs emotional state more clearly than droopy lips?
Refer to
You are moronic child who needs things to be repeated to them.
I'm not interested in your tantrums. They do not follow under any known system of logic. You are going off on unrelated tangents.
Answer these simple questions:
Do you agree or disagree that drooling is not a desirable trait and droopy lips are more prone to injury than lips kept tight against the face? Do you agree or disagree that tight lips are also able to express the dogs emotional state more clearly than droopy lips?
Refer to
Your posts are off-topic triggered nonsense. Go cry about how dog chads fricked your wife.
>off topic
Actually it's just a re-iteration of this
>triggered nonsense
You're the one who can't answer a yes or no question without crying about cuckoldry. So, back to going down the list one question at a time. Agree or disagree, that's all you have to answer.
Do you agree or disagree that drooling is not a desirable trait and droopy lips are more prone to injury than lips kept tight against the face? Do you agree or disagree that tight lips are also able to express the dogs emotional state more clearly than droopy lips?
Tldr You're brown and need to reiterate previously defeated stances. Your dog is not a wolf because it has a pointy ear. It will die of hip dysplasia or dilated cardiomyopathy.
Superiority depends on adaptability to the environment. Wolfy dogs fail to adapt in 99% of environments besides redneck Alaskan yards where they're treated worse than Shitbulls and die at 5 because Cletus von Dingleberry couldn't get a snowmobile and ran his dogs to death. Lol.
Chihuahuas reign superior. They live forever and are perfectly adapted to be pets; something wolves fail to do, mastiffs kill bears; something wolves fail to do.
Why you want to emulate wolfiness is beyond me and probably plays into your zoosadism fetish more than anything else.
Ok, I understand now. I was just asking you if you agreed that current breeds could be improved but you're some kind of dog rapist and felt you had to defend your "dogwife"'s honor.
Have fun in prison
Guy, your point is that wolfy dogs are better (they're not as previously proven. Nobody needs to play into your rhetoric to demonstrate such.
already addressed (You)r points and did well.
>deformed
That is just a statement designed to annoy people in my opinion. These dogs aren't deformed because they have loose skin, brown eyes, or short coats you moron.
>>If breeders make an aesthetic decision it must be good!
I NEVER said that and you have misquoted me.
I buy my dogs from reputable breeders who health test and prioritize genetic temperament and physical soundness. My dogs have long lives. I ensure the longevity and soundness of my dogs involved in "working dog" sports. This involves keeping them active while eating a good diet. They eat Raw..... They have annual Vet checks.
>coyotes and wolves live in deserts
Different species of wolves live successfully in different environments due to nature selectively breeding them. A Grey Wolf would have a tough time in the desert, just as a Cape Hunting dog would have a tough time in the Boreal forest. Coyotes are adaptable and northeastern coyotes are closer related to Grey Wolves than western/southern coyotes.
Both humans and nature "purpose breed" canids if you think about it.
Your arguments are sound and you're not a seething, coping, yapping moron.
You are and your posts are just paragraphs of nothing. You have been btfo'd. It's time to give up, anon.
>I buy my dogs from reputable breeders
yes you buy dogs from reputable breeders, but as long as their are basic b***h women, and low t men, who think 'cutesy' features are adorable, they'll continue to inbreed dogs and create horrible abominations.
>Dogs with wolf-like features are better adapted than other dogs at living.
“Survival of the fittest" means the most suitable organism for its environment survives. Dogs developed genes to digest starches, making them suited to living with humans.
If you take a “superior, wolf-coated” dog and plop in the middle of Florida it suddenly is no longer superior, or, one of the best working dogs and plop it in an apartment, it suddenly is no longer the best working dog.