TIL that all Native American dog breeds were wiped out by Eurasian dogs after the arrival of European settlers. Despite thriving on the continent for thousands of years, no pre-contact breeds survive today.

submitted by aThievingStableboy from (smithsonianmag.com)

all 28 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]aThievingStableboy[S] 14 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

dvasef

[–]mikipika 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Post a picture of your dog, please!

[–]aThievingStableboy[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

adfbavdvc

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As dogs were all descended from a common ancestor to start with and would share most dna a dog with 4% American DNA could be pretty much as good as you'd get anyway.

[–]theFriendlyDoomer 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Wow. . . Now that's an interesting fact.

[–]aThievingStableboy[S] 8 insightful - 7 fun8 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

cvaesf

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 9 fun8 insightful - 8 fun9 insightful - 9 fun -  (7 children)

maybe those dogs should have built a wall

make america woof again

[–]Wrang1er 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

That doesn't make sense. Countries don't build walls on the shore.

[–]anarchy753 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

That seems like a mistake, cos that's where most people came from.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

you can build turrets and shit like on D Day on a shore

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    yeah they should have just let them in without taking a shot that would have kept them out better

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      maybe nazis should have built a wall on the shore

      [–]iraelmossadreddit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

      their is a theory the natives hunting dogs were more wolf dogs not well suited around children. the settlers wanted a dog more friendly around children and bread the wolf dogs with something else. I'm sure some natives probably already had domesticated dogs too from trade with random ships that landed...

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Bred not bread

      [–]aThievingStableboy[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      acvasdv

      [–]iraelmossadreddit 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      I read the article and it says possiblities are diseases that pre-contact dogs couldn't fight. I guess that's possible too. also says The colonists preferred European breeds and discouraged their pets from mating with the native dogs, which study co-author Angela Perri, a zooarchaeologist at Durham University, says were viewed as “wild” and “vicious.”

      Not all people breeding dogs are looking for the same thing either. Some want a pure crazy hunting dog, or a combo hunting family dog.

      this is one dog they think might be bread with a native dog.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catahoula_Leopard_Dog

      oh and white fang...hmm that sounds familiar. I think I was supposed to read that in school but forgot haha

      [–]Dragonerne 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      It's possible that the native dogs actually were wild and vicious, just like the indians.

      [–]aThievingStableboy[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      adfvcv

      [–]iraelmossadreddit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Actually, I think they made us read To Build a Fire. I think I liked it. Rememebering all kinds of wierd stuff from school now ha thanks

      [–]aThievingStableboy[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      dfrgqaeravdz

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]aThievingStableboy[S] 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

        adfgvasdv

        [–]happysmash27 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        That's pretty sad :(

        [–]RuckFeddit 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

        when do we start tearing down doggo statues?

        [–]aThievingStableboy[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        adfbdvxc

        [–]Scrubjay 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I eye-roll articles/assertions/headlines like this, because they set up a myth of "bad/impure/oppressive thing wipes-out/oppresses/pollutes good/pure/oppressed thing" - as if it can ever be as simple as it gets. I'm not advocating or ignoring the need to not wipe out things that shouldn't be wiped out. But I do appreciate that the so-called "good/pure/oppressed" things are rarely just that, and that there are no real "innocents" in this world. For example, sure, dogs with European-continent genes wiped out dogs with American-continent genes. But before that, what species did American-continent dogs wipe out? "None" would be highly unlikely. But the way these articles/assertions are set up, that isn't considered. We're just supposed to boo the "bad/impure/oppressive" things as if they exist outside of space/time and act out of natural-world context.

        [–]MarquisBoniface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I find that suspect

        NA's usually didn't use dogs to the extent westerners/northerners did (hunting aids, companions) so there's be less incentive to breed them, and many of the central american states only used them as food sources

        It's true the EARLY NA's shared a Siberian culture of dog companions, but I see no evidence there were large numbers of dogs later on

        They didn't even use horses before euro settlers brought them

        Furthermore a ton of species went extinct during the initial (NA) population of the Americas

        https://www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/extinction/Day1/overkill/Bit1.html

        https://web.archive.org/web/20180913185054/https://www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/extinction/Day1/overkill/Bit1.html

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Not the Xolo?

        [–]The_Lear_Bluce_Ree 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        I can feel some bullshit guilt being created about this 50 years down the line.