Post a picture of your dog, please!
adfbavdvc
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.
Wow. . . Now that's an interesting fact.
cvaesf
maybe those dogs should have built a wall
make america woof again
That doesn't make sense. Countries don't build walls on the shore.
That seems like a mistake, cos that's where most people came from.
you can build turrets and shit like on D Day on a shore
[deleted] 3 years ago ago
yeah they should have just let them in without taking a shot that would have kept them out better
[deleted] 3 years ago ago
maybe nazis should have built a wall on the shore
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...
Bred not bread
acvasdv
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
It's possible that the native dogs actually were wild and vicious, just like the indians.
adfvcv
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
dfrgqaeravdz
[deleted] 3 years ago ago
adfgvasdv
That's pretty sad :(
when do we start tearing down doggo statues?
adfbdvxc
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.
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
Not the Xolo?
I can feel some bullshit guilt being created about this 50 years down the line.
aThievingStableboy |29 pointswritten 3 years ago ago
dvasef