Why dogs like to roll in shit and carcasses?

[invert_nexus]

"My name is Valich and I'm a retard."

I do not know what you mean...

That's because you have a broken brain, dude.
You should probably kill yourself.

 

[Satyr]

I believe the good doctor hit that nail on the head.
Smell is to dogs what sight is to humans.

As humans perceive detail and nuance and beauty through vision, dogs perceive it through smell.
For them what we call stench is full of information and they appreciate it more deeply than we ever could.

They adorn themselves with it.

But what is more interesting is why humans are so damn stupid.

Is this a pretense attempting sarcasm and to elicit a reaction or is it blatant genetic inferiority?
I have a theory…..

 

[valich]

What is “pack behavior”? Canidae species, like humans, are pack animals by nature in that they prefer to live and function as a member of a social group. This is an innate instinctive predisposition that has evolved over millions of years. It is a “shared derived trait” and evolved from a combination of kin selection, competition with scavengers, the inability of small packs to kill large prey, the greater potential injury of members of small packs during a hunt, and the need to defend territory. Sometimes pack behavior is referred to as presocial behavior, or presociality. Forest environments with smaller herbivores do not need pack behavior because they have ample places to hide. Larger carnivores such as bears do not need pack behavior because they are not preyed upon by other predators. They do not need the protection that a herd or a pack gives, and they have the ability to take down prey on their own.

Pack behavior is derived from allelomimetic behavior (“allelo” meaning reciprocal; “mimetic” or mimic – to immitate), which is the tendency for one animal to do what the other animal is doing. In pack behavior members of the pack function as a single entity. Characteristics of back behavior are running, lying down, and barking with other pack members as well as maintaining constant eye contact with other members of the pack. Dominance and subordination are key indicators in the pack’s social structure. Males are usually dominant to the females, but both an alpha male and alpha female exist. The alpha female is subordinate to the males in the pack but is dominant over all other females. Intrasexual hierarchy fluctuates where less dominant males may try to overtake the alpha male’s position through direct aggressive interactions, while the females subordinate to the alpha female attempt to move up in rank through vocalization and aggressive threats.

The ability and predisposition for individuals to organize themselves into a pack was imperative for the survival of Canidae species, aka, ancestral wolves. A group is less vulnerable to predation and group structure allows for efficient mating and for the hunting of larger prey.

Interestingly, bears (Ursus evolved from Ursavus) diverged from the same lineage called Canoidea (Carnivora to Caniformia to Canoidea/Arctoidea then the lineage split into Ursavus and Canidae). Caniformia means "dog-like". The origins of bears is the dog-like Cephalogale: a small tree-climbing carnivore that existed during the Miocene epoch at least 27 million years ago. Bears evolved from a heavy bear-like dog: one lineage of these “bear-dogs” is called Amphicyonidae. As far as I know, bears no longer exhibit any type of pack behavior, do not roll in shit or carcasses, but are extremely territorial. Felidae (tigers, mountain lions and cougars) are also extremely territorial but evolved from a different lineage related to civets, although both Canidae and Felidae are in the Order Carnivora.

 

[Idle Mind]

That doesn't make sense. Allelomimetic behaviour in modern, domesticated dogs would stem from the family that each dog belongs to; its pack. I don't see any humans rolling around in fecal matter or decomposing animal tissues, so where is the stimulus coming from in domesticated dogs. Allelomimetic behaviour is a "monkey see, monkey do" type phenomena, not something that is instinctual.

And, you still haven't conclusively shown what the origin of this so called allelomimetic behaviour is, other than your edited and taken out of context links.

Let me make this plain, valich. YOU CANNOT MAKE ARGUMENTS FROM AUTHORITY WITHOUT POSTING LINKS TO BACK THEM UP. You simply saying that "this is fact" and it's "not disputed" in the scientific community doesn't make it true. Post links, not garbage. Please.

 

[invert_nexus]

Idle Mind,

That doesn't make sense. Allelomimetic behaviour in modern, domesticated dogs would stem from the family that each dog belongs to; its pack.

Shhhhh!
We might have had him spouting some Lamarkian nonsense if we'd played our cards right.


Valich,

Spend the day researching pack behavior, eh?
I wonder if you know how retarded you are? How idiotic you come across?
I think you do.
I think it's pure affectation.
It's your version of shit that you roll around in.
Not to camoflauge yourself, but to accentuate.
And to poke and prod at people who you can get a rise out of. I bet you miss Ophiolite, eh?
Would you like me to pm you a link to the forum where he currently resides?

Anyway.
Your little spiel there basically says nothing, yes?
Rather, it states the obvious and does nothing to answer the points brought up earlier.
Pack behavior is merely social behavior. You can call it presocial or whatever, but it's social nonetheless.
Especially seeing as how you have lumped humans into this pack behavior. You're not saying our social behavior is also pre-social?

And where do you draw the line in defining one type of behavior in a social animal as 'pack behavior' and 'non-pack behavior'? They are pack animals, yes? Is all their behavior thus pack behavior? Then what is the point of even mentioning pack behavior as something special when it is simply behavior of a social species?


And. While you're at it, why don't you go ahead and answer the question I had pages back about the methods behind the experiments that made such a strong conclusion as regards dog rolling behavior? You did mention science, yes?
Personally, I believe that there is no possible means of being so sure as to the origins and reasons behind any animal behavior.
Even our own.


Satyr,

But what is more interesting is why humans are so damn stupid.

Pack behavior? Survival of the stupidest?
If so, Valich is going to do very well.

Actually, this is not far wrong in the McWorld we live in today... Sadly.

 

[Tnerb]

Ha!
You're a weaselly little guy still.



I like the way you edit out "thought".
Why did you do that, Valich?
Hmm?
Could it be that you didn't want to state the simple fact that what you're saying is not, in fact, a fact at all? Hmm?
Could it be that you're simply attempting to use the argument from authority fallacy which is so so common in your posting history?
Maybe?
A little bit?



And this?
This is an example of authority?
A eulogy for some poor dead dog?
Ah. The proof is so strong here!



More selective quoting? Let's show the full quote.

"I was told it was because they are trying to hide their scent from their prey. I think they just like to annoy us ;-) After all, you have to bath them, don't you. If you've got more than one it can take forever :-D"

So. You find LindyLou to be an authoritative source?
So, I can assume that you also believe that the dogs do it to annoy us?



Again with the selective editing.
And again with the oh so authoritative source.
A forum just like this one.
Here. From the same 'source'.

"I think that they like to get the scent of their kills on them. Almost like a trophy.... so they can brag to other dogs."

Hmm?

"Because they're dogs. And dogs like to do weird things. "

Ahh?

"Maybe they're a fan of the movie " Caddyshack"?"

Ah. That's the one.

So. Why didn't you include any of these statements from your source?



Anyway.
Tired of going through your bullshit 'proofs'. They're all crap and you know it.
They sure looked good though, didn't they?
All gathered together like that.
Authoritative like and everything.

At least you haven't yet claimed to have spent 10 years in school studying dogs.


A clue, Valich, it's all theoretical.
Stuff your 'facts' up your 'facthole'.

This post right here, ist he best post I have ever seen on sciforums. Because it's perfect and aganist valich. I had to say that. Sorry (or pardon as they say right nexus?)

 

[invert_nexus]

You seem to think that inherited instinct is erased overnight? This behavior took tens of millions of years to acquire.

What behavior, dummy?

 

[invert_nexus]

We laugh at the denial.

That's nice.
We laugh at you.
We laugh at your use of 'we' especially.
You're a fool.

Who is LindyLou?

What? You forget your vaunted source already?
Fickle, fool.
Oh well, what can we expect from a man with a broken brain such as yourself?


Oh. And since you're retarded and everything, I'm sure you didn't see my last post.
I'll repost it just for your broken brain.
I'm going to keep it simple.

You seem to think that inherited instinct is erased overnight? This behavior took tens of millions of years to acquire.

What behavior?

 

[Idle Mind]

You seem to think that inherited instinct is erased overnight? This behavior took tens of millions of years to acquire. Can't you see that it would take another tens of millions of years to change it?

Sigh, I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this.

It most certainly would not take tens of millions of years. Perhaps it would naturally, but domestication isn't natural progression, is it? How about the hundreds of years that dogs have been domesticated, more often than not forced to live with no other canine companions and live only with humans.

You canot say, "Where is the stimulus coming from" if it's already an inherited instictive behavior.

You yourself defined allelomimetic behaviour in this discussion, valich. You said, "Pack behavior is derived from allelomimetic behavior (“allelo” meaning reciprocal; “mimetic” or mimic – to immitate), which is the tendency for one animal to do what the other animal is doing." Then you said rolling in fecal and decaying animal matter is an allelomimetic behaviour. But now you're saying it's an instinctual behaviour? Which is it?

And, then you go on and tell me a bunch of irrelevant information regarding evolution and tell me I need to get perspective. Cute.

Invert, etc. Whoever else: I am working with other biologists in the field and they all agree about this beyond any doubt. The topic is so solidified that it isn't worth debating. We laugh at the denial.

That's fantastic. Maybe they could find some papers on this that you can link us?

 

[Satyr]

Dogs?!!!
I roll in shit and carcasses every chance I get…..
I’m here ain’t I?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I have this theory, I thought I would run it by the board:

I think dogs like to roll in other dog's shit or carcasses, because they wear that smell as camoflague. Since they are predators when they are on the walk (let's say not on their own territory), if they can pick up another dog's smell (possible the area's top dog) they can scent-camoflague themselves and get away with hunting on the forbidden land.
With carcasses the camoflague works slightly differently, it is overpowering their own smell, so the prey wouldn't notice them so soon.

How this explanation sounds for their disgusting behaviour?? Any better explanation?....

camouflage appears to be the commonly held view

http://www.dogbehaviour.com/behaviourproblems/dogs/yourdog/obsessions.htm

"Question: Bramble frequently rolls in other animal or bird droppings particularly her neck. She is a rescue dog so training is to an adult dog. Why does she do this and how can it be 'corrected'?

Answer: Rolling in strong smelling substances is thought to be a behaviour handed down from their ancestors who would do this to camouflage their own smell when out hunting. Smelling more like their environment would enable them to get closer to their prey before being detected. Although our pet dogs no longer need to hunt, some have retained the desire to do this, particularly after a bath or then they don’t smell ‘like themselves’. It’s a bit like us putting on perfume or aftershave to make ourselves smell more acceptable!"

 

[Roman]

camouflage appears to be the commonly held view

http://www.dogbehaviour.com/behaviourproblems/dogs/yourdog/obsessions.htm

"Question: Bramble frequently rolls in other animal or bird droppings particularly her neck. She is a rescue dog so training is to an adult dog. Why does she do this and how can it be 'corrected'?

Answer: Rolling in strong smelling substances is thought to be a behaviour handed down from their ancestors who would do this to camouflage their own smell when out hunting. Smelling more like their environment would enable them to get closer to their prey before being detected. Although our pet dogs no longer need to hunt, some have retained the desire to do this, particularly after a bath or then they don’t smell ‘like themselves’. It’s a bit like us putting on perfume or aftershave to make ourselves smell more acceptable!"

Since none of you have actually ever been in the "environemnt," I'm going to tell you guys something that may shock you.

It doesn't actually smell like shit and rotting carcasses.
Weird, huh?
Now how would smelling like death help a dog.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Since none of you have actually ever been in the "environemnt," I'm going to tell you guys something that may shock you.

It doesn't actually smell like shit and rotting carcasses.
Weird, huh?
Now how would smelling like death help a dog.

interesting

I did not know humans had anything close to the same level of sense of smell as a dog

but then they don't do they

thus, what you smell is nothing like what a dog smells

tsk tsk

 

[Roman]

interesting

I did not know humans had anything close to the same level of sense of smell as a dog

but then they don't do they

thus, what you smell is nothing like what a dog smells

tsk tsk

...
That doesn't make any sense, now, does it tor.
We're talking about scent camouflage. Who would you camo your scent for? Other dogs? So other dogs can't smell you? No, we're talking about prey animals.
So you should criticize me about not having the nose of a hare or a caribou.
But I'll assume you're actually following the discourse, and can comprehend what I type.

Let's say prey have really great noses. Scent as good as a dog's.
Now. The caribou is out there, grazing. According to the camo theory, the entire world smells like rot, death, shit and despair. And by rolling in shit or dead animals, a dog can smell like everything else in a caribou's habitat.
Because caribou just love to hang out in filthy wallows, brimming with shit and decaying caribou.
Actually, they don't. They don't at all. But let's pretend they do, since this is the only way the argument makes sense.

Unless of course we accept that caribou have no sense of smell. That is, they can't distinguish between a carcass ten feet away and background levels of stink.

But neither arguments make any sense. In fact, we know them to both be wrong.

The only way smelling like a corpse is going to mask your scent is if a) the whole world smells like death or b) the prey lives in places that smell like death.

Let's assume that we can smell smells similar to that of a prey, but not as well. So if we got a whiff of a dead animal in another room, we'd give it a stink of 3, while a caribou gives it a stink of 6.

Now we move two rooms away from the death smell, and can't smell anything. Stink of 0 for humans, stink of 3 for caribou.

A dog rolls in the death animal, to 'mask' his smell, and sneaks into the room we and the caribou are in. At first, us humans can't smell anything, then the dog is one room away, and the stink of shit goes from 0 to 3. That's fishy, isn't it? Why is the death smell creeping closer? For the caribou, the death stink goes from 3 to 6.

Then the dog stealthily creeps into the room. Now we smell 6 stink, and bou is smelling 12.

The dog attacks you and the caribou. I, realizing that the stench of a carnivore was creeping up on us, left. But you, Tor, and the caribou, are too stupid to realize that, and both are mauled. To death.
And your children, having inherited bad genes that don't connect the smell of crawling death stench with that of a predator, also get eaten.

Oops, looks like your genes are out of the gene pool.
Guess who's left? Me. The one with the smart genes. The one that figured out that the smell of carcass is associated with predators.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Haha. What a dumb shit. Trying to be all cocky when she's a moron.
And look at the proud self-satisfied expression on her avatar. Man, that's perfect.

I shamelessly revel in the disgrace of others. This is heaven.

 

[invert_nexus]

Tor,

Answer: Rolling in strong smelling substances is thought to be a behaviour handed down from their ancestors who would do this to camouflage their own smell when out hunting.

There is one particular word in the above quote that, if it had been in one of Valich's selected 'proofs', would have been edited out.
Do you know what word I'm referring to?
And do you understand its significance or would you like me to explain it to you?

 

[KingTriad]

Ive had about 6 dogs roll in dead carcasses. it's the most disgusting smell ever..why?..good question..i've never seen one roll in feces.:bugeye:

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

"Thought"?

And this

particularly after a bath or then they don’t smell ‘like themselves’. It’s a bit like us putting on perfume or aftershave to make ourselves smell more acceptable!

Yeah it is a bit like that, and not at all like camouflage.

Camouflage is obviously just a throwaway explanation to appease concerned old ladies. I know from experience that practically all available dog information is light off the cuff nothings for laymen owners.

We don't want to hear these opinions, we want evidence that camouflage is the purpose of this behaviour. Explain how it makes sense based on observable indications.
"Linking" to the opinions of other idiots (or lazy people who realise you're an idiot) I can guarantee will fail to win this debate.
You're not going to "bring" these ideas to our attention, we're aware of them and equally aware of their fundamental flaws.
Saying "it's agreed amongst scientists blah blah" won't work because we happen to know for a fact that isn't true.
What else have you got?
I know it's nothing, but you could at least try to present an argument based on something.
Oh and pointing out that canines are indeed carnivores and pack animals whose traits are passed from generation to generation on this round planet, 3rd from the sun, doesn't count.

 

[Roman]

The only case I can see for scent camo is when hunting herd animals, which hang out around a lot of their own crap.

But that doesn't explain why they like to roll in carcasses.

 

[Roman]

Come on Tor, what do you have to say to that?
At least have the decency of admitting you're a silly woman who shouldn't bother her head about science that doesn't involve people having sex, or cooking.