Dogs may have domesticated themselves because they liked snacks, model suggests

My current dog wouldn't give up. It really depends on the breed.

Some ancient races still have those very old instincts of hunting and being independent, even doing some weird scream when given a bone or a having found a potential "hunt". (that's how people used to hunt!)

Youtube shiba scream :-)

All my previous dogs (>5) would always prefer the snack though.

It's a pretty wide spectrum. Here's a fun example. I've fostered rescue dogs before, and two dogs I fostered were on opposite ends.

The rescue org asked all fosters to crate train their dogs. The first I fostered was a lab mix. He hated his crate, but all I had to do was throw one piece of kibble in and he would sprint inside. As soon as I locked the door he would whine, for upwards of 30 minutes, which was hard for a first time dog owner. I kept checking the camera I setup until he finally settled down and I was able to relax. This routine happened every time.

The other one was a Boxer/Pit mix. He would not go into his crate for all the kibble in the world. He just didn't care. He knew what would happen if he went in, so he wouldn't budge. When I eventually managed to coax him inside, and I closed the door, he was totally silent. He made the choice to go in knowing what would happen. This happened every time.

So based on my limited experience, food motivation is not about whether or not a dog wants to eat, but what other desires that desire for food (even when not particularly hungry) will override.

“Food-motivated” in dogs means something more like “can be induced to listen to commands from a human in exchange for food.” Some dogs are only interested in their own plans. Others are only interested in really good food, or are much more interested in some other reward, like having a ball thrown.

My dog for instance is not particularly food motivated. He believes strongly that there is “food” and “better food” and will hold off until he’s really hungry to eat something that’s just food. But he’s very motivated by attention. He will do tricks for treats he doesn’t like and then drop the treat on the floor once you give it to him.

Someone can likely give you a more technical explanation - but to give an anecdotal example, my parents have German Shepherds which are grazers. They put a few cups of food in their bowl in the morning, and the dogs will eat throughout the day as they're hungry. They like treats, sure, but I wouldn't call them food motivated. My dogs are lab mixes, and if food is out they'll sniff it out and immediately scarf it down. When one was younger, if we left food on the counter or table while he was home alone, he would jump onto the counter and eat it. I would call my dog very food motivated.

Try the working breeds (don’t actually do this unless you live on a farm).

For them food is absolutely ignored if there’s a possibility of something to do. Food in a bowl and a ball nearby? Food is secondary to ball. We used to worry about our border collie and have to constantly make effort to lock him in a room with food so he’d eat and not just allow the other dogs to take the food.

Cats can be similarly ‘fussy’ as well. I have two indoor cats, a Garfield (can’t leave food out near him or he’ll eat to the point of throwing up) and one thats play obsessed and not at all interested in food except as needed at the most minimal levels. Makes it hard to feed them since one needs food left out to graze and the other has to be controlled.

Some cats are certainly more food motivated than others. One of my cats will get up 24/7 if I shake the treat container and will run to me from anywhere in the house. My other cat will only come for treats if he isn't feeling sleepy or lazy.

When we first got one of our dogs off the street, she was incredibly food motivated. She would hop the fence and roam and bring back cabbages, avocados, cauliflower, chips, and anything else she could find to snack on. Those are just examples we witnessed. But she always came back before we got home from work.

Now, 7 years later, she's picky. She'll spit out some food I give her if it isn't appealing enough. She can still obviously be motivated with food and treats, but it's far less unconditional.

I've got a cat that doesn't have any interest in treats or table scraps. She spent most of yesterday watching Breaking Bad.

My other cats are all at least normally motivated by food.

My first dog was not food motivated.

One of the hypotheses for how civilization emerged is that humans domesticated each other. Every time I take a neighbor some cookies I think of it as me doing my part for human evolution.

Me as well. I have a theory that that's why every tech startup always has a bunch of snacks in the kitchen.

There's a theory that wheat domesticated humans, that isn't far from that https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/slaves-to-wheat-how-a-grain-d...

Lol, I read this and my first thought was also "Yeah, humans too."

Ever visit any national park or even city park where people are feeding ducks, squirrels, birds etc???

What 'value' outside of entertainment does that provide to the humans?

Humans have always like having pets and frequently interacted with all kinds of nature before the industrial revolution, which is an extremely recent event in human history.

Although it turns out domesticated dogs have a wide number of uses _now_, early humans had no idea that would be the case, they probably just liked feeding the wolves.

Edit: there is also speculation that "feeding" wasn't entirely deliberate, that wolves started eating scraps from the garbage piles close to early human settlements and the ones that were friendly to humans (likely children especially) evolved closer and closer into dogs.

Providing them less desirable—to humans—-scraps would have likely prevented competition with them in hunting game. Why hunt living game if you can wait around and get scraps for free? So original intention of humans likely not domestication, but still leads that way if the wolves get what they want.

> Why would humans feed wolves...

It's the same reasons they feed dogs.

Well without wolves around it would leave more room for other, potentially much more dangerous, predators. And big cats once roamed most the entire world and are definitely more dangerous to humans than wolves.

> Why would humans feed wolves scraps without them providing something of value in return?

Human beings aren't all always that transactional. "Homo economicus" is joked about for good reasons.

You can easily imagine situations where a) food is in a temporary surplus due to a successful hunt, so there is little downside to wasting some and b) a sentimental child has access to it.

I would also guess that in some early stages of domesticating other animals feeding the animals that might prey on those animals could effectively lessen the predation.

I don't think this is a rational feeling, but I can relate.

I've successfully trained my dog to be non-reactive towards squirrels/birds/etc. on walks. The other day she walked by a rabbit from within a few feet, and hardly gave it even a look. And I felt bad, as though I've suppressed her natural self and ability to be excited about such a thing. She's now pacified to live in my world.

An irrational feeling, because she's now at much less risk of being run over by a vehicle, but it was a feeling nonetheless.

I've thought about the same. Dogs have "eyebrow" muscles that wolves do not which make their expressions more human-like. Domesticated dogs have William's syndrome [1], which is a human genetic disorder which leads to many changes, one of which is hypersocial behavior. Essentially, I think that our modern relationships with dogs are just plain weird. I don't think pet ownership is for me but am happy so many people find their companionship valuable.

1. https://www.science.org/content/article/what-makes-dogs-so-f... (Link to the primary text is in here but I find the scientific news articles to be easier to read)

> I know we didn't set out to do that but I regret it some, nonetheless.

This is not correct. Humans have been selectively breeding animals and plants for thousands of years.

Also dogs, for most of human history, provided services (hunting and security) to humans in exchange for "petship". It's only a very recent phenomena that (many but not all) pet dogs have to provide nothing to humans besides companionship. It is now that the maladaptation in dogs have started to appear because of the one way relationship.

You must deep down actually hate yourself or all of humanity to feel such remorse for the impact we have had on nature/dogs. Doesn't sound healthy

Domestication is an evolutionary strategy that has ensured that many species will exist for as long as humans will.

Assuming humans don't wipe themselves out, dogs and cats and many other species will outlive the Earth itself.

If humans are the most successful species on the planet, dogs are second.

Dogs as an entire species would not exist at all without humans. If dogs hadn't co-evolved with humans, we'd only have wolves. It's more than just simple domestication like cats and goats, dogs evolved into a new species alongside early humans. They aren't simply wild animals that tolerate humans, this is an entire species specifically evolved to be the ideal companion to humans. The entire point and purpose of this species is only to be companions to humans, that's what they evolved to be. By and large dogs need human companionship and suffer without it.

While the relationship between humans and dogs is very symbiotic, I think dogs get the better end of the deal. All their needs and wants as a species are taken care of by humans, the species will exist forever, and all the dogs have to do is learn the best way to beg for belly rubs.

We have dogs because dogs want us to have them.

Wheat domesticated us because agriculture put the politics and power into the hands of the landowners (whoever is big enough warlord to control arable territory)

Plants evolved animals to spread seeds.

Great article. The addendum on Soviet "scientist" Trofim Lysenko at the end was almost more interesting than the fox study itself!