Yes!!!! Thanks so much.

Terrific image for this post! But I’m sorry you weren’t in class last week when we committed ourselves to taking the readings on their own terms rather than jumping in and venting about all the things the author didn’t do or what you don’t like about what they did. Terril’s book is autobiographical but also an informed, well-researched and serious interrogation of what domestication means in real life for real people, real dogs, real wolf-dogs and real wolves. Her experiences with Inyo suggest just how liminal and fundamental the lines between wild and domestic are. Maybe coming at this text with a fresh perspective will help?

I think you are oversimplifying Dunn’s argument by saying that he holds snakes solely responsible for the development of the human brain. And it would be worth checking back on how he uses Isbell’s theory (and those of other scientists). Dunn is interested in how the interactions between humans (including our hominid ancestors) and other species have shaped the people we are today. He asserts that Isbell’s theory about snakes, primate evolution and vision is both “wild and plausible” (p. 179), and would agree with you completely about the significance and magnificence of the human brain. The point about smell (and the other senses) is that as vision and the brain became more developed and prominent, other senses, including smell and hearing probably deteriorated.
The chapter I thought you’d find the most intriguing was Ch. 10 (From Fight to Flight), but I’m glad the snakes got you going! Still I hope we can talk about anxiety disorders during class tomorrow.

You’ll have to tell us more about your thoughts on “unintentional management” tomorrow. (I think that quote and part of your first paragraph might be missing something?) Dunn’s equation of humans to hotdogs is funny and provocative. What did you make of his discussion of the development of the fight-flight mechanism and its legacy?

What a great post! I am also a big fan of Christian the lion. (Isn’t everybody?). The issue you raise about genetics/environment vis-a-vis Belyaev’s experiments and the other readings is so important and intriguing. Belyaev selected SOLELY for docility and interest in humans (as manifested by behavior) in order to isolate the genetic components of domestication. Your point about the docility of sheep and cattle being a function of their environment (including the circumstances under which each individual is raised) is important. But it isn’t “just” nurture that makes them the way they are. If it were, then by extension one could take any ungulate (say the Pronghorn), raise them around people and voila, they would be “domesticated” and lose much of their fight-flight response. Ironically (and inadvertently), what Belyaev proved is that both nature and nurture matter. In other words, domestication is a process, and a relationship between species that is conditioned both by genetics / biology and behavior/culture. Cool, but complicated!

I love this insight, Tanner! I think any time we can interrogate our assumptions about the universality and validity of our perceptions we’re more likely to appreciate the nuances of reality and discover some truly extraordinary things about human-animal (and human-human) relationships.

There are so many good ideas in this post and I’m really looking forward to the discussion tomorrow! On cultures of animals (and people). It’s really helpful to think about differences in terms of kind and quality rather than in terms of degree along a continuum from “primitive” to “advanced.” Ants, for example, have very sophisticated cultures – some of them even keep their own domesticates (aphids). The wolf-dog-pointing-following the gaze debate has been hot lately!
http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2011/02/wolves-can-follow-humans-gaze
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/were-first-dogs-our-best-friends-or-mutant-vermin-tale-f8C11562726

If I’m understanding you correctly, it sounds like you found Bulliet’s analysis of cat domestication flawed? Besides just not agreeing with him, is there evidence you’ve found in support of another theory?

Right – domestication (vs. tameness) involves artificial selection of some sort. But the deer example is a good one in terms of how animal cultures develop. In Northern VA, for example, deer have learned how to use culverts to cross roads to get to browse which means that fewer of them end up in traffic. They’ve also learned to recognize the human behaviors that precede a cull in an urban area and plan their movements accordingly (i.e. they stop coming to the place where the cull is going to be executed.)
But as their population has mushroomed and their range has encroached even more on urban areas, popular opinion about how to deal with them has also shifted: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/as-deer-encroach-on-washington-suburbs-attitudes-about-kills-shift/2013/11/30/84400bf2-5783-11e3-835d-e7173847c7cc_story.html

Interesting discussion here! I think everyone agrees that tractability (tameness) is an important component of domestication, but there is more it than that. As Clutton-Brock and many others argue, some measure of artificial selection must factor into the equation as well.
As for leashes – well that’s a whole interesting topic in its own right! Tool of protection, control, yes, but also mode of communication. Check out one of the best books ever written about cultures of humans, cultures of dogs, and cross-species communication here: http://www.patriciamcconnell.com/store/The-Other-End-of-the-Leash.html