Why dogs like to roll in shit and carcasses?

[Syzygys]

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?....

[invert_nexus]

I don't think it's so much camoflauge as it is heightening the odor.
Accentuation.
Bet your ass the dog's nose can smell the base dog underneath all that rotting carcass and shit.

Lou's prowling the forums. I bet he's got something to say here.
I bet Fraggle would have some interesting words too....

The suspense is killing me....

[MetaKron]

They need the bacteria.

[invert_nexus]

That's why they eat shit. But doesn't explain their rolling in it.

[MetaKron]

Skin and fur, too.

[valich]

The reason dogs roll in shit or other obnoxious material is because they are instinctively covering-up their own scent so as not to be detected when on the hunt.

[invert_nexus]

Yeah. Because prey animals have no problems with the smell of rotting meat and shit. They love it. It means good times...

Anyway.
An added thought on the behavior is pack behavior.
A pack of dogs rolls in the same shit. In the same rotting carcasses.
A pack of dogs has a communal pack smell.

It's an aspect of social behavior.

[Oniw17]

Where is Fraggle Rocker? I bet he knows, he knows everything about dogs.

[Dr Lou Natic]

Bet your ass the dog's nose can smell the base dog underneath all that rotting carcass and shit.
This is correct, not sure about prey but when it comes to other dogs there's nothing a dog could roll in which would mask it's own scent.
Dog's break down scents into each of their elements, they don't smell a pizza they smell every ingredient including everything that went into the sauce.
They could probably even distinguish in what order each ingredient was added and the time intervals between the placement of each ingredient.
I'm not sure about that specific example as for all I know the cooking could throw things off but generally they can comprehend that level of complexity through scent. A dog, especially one with a travelled and experienced nose, will sniff your shoes and get a really good idea of where you've been, and also information about each of the environments you spent time in.
It knows much more about your habits than you might want it to from sniffing your hands as well, and they can fully evaluate your health from particles of your breath on the wind.
They can certainly smell the dog under the stinks.

Scent is to dogs what sight is to humans, so it's really just a case of "wearing smells" to make a bigger impact in social situations, like we wear clothes and accessories. They're trying to sport a stylish stank.
It's likely the more pungent and rank a dog can make itself the better it feels about itself.
Dogs aren't particularly stealthy predators, they dedicate alot of their time specifically to getting their stink all over the place and letting everything know where they've been and who knows what else about them.
We can probably never get to know another human as well as a dog knows another dog just from sniffing his piss. So they're uber-open rather than introverts trying to be camoflaged.
It's not a cover up, it's more an accentuation.
The other dogs will smell them where they were laying in the grass or whatever, but also smell all the stinks they were wearing at the time and they'll be impressed.

[valich]

What is the problem here?

Dogs roll in other animals shit and carcasses to conceal their own scent so that they are not detected by the prey when on the hunt. This is a basic instinctive behavior practised by many predatory mammals.

[MetaKron]

To me, part of this is the fact that prokaryotic and eukaryotic life still have an intimate relationship. Ever notice that dogs don't generally eat the rotted stuff that they roll in? Also, did you ever notice that they only rub it on the parts of their bodies that they can't reach to lick?

A carnivore's digestive system needs certain bacteria to function well but if it ate the rotted meat it would still sicken or kill it. It needs bacteria that have the same diet that it does. The way to get this is to infect its hair with the bacteria, which share genes with the dog's more usual skin bacteria and then die off in the more aerobic conditions. It's probably even beneficial to their humans. People who have pets live longer lives and happier ones.

[Syzygys]

Dogs roll in other animals shit and carcasses to conceal their own scent so that they are not detected by the prey when on the hunt.

But why do they roll in other DOG's shit? It just makes them more noticable.

Also please give a list of other predators with similar behaviour and as an extra question: why cats don't do it?

[Syzygys]

Bet your ass the dog's nose can smell the base dog underneath all that rotting carcass and shit.


Sure, nobody said it was perfect, nevertheless it can work from a distance. Make this experience:

Put a dry dog into a room. Wait until it shits. Take a big sniff and tell me, what do you smell, the dog or the shit? Case closed...

[valich]

Other example: wolves. Dogs are by nature carnivorous predatory animals. Dogs will roll on shit or carcasses on the upper parts of their body behind their neck where they cannot lick it, but this is irrelevant. They do it to conceal their own scent. They also piss on locations, out of instinct, so as to mark their territory for the recipient of any nearby alpha-led pack. They do this to delineate their territory.

[invert_nexus]

hey do it to conceal their own scent.


They also piss on locations, out of instinct, so as to mark their territory

And you don't see the contradiction there?

Also. I repeat.
"Yeah. Because prey animals have no problems with the smell of rotting meat and shit. They love it. It means good times..."





Put a dry dog into a room. Wait until it shits. Take a big sniff and tell me, what do you smell, the dog or the shit? Case closed...

What does that have to do with anything?
Ask the dog what it smells. That's the issue.

[redarmy11]

They do this to delineate their territory.
I think this is why they eat other dogs' poo too. They don't want strange dogs pooing on their patch, just like we don't want tramps wandering in and availing themselves of our bathroom facilities (or most of us, anyway - personally I love it).

[valich]

"Rolling in strong smelling substances is 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!" http://www.dogbehaviour.com/behaviourproblems/dogs/yourdog/obsessions.htm

"rolling in a maggot-infested carcass (to hide her own scent, no doubt)" http://usads.ms11.net/eulogy.html

"because they are trying to hide their scent from their prey" www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/66481.html

"they rub in dead animals to hide their scent from predators....
it's a natural instinct"
http://www.mikeportnoy.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=1243175

"Wolves, jackals and dogs roll in decomposing animals to hide their scent."
www.groupsrv.com/religion/about146583.html

"Dogs will roll in nasty things to hide thier scent. In the wild, dogs have to hunt for thier food. If the animals that they hunt smell them those animals will run off. Therefore, by hiding thier scent with any kind of nasty smell, skunk, feces, ect.; they increase thier chances of catching something to eat." http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/4159336/an/0/page/0

"dogs have a primitive instinct to roll on decomposing things to hide their scent in the wild." www.fullerfamilyfarms.com/2005/09/page/7/

[invert_nexus]

Ha!
You're a weaselly little guy still.


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!

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?


"rolling in a maggot-infested carcass (to hide her own scent, no doubt)"

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


"because they are trying to hide their scent from their prey"

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?


I believe they rub in dead animals to hide their scent from predators....
it's a natural instinct.


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'.

[invert_nexus]

A little puzzle for you to turn over in that tiny little mind of yours.

Let's assume that a prey animal exists which is preyed upon by a pack of dogs (wolves, whatever...).

Do the animals have an instinctive fear of dog smell? Or is it a learned behavior?

Now. Let's say that these dogs roll in carrion and feces in order to disguise their scent so as to not startle their prey?
Ok?
Sound reasonable?

Now.
The dogs attack the prey. Smelling like rotten carrion and shit. Their own dog scent is camoflauged by these scents.
Is it not safe to assume that the prey animals would quickly learn to associate the smell of rotting meat and shit with the dog pack?
Is a conditioned response too much to ask for?

Also.
Please respond to Lou's point that dogs aren't stealth hunters.
Do you believe that dogs are, in fact, stealth hunters? Do they rely upon camoflauge? Do they spring upon their prey unawares?

Maybe you're confused...
You're not thinking of a cat, are you?

[John99]

I think dogs like to roll in other dog's shit or carcasses,

what the **** are you talking about?

This lady (whom haS one leg) cat set the house on fire with a candle. Meanwhile her dog grabbed her fake leg and woke the lady up. THEN this dog runs BACK in the house to save her cat...did you hear that thie ******* dog runs BACK in to save the CAT AND guess what the do died in the process.

What would you have done?:mad:

**** im being an ******* again, however, that is a true story. Dog's man what is it about them?

[Dr Lou Natic]

I've got a feeling the answer to this is extremely complex.
But it's clear to anyone with a fundamental understanding of dogs that the idea of dogs trying to "mask their own scent" contradicts the whole essence of what dogs are.
It's really obviously not the case.
Other predators DON'T do it, actually bears do, but bears are hardly even predators. What bears have in common with dogs is an extremely sophisticated sense of smell.
All signs point to this behaviour serving an intraspecific purpose, that they cover themselves in scents for the benefit of the advanced scenting abilities of their kin.

Cat's don't roll in shit, they bury their own shit, and most of them are practically odourless because they are true stealth predators.

As if a herd of deer in a field won't be alarmed by the sudden powerful stench of rotting flesh and feces hitting their nostrils?
That's a head turner, the thing is dogs don't give a shit, they saunter casually towards a herd in plain sight and watch them bolt, then they analyse their movements for abnormalities, pick out the most vulnerable and run them into exhaustion before tearing them apart.
Alternatively they might keep tabs on a moose that lives in their territory for years, smelling where it's chewed grass or browsed on a tree, and smelling it's dead skin cells where it's layed down etc to get a diagnosis on it's condition, once it's teeth start rotting and it starts getting elderly skin diseases and so on they know it's time to strike, but still there's no stealth involved. They know where it's going to be and they mosey on down to engage with it.

Frustratingly (because it complicates things and simpletons need simple answers) some dogs do occassionally "stalk" certain kinds of prey, and know to stay downwind of them. I know my dog will stalk wallabies like a cat, and circle downwind from them before charging in.
But there's some variables to take into consideration. He's really learnt this from hundreds of failed attempts to course them fairly, also he's of molosser ancestry, and mastiffs are odd canids in many ways, with many cat like traits.
For example they lead into engagements with their paws, clasping onto foes and quarry with their forelimbs before biting. Most dogs lead with their mouths, and don't posess the dexterity to grasp anything with their paws.
Mastiffs are also explosive like cats, powerful, but lacking the endurance of the classic dog (although still miles ahead of any cat) as well as the pace, so they're more inclined to try and ambush or stalk prey because it's just better odds.
I think wolves might stalk jackrabbits and hares, but really this behaviour of covering themselves in stink is just far more significant than any importance canids place on stealth.
It just really wouldn't make sense.

I'm very confident that dogs roll on carcasses and feces FOR other dogs to notice, why specifically I'm not sure.

[John99]

I'm very confident that dogs roll on carcasses and feces

First of all, who say's the do this?

[spuriousmonkey]

anyone who ever had a dog.

[MetaKron]

Carcasses, yes. Feces, I've never seen them roll in them.

[redarmy11]

Is that because you've never had a dog?

[Dr Lou Natic]

Actually my dog doesn't roll in dog shit, but he rolls in horse shit, cow shit and deer shit.
I guess the question is how many dogs have you seen step over these forms of dung without rolling in them?
And yeah, he definately rolls in carcasses, or where carcasses have been or bled out.

[redarmy11]

Actually that's true. My dog never rolled in dogshit either. I saw him eat some once, but not roll in it, no. Loved cowshit though. I've never seen him happier than when rolling in a big cowpat, splashing it all over, grunting away.

[Dr Lou Natic]

In the same way they put their stink all over their territory, perhaps they like to show off the bounties of their territory by wearing it on themselves.
If you're a hungry stray dog and you come across another dog that wreaks of flesh and the dung of prey animals, you know he's got it made and you'll want to associate with him.
It would impress females too obviously.
And that's probably why bears do it.

Now I have a feeling it's not that complex.

[spuriousmonkey]

Actually that's true. My dog never rolled in dogshit either. I saw him eat some once, but not roll in it, no. Loved cowshit though. I've never seen him happier than when rolling in a big cowpat, splashing it all over, grunting away.

The nicest shit they roll in is human shit.

[Dr Lou Natic]

Nicest? I always thought human shit was technically the grossest of the shits.
Didn't they once prove this in a lab by smearing differents kinds of feces on infants (due to them being unconditioned and unbiased) and measuring the quantity they managed to vomit before dieing of stench overload?
I seem to recall a 3 litre measurement for human feces with the closest competitor being a measly 600 mls for suid feces.

[Oniw17]

I always thought human shit was technically the grossest of the shits.


I've heard that too.

[spuriousmonkey]

Nicest? I always thought human shit was technically the grossest of the shits.
Didn't they once prove this in a lab by smearing differents kinds of feces on infants (due to them being unconditioned and unbiased) and measuring the quantity they managed to vomit before dieing of stench overload?
I seem to recall a 3 litre measurement for human feces with the closest competitor being a measly 600 mls for suid feces.

Nicest as in most repulsive.

[Roman]

Dogs hunt. They don't stalk. Their prey bloody well know the dogs there, as they're running for their goddamn life.

If shit's so great at masking scent from prey animals, why don't cats roll? Why are cats, the stealthiest of stealthy predators, so clean? They even dig holes to shit in.

Valich, you're a terrible biologist.

[Roman]

Nicest? I always thought human shit was technically the grossest of the shits.
Didn't they once prove this in a lab by smearing differents kinds of feces on infants (due to them being unconditioned and unbiased) and measuring the quantity they managed to vomit before dieing of stench overload?
I seem to recall a 3 litre measurement for human feces with the closest competitor being a measly 600 mls for suid feces.

Our own shit stinks the worst because it's the most noxious to us. It contains many more pathogens that are specialized for infecting us than other types of shit.

[valich]

In the same way they put their stink all over their territory, perhaps they like to show off the bounties of their territory by wearing it on themselves.
If you're a hungry stray dog and you come across another dog that wreaks of flesh and the dung of prey animals, you know he's got it made and you'll want to associate with him.
It would impress females too obviously.
And that's probably why bears do it.

Now I have a feeling it's not that complex.

Predatory animals - bears, dogs, wolves, jackals - are predatory mammals that mark their hunting territory. This is an instinctive behavior that serves to warn others of the same species that they are intruding on another's domain. This limits the density that any given predatory mammal can exist in. For example, a grizzly bear or a pack of wolves have territorial ranges of up to several hundred square miles. Balck bears need from 10-250 square miles, and in every predatory mammal species the males need twice or more as much as females need.

My advisor is one of the world experts on mountain lions and is greatly involved in cougar ecological habitat restorations. He is often called upon by local government officials when lions start to get too close to human habitats. Female mountain lions need about 40-50 square miles of territorial range, while males need up to 100 or more.

There is absolutely no question why dogs roll in shit and carcasses or why they go from tree-to-tree in a given small area to pee rather than just relieving him/her-self all at once. This is inherited instinctive behavior passed on down from their ancestral wolve origin.

[invert_nexus]

My advisor is one of the world experts on mountain lions and is greatly involved in cougar ecological habitat restorations.

A shame, then, that this thread isn't about mountain lions. And a shame also that he's not here to represent himself. Instead, we have merely your word for it.

And you've already been shown to be a liar.


There is absolutely no question why dogs roll in shit and carcasses

You're such a douchebag.
Your 'answer' to the question has already been shown to be mere conjecture. That's all that any of this can be. Conjecture. Theory.
I find the reasoning behind the social aspect of the rolling behavior to be far more convincing than your authoritative stance. Especially since you're a dishonest hack.


This is inherited instinctive behavior passed on down from their ancestral wolve origin.

Duh der.
So. You've changed your answer to indicate that this is merely inherited behavior now? But you've dropped the specifics of your earlier reply?

Why didn't you respond to my post, Valich?
You've been shown, point blank, to be a dishonest little creep. Why don't you answer why you edited those quotes as you did? You specifically altered them to make them seem more authoritative than they are.
Why?

I know why.
I bet that if you lay down in the woods, dogs like to roll in you.

[Dr Lou Natic]

Seriously, that didn't even look like an attempt at a rebuttal.
What the fuck is he talking about?

Valich, dogs are mammals, mammals give birth to live young and feed them milk.
Christopher columbus discovered the new world.
So there is absolutely no question why dogs roll in in shit and carcasses.

[invert_nexus]

That's Valich for you.
He's not too bright. But he plays one on tv.

[PsychoticEpisode]

A dog will roll in shit when there isn't a leg to hump. Seriously....

Rolling in shit to hunt seems kind of strange and it doesn't say much for prey, getting stalked by a pile of roaming shit.

The human sense of smell is weak but we can all smell shit and when you come right down to it, no one including prey animals expects to be killed by a pile of shit. This fact should register with the commanders of armies, militants and terrorists anywhere.... rub your guys in shit before sending them out on patrol since the natural instinct of the enemy would be to take their finger off the trigger and hold their nose, let out a groan giving way position and instictively run away from unpleasantness. Apparently this is something dogs have already figured out.

[invert_nexus]

Do you have something specific - and intellectual! - that you'd like to ask?

Why should I bother?
I've already asked at least twice but you don't answer line by line.
So, you don't answer at all...

Doesn't matter anymore anyway.
I love how you've shown yourself to be not only a douchebag, but a dishonest douchebag as well.


My advisor is Dr. Paul Beier. He is very respected in his field and a very busy man.

Good for him.
Think I give a shit?
And do you think that has any import to this thread?


You can very easily research more about him on the web.

I'm sure I could if I were interested in the least little bit.
I don't understand why you'd even want me to?
Err... You think that by saying that some so and so is your adviser that this would somehow rub off on you or something?
Ha!
If anything, it makes me think that your adviser is a douchebag like you are.


Your reply is very confusing because it seems to suggest that you think that all replies should be a rebuttal, rather than a contribution???

It should at least be sequitur.

[valich]

Okay. I went back to thread 1 to review. You posted:

First: "I don't think it's so much camoflauge as it is heightening the odor."

I don't agree with this. Heightening the odor for what?

Second: "An added thought on the behavior is pack behavior.
A pack of dogs rolls in the same shit. In the same rotting carcasses.
A pack of dogs has a communal pack smell."

This is a very good point. I definitely agree that it is pack behavior, but I do not think that it is "communal pack smell" behavior in the sense that it is somehow decided on by the pack. It is to camouflage their own scent when on the hunt.

Third: I stated that: "They do it to conceal their own scent....They also piss on locations, out of instinct, so as to mark their territory ”

And you replied: "And you don't see the contradiction there?"

I do see why you might think there is a contradiction here, but I do not think that there is one. One the one hand, they conceal their scent for the aggressive predatory hunt. On the other hand, they mark their scent through their urine to be recognized by similar species so as to let them know that this is their territory. As pack animals, if another wolf (or a bear or mountain lion) were to decide to invade another wolf's territory (same species), he knows that he can expect a struggle or a fight with the alpha. I don't think that the prey would recognize this as such, although this is a good area to research.

The history of the evolution of mammalian behavior tells us that predatory mammals roll in shit and carcasses to hide (camouflage) their scent. If you come across any scientific sources to the contrary, I would be most interested in reading them.

Also, thanks a lot for telling me about the July, 2006 Scientific American article, "What Bird's See." I find it fascinating that primates reevolved a third cone from a mutation after losing two of the original four, but I do not fully understand the author's diagram on page 74 of the UV bird spectrum locus as being 3-dimensional compared to ours as being 2-dimensional. Perhaps when I reread that part at a later date, something will click.

Thanks a lot though!

[valich]

I did briefly discuss this subject with my advisor and need to correct some of what I posted above. Evidently only canidae species (wolves, coyotes, foxes, jackals, and dogs) mark their territory with urine. I was told that mountain lions mark their territory by kicking up dirt in certain areas with their hind feet and also by scrape marks. This is also consistent with my own observations of grizzly bears in Alaska. They seem to mark their territory by making huge scrape marks on large trees. I have seen this. There are trees almost two feet in diameter with 2-3 foot vertical sections of the bark completely scraped off from about one-third or one-fourth of the diameter of the tree. I was quite puzzled by this behavior at first and had assumed that maybe they did this just to sharpen their claws. Canidae urinate to mark their territory but one should not confuse the smell of urine with the scent of the predator on the hunt for the prey. I am stating this as an almost direct quote from a man whom I consider to be one of the most - if not "the" most - professional in his field.

Canidae roll in shit and carcasses to hide their scent. This may or may not have originated as a "pack behavior," but please do not deny this, as it is a fact very well known and undisputed amongst all animal behavior biologists. Even when scientists today go into the field to study a population or species - whether it be a herd of elk or gazelle or a bear or a moose - we all know that it is just common sense that you approach the species from the downwind direction - never from upwind! The same goes for deciding your safety options when confronted by a bear - are you downwind from the bear? If so, remain still. If he hasn't spotted you (they have very poor eyesight) chances are that he hasn't caught your scent.

[invert_nexus]

Even when scientists today go into the field to study a population or species - whether it be a herd of elk or gazelle or a bear or a moose - we all know that it is just common sense that you approach the species from the downwind direction - never from upwind!

More non sequitur. What does this have to do with rolling in shit, Valich?

I still believe that the rolling behavior is far more complex than just hiding scent.

I repeat. Smelling like rotting meat is not a good sign as far as a prey animal would be concerned. The prey animal would quickly come to associate the smell of rotting meat plus shit plus dog to the coming attack. The smell of all three combined would be greater than the one.
If the behavior was only rolling in the shit of prey, then you'd have a better case. But it's not.

So. Please shove your arguments from authority up your authoritative ass.
Thank you.
Good day, sir.

[spuriousmonkey]

Apparently badgers also like rolling in excrement.

[invert_nexus]

Ok.
It's already been shown in this very thread that Valich is a dishonest little shit in how he selectively edited his 'proofs' to back up his claim earlier in this thread. It's also been pretty much shown that he's a weaselly little bastard that refuses to even acknowledge when he's done something so dishonest (which I personally view as a foul act and truly find Valich to be a foul little bastard because of his actions). He is also weaselly and evasive as hell in how he squirms about bringing in arguments from authority. Naming some dickhead 'cougar expert' whose balls he licks. Trying to change the subject to this, that, and the other and pretend that these various non sequiturs are somehow able to prove his original assertion. And in the end simply claims his statement as 'scientific fact'. (The fallacy in claiming 'scientific fact' is one which I will pass up on discussion for the time being as I've gone on too many times about this and am frankly tired of talking about it. So, for the moment, I'll pretend that such a thing as 'scientific fact' is possible.)

Despite all that.
Despite my dislike. My distaste. And my constantly reinforced disgust for this weaselly little shit named Valich.
I'm going to give him a chance.
I doubt he'll surprise me by pulling off a hail mary though. I just really don't think he's capable. He'll probably pull some 'huh' statement out of his ass and pretend that he doesn't understand and maybe start talking about plate tectonics or a pre-rna world or something.

But. I'm giving him a chance.


Valich,

Your statement that this rolling behavior is solely embedded in a 'covering up of scent' mentality in order to increase hunting efficiency is understandable. It is one of the obvious connections that people come up with when they ponder this type of behavior.
It's an 'obviously'.

However, I feel that it doesn't cover the situation enough.

Why?
As I've stated, multiple times, prey animals do not find the smell of rotting meat comforting.

Also. If a species of prey animal were being assaulted, on a regular basis, by a pack of dogs/wolves/jackals/whatever that smelled like a combination of shit/rotting meat/dog, then they would quickly come to associate this very powerful odor with that of the pack.
What gain has been had by making their odor that much more powerful?
I ask you. What fucking gain does a stealth hunter gain by making his odor 10 times (a random number not truly applicable) more powerful than his natural smell?

Now. If the behavior were limited to only shit from the prey animal itself or other herbivorous animals, then you'd have a point. Because, while the odor of the dog might be compounded, it would be difficult for the prey animal to associate the smell of its own shit with impending attack. There has to be some kind of mechanism to prevent this type of conditioning from occuring...

(Hmm. Although... memories of potty training come to mind.. interesting tangent but one that I'm not going to ramble on about here....)


Now. That question is one which is only for you to answer based on your own feelings/beliefs.
The following question is for you to back up your claim of 'scientific fact'.

Please do so good as to explain the methodology and experimentation that led to this ironclad 'scientific fact' that you are going on so authoritatively about.
Please. Tell me how you can be so sure.
And please. Don't just tell me that your advisor so and so said so. I'll tell you to shove any such answers up your ass.

Now.
Are you capable of answering my post?
It'll be a 'rebuttal', you understand. And we all know that you despise rebuttal. We all know that you think that people should just talk and talk and talk and even if one is talking a mountain of steaming shit, that the other should just nod and continue to massage his nutsack vigorously while bringing him to oral completion.

So.
What say you, oh weaselly one?
I think I'm going to start calling you non sequitur. Would you like that?

[invert_nexus]

Valich,

You destroyed this thread the instant you blundered in with your "scientific fact".

Again. And again. And again. You refuse to respond to points.
You state your case as thought it were 'scientific fact'.
You intentionally edit your 'proofs' so as to back up your claim.
You refuse to acknowledge or apologize for said dishonesty.
Then you try to take the moral high ground because I am sick to the gills of your behavior.

You are the problem, Valich.
Not me.

I still suspect that you do it all on purpose.
That you're a troll.

A damned good one though.

In the meantime though, I'll accept your surrender.

[valich]

Invert: Do you think I read your posts? You're an old grump. I read the first two or three words of those long insulting paragraphs and just laugh. Waste your own time. You're posting self-fulfilling prophesies of what I stated above. Everything that I posted before this was related to "dogs rolling in shit and carcasses" and then I responded to other comments about other mammals leaving their scent via urine or smelling them as predators.

For reference to another subject of research, I needed to look back on a previous thread that was posted two years ago and I couldn't help but notice how what you posted back then, were the "exact same words" - the exact same "insulting" words - as the ones that you still resort to using today. Why do you do this? This is "your" psychological problem - not anyone elses. It has no absolutely affect on anyone else except you.

[tablariddim]

I got it... it's a trophy smell. It's the smell associated with the hunt and the kill and is bound to impress. When dogs come upon the smelly stuff, a natural compulsion is triggered and they feel that they have to roll around in it to acquire the smell and it is evident that they enjoy it immensely. I think it has been proved that it doesn't act as camouflage.

[Dr Lou Natic]

Yeah I'm pretty confident you're right tablariddim.
It's obviously going to be both intimidating and impressive to other dogs if a dog wreaks of carcass and ungulate dung. It means he's hooked up to a bountifull territory, that's a significant thing to get across in the dog world.
Masking your scent from prey animals is foreign jiberish in the dog world.
To rivals wreaking of carcass and ungulate dung means he's healthy, well fed and well conditioned, and it means the same to prospective mates and companions.

As for valich, I'm completely beyond even taking him seriously enough to argue against him.
There's one dog expert I respect, Ray Coppinger, and the reality is I disagree with him on most things.
I consider myself a HUGE dog expert, I don't think there are many human beings on earth who have spent as much brainpower on understanding dogs as I have, it's actually unhealthy and embarrassing to the point I don't want to get into it with sciforumers.
Some cougar-cock-sucker has nothing on me let me just get that straight right now.
For years I've been discussing animals with real scientists and experts and I happen to know when it comes to dogs I'm unrivalled on this planet.
One of my special subjects is debating with cougar experts how badly some dogs would whoop a cougar's sorry ass.
I've learned the hard way that cougar experts are fucking idiots.

[invert_nexus]

Yeah. Back to trying to ignore Valich's ignorant bullshit. It's only from time to time that he actually manages to pull me into his world of stupidity.
He's really an excellent troll.
It's like I'm a dog and he's a rotting carcass in the wood and I just have this overwhelming desire to roll in him and get his rotting smell all over me.

[invert_nexus]

Blah blah blah blah blah.


And blind unsubstantiated speculative or imaginative posts are just the same as posting fantasy.

Quoting fantasy? You mean like you did when you deceitfully edited those quotes back when you were offering proof?


Site your sources: been then, done that, and seen this!

Cite yours, dipshit.
It's already been shown that you lied when you 'cited your sources' earlier in this thread.


I hope you do not try to make a habit of being dumb, stupid and argumentative all your life???

That's science for you.
Good job.
If one doesn't agree with you then they're just dumb, stupid, and argumentative.
Ha!


If you have specific questions about this instinctive behavior, i.e., of canidae covering up their scent to hide it, I would be happy to research it more fully and/or ask my colleagues for further professional comments or for comments on guidance for you to follow.

As if anyone would believe you, Valich.
You're a dishonest little shit. Everyone knows that.


And blind unsubstantiated speculative or imaginative posts are just the same as posting fantasy. So I'm assuming that this thread has now gone into "Alice in Wonderland."

Yup. It went into Alice in Wonderland as soon as a deceptive little prick posted this garbage with the pretense of 'citing sources'.


"Rolling in strong smelling substances is 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!" http://www.dogbehaviour.com/behaviou...obsessions.htm

"rolling in a maggot-infested carcass (to hide her own scent, no doubt)" http://usads.ms11.net/eulogy.html

"because they are trying to hide their scent from their prey" www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/66481.html

"they rub in dead animals to hide their scent from predators....
it's a natural instinct"
http://www.mikeportnoy.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=1243175

"Wolves, jackals and dogs roll in decomposing animals to hide their scent."
www.groupsrv.com/religion/about146583.html

"Dogs will roll in nasty things to hide thier scent. In the wild, dogs have to hunt for thier food. If the animals that they hunt smell them those animals will run off. Therefore, by hiding thier scent with any kind of nasty smell, skunk, feces, ect.; they increase thier chances of catching something to eat." http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/s...36/an/0/page/0

"dogs have a primitive instinct to roll on decomposing things to hide their scent in the wild." www.fullerfamilyfarms.com/2005/09/page/7/

[invert_nexus]

Yeah. Back to trying to ignore Valich's ignorant bullshit.

I know. I know...

[tablariddim]

There is no doubt. Absolutely no question about this! And it is an accepted fact by ALL animal behavior biologists, that canidae species - and a few others - roll in shit and carcasses to hide their smell from their prey. Anyone who denies this is just trying to be argumentative and is ignorant of the facts. Site your sources: been then, done that, and seen this!

"

You've probably made it a habit to be dumb, stupid and argumentative all your life, but that is your choice. Wanker.

[invert_nexus]

I think there are other chat forums where you (plural) might find a more welcome home (myspace.com and other chit-chat kiddy chat rooms).

And perhaps it is you who should go looking for a place where you are received with the pomp and circumstance you desire.
I find it interesting how you, someone who has never received an ounce of respect for any of his posts in his time here, should try to play as though you are able to advise long-time members (who dwelt here long before your idiotic person showed up. Tablariddim: Join Date: 11-08-99) to move on.

A question: Do you really think that anyone here has ever respected you for your 'contributions'? You're a laughing stock to those who have any experience with you, Valich. But, I suspect, to most you don't even cross their radar. A pure non-entity.

Move along, little boy.
You are not the authority you think you are.


This is certainly a "dumb, stupid, argumentative" idiotic, uneducated, and lead-to-nothing deadend response.

No more and no less than you deserve.
You should note that none of the people that view you as a disgusting little creep have any 'club' against you. We have all reached our conclusions quite on our own. Based solely on observation of your character.
You should be used to this by now. It's happened all your life, yes?

[tablariddim]

This is certainly a "dumb, stupid, argumentative" idiotic, uneducated, and lead-to-nothing deadend response.

Exactly! That's why I copied your own words; feels different coming back at you eh? I won't say more as it seems I have a champion in the name of Invert who is much more eloquent than I in the art of insulting rebuttals.

[Idle Mind]

Where's Ophiolite when you need him?

[Idle Mind]

Don't you mean, "no moss grows on a rolling stone"?

[invert_nexus]

No. He means rolling stones roll in shit and carcasses to camouflage themselves from Bob Dylan.
You're not being dumb, stupid, and/or argumentative are you?
Is this going somewhere?

[Idle Mind]

He even sucked me into incorrectly correcting him. The correct quote would be "a rolling stone gathers no moss".

And I love to be argumentative.

[Nickelodeon]

The correct quote would be "a Rolling Stone gathers no Moss".

Especially Mick Jagger.

[tablariddim]

Or even Keef

[Roman]

What's the difference between Mick Jagger and a scotsman?

[Idle Mind]

I dunno, Roman. What?

[Roman]

Mick Jagger says "Hey you, get off my cloud." A scotsman says [scottish accent]"Hey McCloud, get off my ewe."[/scottish accent]

[CANGAS]

I have observed this behavior and do not feel like like I know why. I have seen a Germab Sheperd find a dead bird, quickly lay down with her feet straight up in the air, and roll sideways back and forth through about 30 degrees about perpendicular a number of times, seemingly in a state of great enjoyment. The bird was located about directly under her front legs. I was very familiar with that good girl, and read her emotions as that of great joy and satisfaction.

I never have had a good guess as to why she liked to do that so much.

[valich]

The joy of instinctively finding a great source that will hide their own scent, that they instinstively do, as a behavioral trait passed down through evolution, so as not to be detected by the prey during the hunt.

[invert_nexus]

The joy of instinctively rolling in a strong-smelling carcass so as to show off to one's packmates, as a behavioral trait passed down through evolution so as to maintain a social structure.

[Fraggle Rocker]

My dogs like to roll in anything with a strong smell. It doesn't have to be animal material. If they run across a patch of smashed stinky weeds, or just a bag of leftover french fries somebody tossed out of a car last week, they'll roll in it for ten minutes.

[valich]

The joy of instinctively rolling in a strong-smelling carcass so as to show off to one's packmates, as a behavioral trait passed down through evolution so as to maintain a social structure.

This is an interesting hypothesis, but it just can't be. If one member of the pack came across this "strong-smelling carcass so as to show off to one's packmates," what would prevent all the packmates from doing the same? Surely they would all be close enough - as a pack - to smell the same source and do the same. And you know that the Alpha, as the leader of the pack, did not become the Alpha because of this.

[Roman]

This is an interesting hypothesis, but it just can't be. If one member of the pack came across this "strong-smelling carcass so as to show off to one's packmates," what would prevent all the packmates from doing the same? Surely they would all be close enough - as a pack - to smell the same source and do the same. And you know that the Alpha, as the leader of the pack, did not become the Alpha because of this.

And women must be putting on make up to hide from predators, as it can't be that they're trying to look better. Otherwise, what would keep ugly women from putting on make up?

[valich]

Are you suggesting that putting on makeup is a pack behavior? Or for the female to impress the alpha?

Ironically, girls often try to look attractive, not for men, but compared to other women.

This is a totally different subject.

[Hapsburg]

That's why they eat shit. But doesn't explain their rolling in it.
Uh...'cause they're dogs and they're dumb-as-hell?:p

[Idle Mind]

Are you suggesting that putting on makeup is a pack behavior? Or for the female to impress the alpha?

Ironically, girls often try to look attractive, not for men, but compared to other women.

This is a totally different subject.
Who said anything about pack behaviour?

[valich]

We're talking about dogs - the Canidae family (wolves, coyotes, foxes, jackals, dogs). These species all evolved from ancestral wolves who were all pack animals. Stray dogs today also roam in packs. We are talking about a pack behavior.

[Idle Mind]

Not every behaviour exhibited by dogs, especially domesticated ones, is necessarily pack behaviour. In other words, not every day to day activity performed by a pack animal is necessarily performed for the pack. Some activities surely must be performed for the individual.

No one suggested that a female putting on make-up is a pack behaviour. Conversely, we haven't established that rolling in decaying matter in a pack behaviour, either. You were the one that apparently drew the inference between the two ideas.

[valich]

The joy of instinctively rolling in a strong-smelling carcass so as to show off to one's packmates, as a behavioral trait passed down through evolution so as to maintain a social structure.

I know Invert enough by now to know that he is well-educated and would not seriously consider this statement to be factual. Although now that I have stated this he may reply to challenge. He is being rhetorical. And his rhetorical reply is both very intelligent and very humorous - and he knows this. And I do appreciate the humor.

Thanks Invert. Now we'll have a post about dogs putting on lipstick? :)

[invert_nexus]

Valich,


I know Invert enough by now to know that he is well-educated and would not seriously consider this statement to be factual.

And would you then care to share the epistemological basis for this proposition?
I would make my own proposition based upon this statement by yourself.
You know nothing about me.
"Education" is in the eye of the beholder.
And I am not being 'humorous' about my propositions concerning canine behavior, nor about your behavior being disgusting to me. (I have not, nor will I ever, forget your disgusting display in this thread, Valich. You might choose to pretend that you weren't caught red-handed being a lying little bastard, but I will not enable your self-deception.)

Now.
On to the meat.


If one member of the pack came across this "strong-smelling carcass so as to show off to one's packmates," what would prevent all the packmates from doing the same? Surely they would all be close enough - as a pack - to smell the same source and do the same.

Yes. Absolutely.
Every other member of the pack would likewise roll in the carcass or other strong-smelling piece of whatever.
And what would this do?
I've already stated this quite clearly in an earlier post, but I'll repeat myself for the reading impaired.

A dog pack is a communal affair.
It possesses a pack smell.
This pack smell is created by all the members of the pack rolling in the same objects. (Along with other behaviors, of course.)
Thus, the rolling behavior is a social behavior meant to strengthen the pack bond.

It is not, as you suggest, meant to assert dominance in a pack. It is a means of group bonding. An amalgamation and an egalitarian process.


However, I also believe that it does contain some degree of competitive behavior as well. This would be per your interpretation. A dog that has been separated from his pack would find scents to roll in which his packmates would not have. He would bring these scents back to his pack on his return. His packmates would gather around and sniff him excitedly and jealously.

Although, it's difficult to assume the reaction. It is possible that the pack might look at him suspiciously. That a separation from the pack is viewed in a negative manner and the unique smells he brings back with him would be a reminder of this separation.

Possibly a combination. An interest in the smell bordering on jealousy. And a paranoia of the outsider bordering on xenophobia.


Also. It contains aspects of communication. A dog is unable to speak about his travels. But his smell is able to convey information.


Also. I believe that camouflage does some part. But, most likely a small part. And one which is not really evolutionarily stable.
After all, as I mentioned several times already, a deer herd would quickly learn the smell of the local dog pack. Making its scent stronger is no true disguise. Perhaps if it limited its rolling to dung, but it doesn't.
Prey does not find the smell of rotting meat comforting.


As to pack behavior.
Perhaps one should distinguish between competitive and bonding behaviors.
There are many aspects to 'pack behavior'. Hierarchical structure is only one aspect.


These species all evolved from ancestral wolves who were all pack animals.

You sure about this?
Jackals evolved from wolves?
I'm not sure myself, but I do know there were ancient species of dogs. It is a mistaken belief that all dog species were derived from wild wolves being domesticated.



Idle Mind,


Conversely, we haven't established that rolling in decaying matter in a pack behaviour, either.

True. It hasn't been established, but can almost be taken for granted. Dogs are highly social animals and thus a large percentage of their behavior can be seen as 'pack behavior'. The social bond is of extreme importance.

However, it can also be said that not only has 'pack behavior' not been established, it has also not been defined. Valich seems to have a competitive viewpoint in mind, completely forgetting about subtler methods of group cohesion.

[Idle Mind]

Yes, Inverse, I would certainly agree that most behaviour that dogs exhibit in the very least stems from a form of "pack behaviour". And, this could very well be taken for granted as a pack behaviour.

I was merely toying with valich, trying to illicit a response that isn't regurgitated from whichever hurriedly excavated source he has come across.

But, you do bring up a good point of discussion. What exactly defines "pack behaviour"?

[Roman]

What exactly defines "pack behaviour"?

Let's hang out. You wanna chill?
I touch you, you touch me, it's a good time?
Or whatever.

[valich]

I was watching a special today about hyenas on the Nature Channel and learned that they also spread their scent by kicking dirt behind them profusely. The alpha was doing this in response to another male that was trying to takeover his pack and get the sow. I always thought this was territorial pack behavior. Dogs very often do this as well. Apparently it is another passed on "pack behavior."

[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.

[Theoryofrelativity]

Tor,



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?

you guys are so funny, in a straight jacketed kind of way ;)

I said this:


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!"

Note the words: COMMONLY HELD VIEW and THE ORIGIN OF THE SOURCE

Ie, This is Not my opinion that I am reflecting, but the 'commonly held view of doggy psychologists.

I myself do not wonder why dogs roll in shit, though the explanation seems reasonable.

Why do men wear aftershave that smells like shit? Well it's not meant to is it. Maybe doggies think shit smells nice. Maybe shit is doggy aftershave. Yes this is my opinion on the matter. Prove I am wrong.

Meanwhile another 'experts view' also NOT MINE, but for your reference

http://experts.about.com/q/Dog-Training-3333/stop-rolling.htm#b

"Behaviourists have 2 theories why dogs do this.

• One explanation is your dog is trying to mask its own scent because he thinks he is out to hunt. Before dogs were domesticated, when dogs went out in the pack they where out to hunt. So today when you take your dog for a walk, that instinctive drive is still embedded in your dog.

• The second explanation is that your dog is rubbing it’s self in dung and dead carcass to take the scent back to the pack (your home), to show what he has found on while he has been out exercising. The dead carcass may be potential food or other dog faeces may be a threat to the pack’s territory.
"

[Theoryofrelativity]

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.


get your kit off you man thing..grrrrrrr I can just smell the testosterone pouring out of your pores

or is it shit? ;)

[Roman]

get your kit off you man thing..grrrrrrr I can just smell the testosterone pouring out of your pores

or is it shit? ;)

So you admit that you actually didn't read any of the discussion, but weighed in with someone's opinion you googled online.

Gotcha.

[valich]

Roman, you got it right in your first long post above, but why do you think there is a difference between rolling and shit and rolling in carcasses?

Invert, I'll reword it:

Rolling in strong smelling substances IS a behaviour handed down from their ancestors who did this to camouflage their own smell when out hunting.

Again, bioscientifically, we call this a "shared derived characteristic or trait."

[Theoryofrelativity]

So you admit that you actually didn't read any of the discussion, but weighed in with someone's opinion you googled online.

Gotcha.


er, I made that clear did I not, the absence of 'my opinion' and the words 'the generally held view is'

is that a crime here, to actually provide the answer to the question as given by experts. you prefer we talk out of our arses instead?

I can do that :)

[Idle Mind]

All those sources use wording such as the behaviour is "thought" to stem from this and "may" be caused by that. It's lacking a definitive certainty. I'm glad that they are using that type of language though, since we cannot (obviously) know for certain why dogs exhibit any of the behaviours they do.

That is the point of our discussion with valich. He asserts with 100% certainty that his answer is the correct one. No doubt, no more thought. No consideration to the glaring logic flaws in the argument. Some guy said it was because of so-and-so, then that's how it is.

[Theoryofrelativity]

All those sources use wording such as the behaviour is "thought" to stem from this and "may" be caused by that. It's lacking a definitive certainty. I'm glad that they are using that type of language though, since we cannot (obviously) know for certain why dogs exhibit any of the behaviours they do.

That is the point of our discussion with valich. He asserts with 100% certainty that his answer is the correct one. No doubt, no more thought. No consideration to the glaring logic flaws in the argument. Some guy said it was because of so-and-so, then that's how it is.


We can never know for 100% certainty why anyone or anything does anything, but then much of science as it is taught in schools is based on the 'best case scenario' as presented by experts. Much of it is not 'proven' beyond a shadow of a doubt. Just that all indicators point that way.

It is fair I think to consider that animal behavioural experts know a tad more about their subject than those who are not experts. Doesn't mean of course that we can't debate the matter and put forth alternatives.

I put forth alternatives to the idea of the origin of life on this planet but no one seemed much interested ;) In fact I was told to go study evolution.

It appears the subject of dogs rolling in poo is of greater concern and warrants serious discussion and refuting of 'expert' opinion.

I guess it's a boy thing. I apologise for my female intrusion into a boys 'about poo' thread.

[Syzygys]

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

1. If it is a shit, it smells like shit.
2. A camo helps a dog (or you) because it covers the true identity of the hunter. It doesn't matter if it is shit, carcass or tree, as long as it doesn't smell like a hunter, it does its job.

Consider you are turkey hunting. It doesn't matter if you pretend to be a bush or a tree or a deer, as long as the turkey thinks you are not a danger to him.

You are thinking of going the extra mile and camoing the hunter in a way that could be attractive to the prey. But rolling in shit/carcasses doesn't necessery meant to do so...

Man, this thread got way too long...We should ask a dog...

[Idle Mind]

It is fair I think to consider that animal behavioural experts know a tad more about their subject than those who are not experts.
That's why we are asking for the sources of their evidence, a published paper perhaps, so we can see for ourselves. You admit you didn't read the thread, so I will forgive you for having missed our requests to valich, or anyone, really, for some sort evidence upon which the argument for the camouflage concept is based.

Animal behaviour experts do publish papers in reputable journals, do they not? We don't want anecdotal evidence from some Dear Abby FAQ regarding puppy training techniques, regardless of who it's written by. Those don't contain clues into why people have formed this opinion.

[Theoryofrelativity]

That's why we are asking for the sources of their evidence, a published paper perhaps, so we can see for ourselves. You admit you didn't read the thread, so I will forgive you for having missed our requests to valich, or anyone, really, for some sort evidence upon which the argument for the camouflage concept is based.

Animal behaviour experts do publish papers in reputable journals, do they not? We don't want anecdotal evidence from some Dear Abby FAQ regarding puppy training techniques, regardless of who it's written by. Those don't contain clues into why people have formed this opinion.


so you are asking for something you know does not exist? Why?

you have already acknowledged we can never know for certainty anything regarding why animals do what they do. I imagine their reasonning comes from yrs of study of what can be observed re animal behaviour and then they just offer the most likely opinion based on what can be observed.

Perhaps you would like to give me evidence of the origin of life, rather than these educated opinions based on what has been observed since etc etc as an answer.

You know an animal rolling in shit can only have a few reasons for doing so


1) camoflage
2) story telling back at doggy camp
3) they like the smell
4) the shit and carcasses attract flies which they have some sort of weird relationship with

or

in the case of carcasses

5)the smell of blood or 'death' wards off larger predators

predators tend not to attack things already dead
(I like this one- my own unless its already been mentioned here)

What more do you think there is?

what is your reasonning for it?

Meanwhile from my googling it seems animal experts really don't give a 'shit' ('scuse the pun) about dogs rolling in shit, hence you are unlikely to find a research paper on this subject. I have though founds lots of replies to this question which actually read like my list above

ie, camoflage, or they like the smell.....

I don't think (and with good reason) that dogs rolling in poop is high on any experts agenda for investigation.

THUS no papers, no evidence. It's anecdotal only.

[GeoffP]

In similar light, why do men like to smell each other's farts? Is it a feeding dominance thing, or are they just disturbed?

[Roman]

Roman, you got it right in your first long post above, but why do you think there is a difference between rolling and shit and rolling in carcasses?

Have you ever been to a place with a lot of large herbivores? I have. Seen cows in the Australian bush, caribou on the North Slope, buffalo in the taiga, farms, zoos.

And you know a characterstic of all those places? It's not the overwhelming smell of rotting carcasses. It's the smell of shit.

So I can see a dog rolling in cow dung to masquerade as a cow. Or at least blend into an environment already reeking of thousands of animals worth of shit.

That means the dogs could get that much closer to the prey before rushing out, even though most canines don't hunt like that.

Have you ever seen a canine hunt? They don't hunt like cougars or cats. They're runners. They run their prey down. Dogs don't need to camo themselves, as they're going to chasing their quarry for the next half mile.

Back to the difference between shit and a dead animal.
Have you ever smelled the dung of a large herbivore? Have you ever smelled the rot of a carcass?
Very different.
Would not a prey animal, especially one in a large herd, be far more suspicious of the smell of death, which is relatively rare, than then the smell of it's own feces?

And if animals only rolled in the shit of prey, camo theory would make sense. But dogs roll in road kill, dead salmon, all sorts of stuff. Stuff that doesn't camoflage them, but makes them stinkier and more noticable.



1. If it is a shit, it smells like shit.
2. A camo helps a dog (or you) because it covers the true identity of the hunter. It doesn't matter if it is shit, carcass or tree, as long as it doesn't smell like a hunter, it does its job.

Consider you are turkey hunting. It doesn't matter if you pretend to be a bush or a tree or a deer, as long as the turkey thinks you are not a danger to him.

You are thinking of going the extra mile and camoing the hunter in a way that could be attractive to the prey. But rolling in shit/carcasses doesn't necessery meant to do so...

Man, this thread got way too long...We should ask a dog...

Birds have bad smell, good sight. If you're a pussy hunter with a rifle, of course you hide like a little pussy cat. Dogs dont have to. They just runt he turkey down, pounce, and tear it open. Do you know anything about animal behavior?

Also, animals are extremely suspicious of the smell of death. Especially the dead of their own kind. Furthermore, carnivores can get a peculiar stink. They have a far different diet than their prey, and hence, different gut flora. They smell more like dead animal, as that's what they eat.

Furthermore, carcasses are rare. The smell of rotting meat in the wild is rare. Carrion has a lot of energy in it, it gets eaten up quick by scavengers. Animals aren't dumb. Do you know anything about animal behavior? If a prey animal smells walking death before getting jumped by a pack of wolves (nevermind the wolves have been tracking the caribou for many miles, and will now mercilessly run it down, and don't need to hide), do you think in the future they'll be suspicious of the scent?

If you were in a house, and every red triangle in it was electrocuted (camoflaging the electricity from you :rolleyes: ), would you stop touching the red triangles? Or since the red triangles aren't electricity, you wouldn't learn that they hurt when you touch them.



so you are asking for something you know does not exist? Why?

you have already acknowledged we can never know for certainty anything regarding why animals do what they do. I imagine their reasonning comes from yrs of study of what can be observed re animal behaviour and then they just offer the most likely opinion based on what can be observed.

Perhaps you would like to give me evidence of the origin of life, rather than these educated opinions based on what has been observed since etc etc as an answer.

You know an animal rolling in shit can only have a few reasons for doing so


1) camoflage
2) story telling back at doggy camp
3) they like the smell
4) the shit and carcasses attract flies which they have some sort of weird relationship with

or

in the case of carcasses

5)the smell of blood or 'death' wards off larger predators

predators tend not to attack things already dead
(I like this one- my own unless its already been mentioned here)

What more do you think there is?

what is your reasonning for it?

Meanwhile from my googling it seems animal experts really don't give a 'shit' ('scuse the pun) about dogs rolling in shit, hence you are unlikely to find a research paper on this subject. I have though founds lots of replies to this question which actually read like my list above

ie, camoflage, or they like the smell.....

I don't think (and with good reason) that dogs rolling in poop is high on any experts agenda for investigation.

THUS no papers, no evidence. It's anecdotal only.

1. camoflage theory is not consistent with the method for which dogs hunt, nor their other rolling behaviors
2. most plausible explanation
3. they like it because...? because they eat different things than we do, and so certain stuff smells better to them. It's also a way to boast to other dogs "hey guys, look what I found."
4. unlikely
5. unlikely
there are a great deal of predators (big ones) that like dead stuff. Bears. Wolves. Jackals. Hyenas. Wolverines.

[Theoryofrelativity]

5. unlikely
there are a great deal of predators (big ones) that like dead stuff. Bears. Wolves. Jackals. Hyenas. Wolverines.

are these predators to dogs though? bearing in mind dogs would have inherited this trait from wolves. So are wolves prey to hyenas, jackals and bears?

[Roman]

are these predators to dogs though? bearing in mind dogs would have inherited this trait from wolves. So are wolves prey to hyenas, jackals and bears?

Canines tend to be at the top of the food chain. They have no predators, unless they're weak or sick. That is, nothing actively hunts canines, that I know of. Other than people. The animals above are all in competition with wolves.

And furthermore, bears have been known to chase wolves off a kill, and vice versa. For a wolf to smell like a dead animal, it might be a little dangerous. You'd attract big predators.

[Theoryofrelativity]

Ok, let's look at this and see what can be deduced

http://www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfObserved.html

"Wolf Senses back to top

SCENT

Scent plays a very important role in the life of the wolf, by smell alone wolves can locate prey, other pack members or enemies. It can tell them if other wolves were in the territory, if they were male or female, and how recently they visited.

The wolf has several specialized glands, one around the anus and another on its back about 3 inches (7.6 centimetres) in the front of the base of its tail. The scent from these glands is as individualistic as are out fingerprints and is used by that particular wolf as its personal calling card. These Glands are used as to mark boundaries and also to mark trails. These "Scent Stations" are often 100 yards (91 metres) apart.

Scent Marking

The wolf use scent to mark territory, establish position of site of a kill and other factors within the pack.

Sense of smell

The sense of smell in the wolf is highly developed, as would be expected in an animal possessing numerous scent glands. The distance at which any scent can be detected is governed by atmospheric conditions but, even under the most favorable conditions , 1.75 miles denotes a particularly keen sense of smell. The wolves usually travel until they encounter the scent of some prey species ahead of them. They then move directly toward their prey in an effort to capture it."

myself I am now thinking, that the 'wolf' rolls in carcasses (assuming they
are ones they have killed themselves) as it is carrying the smell (which can be detected by other wolves up to 1.75 miles away) to alert the other wolves to the fact it has killed and possibly as an indicator (they can follow that smell) as to where the prey is? The smell of the dead animal would combine with the wolves smell, so they would know it was a family wolf kill?

what do you deduce from what can be learned from the above information ?

[Theoryofrelativity]

I just found another link which gives consideration to my latest theory but confirms no ones knows for sure why?

http://www.wolfpark.org/wolffaq.html

"An unusual behavior, scent-rolling, involves a wolf who finds something strong-smelling (often manure or a carcass) getting down and rolling in it, coating themselves. Some dogs also scent-roll. No-one is sure why wolves scent-roll, but it may be that they are bringing the smell back to the rest of their pack, which might then follow the wolf’s scent trail back to the thing that smelled interesting"

[invert_nexus]

The man with the Broken Brain,


Rolling in strong smelling substances IS a behaviour handed down from their ancestors

Yes.


who did this to camouflage their own smell when out hunting.

Maybe.
But, the logic behind this argument is weak.
There are far more plausible explanations for this behavior than camoflauge.

It's a real shame for the discussion that you, the only proponent of this camoflauge theory, are utterly unable to provide an argument in its defense.
All you can do is make assertions and make an utter ass out of yourself.
It's a real shame your brain is broken. I suppose it's a behavior handed down to you from your ancestors who acted in such retarded ways for camoflauge purposes? Because people pick on retards, but usually let them go without eating them alive, yes?


ToR,


You know an animal rolling in shit can only have a few reasons for doing so

I've proposed a theory that part of the use of this behavior might be the instillation of a common pack scent.
Every animal in the pack would come across the same rolling material. So, they acquire the same scents.
Combine this with scent mingling from close contact (for animals that gather scents away from the pack to bring back), and you have even more of a mechanism for creating a strong, and unique, pack scent.

Thus, rolling in strong-smelling substances is a possible extension of the scent marking system. But, rather than individual scent-marking, it is the creation of a scent for the social group as a whole.

In many ways, the pack can be seen as an organism. This rolling behavior is a manifestation of this communal beast.


or they like the smell....

You misunderstand the origins of 'liking' things.
Emotion is a goad. It's a means. Not an end.


I don't think (and with good reason) that dogs rolling in poop is high on any experts agenda for investigation.

Well, that would be a real shame, seeing as how this behavior is obviously very important and powerful to the canine. Why would you be a canine 'expert' if you don't care to seek an understanding of its most powerfully felt behavioral traits?

One must realize, however, that behavioral science, really isn't. Science, that is.
That is, the behaviors can be analyzed, but their root causes can only be conjectured.
This is the key thing that Valich fails to grasp in his desire to be a 'man of science and essential lifelong learning'.
It's ironically hilarious how his authoritarian stance is actually diametrically opposed to the very idea that he attests as his greatest passion.
Learning.

This is why he is such a fool.

[valich]

Shared derived behavior, i.e., it's an allelomimetic derived behaviour from associated in packs: derived allelonimetic "pack behavior." This is in contrast to it being a "shared primitive" behavior. Primitive means that it was present in a common ancestor. Derived means that it was not present in a common ancestor. Allelomimetic means that it was originally learned from watching another do it. Those that did this were more successful in the hunt and survived better to breed, hence evolution of an ancestral trait.

Does anyone know if coyotes, foxes and jackals roll in shit and carcasses too? If so, then it should be considered as a primitive behavioral trait. I know coyotes occasionally group together in packs but usually hunt alone, although they stay with their mate for life. Foxes on the otherhand are solitary hunters. I'm almost certain that foxes never assemble into a pack. So it would be very interesting to know if foxes also roll in shit and carcasses.

If all five species roll in shit and carcasses then we can assume that it is a "primitive" behavior that existed in ancestral Canidae, Caniformia, and possibly even among early Miacids during the Cenozoic over 60 million years ago. Dog's were first domesticated from ancestral wolves about 200,000 years ago but most dog breeds today have only evolved over the last few hundred years.

[valich]

Roman: That's a good point. And yes, I do study animal behavior as part of my major. I'm in the School of Forestry but take a lot of biology courses and have taken Animal Behavior.

Do we even know if dogs or wolves roll in carcasses? I have seen both species roll in the dung of any species, and scavenge through dead carcasses, but I've never seen a wolf roll in a carcass - just eat it. So unless we know that they do, there is no sense arguing about the smell of death, though you make a good point here. In our school of thought, and amongst all the animal behavioral scientists and biologists that I know, we do not question that Canidae species roll in dung to hind there scent.

[invert_nexus]

I'm in the School of Forestry

Heh.
Now you're in the school of forestry eh? I was wondering when you'd get around to claiming that you've been studying this for 10 years.
Fool.

[invert_nexus]

Dummy,


Do we even know if dogs or wolves roll in carcasses?

Yes.


I have seen both species roll in the dung of any species, and scavenge through dead carcasses, but I've never seen a wolf roll in a carcass - just eat it.

Just goes to show that you're talking out of your ass then.
Just because you don't know what you're talking about, doesn't mean that others don't know.
People have stated repeatedly having seen dogs roll in dead, rotting things.
So.
Just go away.
You've admitted to knowing nothing about the subject at hand.
Goodbye.


we do not question that Canidae species roll in dung to hind there scent.

Do you know how retarded you sound everytime you use the royal 'we'?

Anyway. I like how you're trying to weasel out of your argument now.
Trying to drop all mention of all the rolling behavior in favor of the one specific type of rolling behavior that accords with your idiotic theory.
That's called bad science, in case you didn't know.
Jerk-off.


Canidae, Caniformia, and possibly even among early Miacids during the Cenozoic over 60 million years ago.

Been spending a lot of time googling, eh?
Bet you're about ready to start up some wikipedia pages about dogs rolling in shit for camoflauge, aren't you?

You're such an idiot.

[valich]

Yes Invert, when I come home at night, I analyze data with the t.v. on, watching the news, and science and nature channels, and am always on the computer researching. Although Google is not the only search engine that I use. Sometimes I get befor luck with Vivismo because it categorizes. Google often returns too many results that are much too time-consuming to sift through.

Hhere's another interesting view that I just came across:

"In the answer to the original question [Why do wolves scent roll] is to do with wolves' desire to possess things. Wolves are born to possess; quoting from our previous article on wolf aggression: "How a wolf gains and maintains its rank within the hierarchy is a whole subject on its own but one of the major factors is the extent to which a particular animal can claim and control access to resources. The more control it has and the more it can keep for itself the more important it is - and 'importance' is obviously a key concept in rank and status. Wolves are born to possess. Anything which is of use or even just of interest is a desirable item to them and they will do their best to take possession of it and keep it…. to possess something is to be important, to investigate and understand it is to be even more important".

To a wolf, a smell is a fascinating and possessible - even beautiful - item; the equivalent to us of a beautiful painting or picture. The information it may contain is also important and ownership of that information confers importance upon the bearer. But the problem is that, unlike a material object such as a rotting, dead bird, they can't physically pick up a smell so how can they take it away ?

Simple! Roll in it.

Wolves and dogs are often seen to roll specific areas of themselves in smelly stuff and it is possible that they are accentuating the scent highlights of parts of their bodies as part of their status body language - or, in this case, scent language.

So, the answer to the question "why do they roll in smelly stuff?" is twofold. Firstly, the consequence of it is that they get to 'possess' it because they a) like it - it's a beautiful thing to them and b) think it important to own. Secondly, the function (evolutionary outcome) is that the scent may inform other pack members of new game or intruders in their territory or it may indeed conceal their own odour whilst hunting and thus improve their survival prospects - although the wolf is probably not at all consciously aware of any of these particular factors." http://www.anglianwolf.com/d_front_page/articles/general/scentrolling/scentrolling.htm

[valich]

"Scent-rolling is a peculiarity of canids which is thought to be a means of bringing information about interesting scents back to conspecifics which may not have accompanied the animal to the oderiferous site. All canids scent-roll to some degree: the animal first puts its nose in the smell and then slips down onto one shoulder, sliding first one flank through the smell and then the other, pausing in the middle to vigorously rub its back into the scent. Given the usual pattern of social sniffing, i.e., starting at the head and moving down the flank to the tail, a greeting animal would get a good sniff of everything the other animal had rolled in on its way from one end to the other." http://www.soappuppy.com/wolf/behaviour.html

[valich]

"Scent rolling is a behavior we believe is a form of non-inciteful communication. Basically, they roll in something stinky so they can bring that smell back to the rest of the pack so they can 'tell' everybody what they found."

[valich]

It seems there is another forum going on about this subject at http://www.petoftheday.com/talk/showthread.php?p=1270313

"When I worked at Wolf Park during my college days, we were told that the wolves do this type of behavior in order to bring information back to the pack. It is called "scent rolling". It's also not only limited to foul smelling odors. They tried different types of scents on the ground in the enclosure, and the wolves rolled on all of them!"

"Rolling in foul-smelling scent is another olfactory joy of the dogs. "Scent rolling is an esthetic thing." Dogs will roll in raunchy odors just so they can wear a different and exciting smell. It brings attention to them selves. It's like us wearing some new clothes."

[invert_nexus]

Yes Invert, when I come home at night, I analyze data with the t.v. on, watching the news, and science and nature channels, and am always on the computer researching. Although Google is not the only search engine that I use. Sometimes I get befor luck with Vivismo because it categorizes. Google often returns too many results that are much too time-consuming to sift through.


The problem, Valich, is that you come across as if you believe yourself to be speaking God's Own Truth.
But you're just talking shit.

Do you, or do you not, see how your authoritarian stance is detrimental to what you state as your passion for essential lifelong learning?

You act as though the world exists in a stark black and white fashion. You can learn something and that's that.
But that's not that.
Knowledge is theory.
Some areas of knowledge are on more solid ground than others, but all epistemological framework is inherently theoretical. It's an approximation. It's a best fit. It's a 'to be continued'.

This would be, in my opinion, the best thing that you could ever learn.
Every time you have run into problems, it is because you have gone off 'researching' and come back with the fruits of your research and proclaimed to be the authority or speaking for the authority. But you always get it wrong.

Hell.
Look.
Now you're starting to understand that this rolling behavior is more complicated than you once claimed. Look at the recent fruits of your labors.
They speak of other motivations behind the behavior than the one which you tried to force down our throats as the end all and be all.
The scientific consensus.

Do you realize that these last posts you have made give credence to statements which we have made against you earlier in this thread?
And, do you realize, that they have just as little authority behind them as any other?

It's all theory.
It's all conjecture.
There is no way of determining why this behavior exists.
There can only be models.

Is it possible that you will ever come to understand this?
If you do, I will stop calling you a fool.
Until then.
You're a fool.

[invert_nexus]

And, it would also help if you apologize.

[valich]

There seems to be a lot of varying views. What are you suggesting that I apologize for? There is no decisive view on this matter but I'm coming across a lot of other different plausible assumptions. In any case, we do know that it is an ancestral trait passed down as either a shared primitive characteristic or a shared derived characteristic.

"I think you're right in that this is an evolutionary adaptation, [becaues] wild canids partake in the same behvior. In "Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation" Edited by David Mech and Luigi Boitani there is a mention of "Scent Rolling" and I'll pariphrase it here. I think it'll help. They mention four reasons wild canids (especially wolves) might roll in the stink.

1) Familiarization with novel odors or changes in odors (Fox 1971a; Ryon et al 1896).

2) Strong attraction or aversion to particular odors (Ryon et al. 1986).

3) Concealing one's own scent with something more pungent (Zimmen 1981). (This seems the most plausible to me.)

4) making oneself more attractive by applying a novel odor (Fox 1971a).

There is also mention of female African wild dogs rolling in the urine of males whose packs they are trying to join. Presumably this would make them more familiar smelling and thus more easily accepted by the pack (Frame et al. 1979)." http://dhanks.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_dhanks_archive.html

[invert_nexus]

What are you suggesting that I apologize for?

For one thing, you could start by apologizing for editing those quotes you made back at the start of the thread. You know, the ones where you edited out the parts that said 'thought' and stuff like that? That was where you took a turn towards the vile in your lust for being seen as a scientific authority.

After that, you could apologize for being such an ass while demanding that there was only one answer to the question and that is camoflauge. You have a habit of doing this. Stating things as fact, and then when shown that you're being an idiot, you simply pretend that it never happened.


You're not going to apologize though, are you?
You're going to play the same stupid game you always play.
A pity for you, really. If you would only realize how much your hampering your ability to learn with this 'scientific fact' nonsense.

But, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Drink or not.
Your choice.

[valich]

"One early theory was the 'scent rolling' was used to camouflage the wolf's
smell during hunting. Most of what they roll in smells much stronger than they do when clean, and in the wild, anything "out of place" like running moose poop smell would cause prey animals to be on the alert.

I have also seen wolves roll in stuff they obviously didn't want to. I
think it's a reflexive action, sort of like regurgitating food for pups.
They don't seem to enjoy it, but also don't seem to be able to avoid it when
presented with the right stimulus."

"Rank order is not always linear and may be somewhat flexible in certain circumstances. Puppies and yearlings, for example, have a rank order, but this order may change from month to month, week to week, or even from day to day in the case of young puppies. (The rank order for adult wolves is usually more stable.) "Playing" wolves, who are engaging in behaviors such as chasing and running for fun, may "switch" rank temporarily, and a lower-ranking wolf will be allowed to mock-dominate a higher-ranking one. Some rank orders may be circular, with wolf A dominating wolf B who dominates wolf C who dominates wolf A, but this is rarely permanent. Also, low-ranking wolves of one gender may be able to dominate high-ranking wolves of the other, without changing their rank in the social order of their respective sex."

"Hvis det er noen trøst, så elsker de fleste hunder å spise menneskeavføring, og nesten alle ruller seg i det. Denne rullingen kalles "scent rolling" (duft rulling) og er en av de atferder vi ikke vet noe sikkert om. Ulver gjør det, og hunder gjør det, på nesten alle sterke og uvanlige dufter, men vi har ikke klart å finne ut HVA de egentlig gjør. Hva som er hensikten med denne atferden. Ta med duften tilbake til flokken å si: "Se hva jeg fant" - kanskje? Kamuflere sin egen lukt i jaktøyemed - kanskje? Vi vet rett og slett ikke. Jeg kan få alle ulver til å utføre denne atferden ved å dryppe en dråpe parfyme eller gni litt deodorant på bakken. Det behøver altså ikke være, for oss "vond" lukt, bare sterkt eller uvanlig."

I thought the last article was in German but I can't translate. Maybe someone else can.

This is all I could find on the internet and I ordered a thesis and two articles on the subject through our ILL.

My Elkhounds always are most anxious to roll in anything right after I give them a bath. This leads me to believe that they are persistently anxious to hide their own smell after all the other smells have benn removed. There's no doubt that this is an inherited instinctive behavior passed down from ancestral wolves (Canidae from Caniformia from Miacids and even possibly from dinosaurs). Still, the question is why? I do think that they are doing this to either hide their behavior or to mix it with a variety of smells. As I said, my dogs seem to be the most anxious to do this as soon as they come out of the bath tub - after I dry them off. I have to wait a few hours before I let them outside, else they'll roll in anything. Then, after time goes by, this urge subsides.

[invert_nexus]

You misunderstand something vital, Valich.
Even if your camoflauge theory were true, your elkhounds wouldn't roll in scents to camoflauge themselves. They would do it because they enjoy it. Because their instincts demand it of them. They have no conscious thought of 'camoflauge' (or any of the other more likely motives).

[invert_nexus]

An added consideration for rolling after bathing is dirt baths. Many animals roll in dirt and mud to remove parasites. Wet fur might be a stimulus to roll in order to dry the fur.

[valich]

Invert: I'd have to look back to see if what I edited out was my own quote or from another source, but either way, you are referring to the above repost where you quote: "it is thought that this is an ancestral trait." Again, I clarify this post using my own words to clearly state that "it IS an ancestral trait." So why would you expect me to apoligize for clarifying my position???

Okay. I apologize for the apparent forcefulness in my initial posts that seem to imply that there was only one explanation. As I said yesterday - not today. Yesterday I replied to Roman's lengthy posting complementing him for it and I did the same today. Read my above reply's to Roman's post where I respond to him by saying: "Roman: That's a good point." 7 pages long from the initial posting and Roman finally does come through with a possible alternative explanation. I was not aware of this explanation and I appreciate Roman's respectable posting. I do not appreciate your nonsense, belittlement, and destructive useless condescending remarks, which you always have a nasty bad habit of doing. What the hell is your problem that you have to always resort to uncivilized rhetoric on a science forum. Sometimes you can post a good post, yet your postings always seem disintegrate into condescending sewer language.

Invert: You have an intelligent brain that can be chanelled to post respectable, insightful and intellectually helping and guiding replies. But equally, you have this dark that seems to always show through more than the good.

[valich]

It is a shared derived or shared primitive allelomimetic pack behavior. Primitive means that it was present in a common ancestor. Derived means that it was not present in a common ancestor. Allelomimetic means that it was originally learned from watching another do it. Those that did this were most likely more successful in the hunt and survived better to breed, hence evolution of an ancestral trait.

My neighbor has a stable with two horses and a dog that is half wolf. I watched it today rolling around in the dung, enjoying every moment of it to the point where she stopped and just stayed there, belly up, lying on her back on top the dung, savoring the moment. There is no pack. She seldom plays with my dog and never leaves the stable. Clearly the is an inherited behavior. The question is why is first arose. What made this behavior give the species such an advantage so that the trait became established and passed on as a genetic instinct.

[invert_nexus]

We're talking about the stimulus to roll in dung, not to dry off wet fur. Canidae have an instinctive drive to roll in dung whether or not their fur is wet or dry.

Yes. But you're the one who mentioned bathing.
The two stimuli merge.


I'd have to look back to see if what I edited out was my own quote or from another source

Seriously.
Is your brain broken?
You posted a whole list of quotes that all stated, in black and white terms, that rolling in shit and carcasses was about camoflauge. I went to the links you provided and found that not only did you edit the quotes to remove all mention of words such as 'thought', but these sources were just stupid forums and pet advice web sites. None of them had a shred of credibility yet you edited them and presented them as if they were.

Need I link you to the post?

Link to lies.


you are referring to the above repost where you quote: "it is thought that this is an ancestral trait." Again, I clarify this post using my own words to clearly state that "it IS an ancestral trait." So why would you expect me to apoligize for clarifying my position???

This is another issue altogether.
What you did here was state something true: That this is an inherited trait. And then tack onto that something that is not true: That the dog's ancestors used this as camoflauge.

I didn't ask you to apologize for this in particular. It's just a point to argue over.
The problem being that you generally refuse to argue. You instead insist on your point being right and everyone else wrong.
You insist that you are the authority.
You are not.


Okay. I apologize for the apparent forcefulness in my initial posts that seem to imply that there was only one explanation.

Imply?
Hardly.
You stated it quite clearly. For it to qualify for 'imply' and also for 'apparent' you would have to be a bit less authoritative in your statements. You stated quite bluntly that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Your entire contribution to this thread up until the past few posts has been from an authoritarian stance with not a shred of argument to back up your stance.

However, that aside, I accept your apology and commend you for making this first step.
I hope that you bear this in mind in the future. You might be able to avoid future confrontations if you stay away from the arguments from authority.


7 pages long from the initial posting and Roman finally does come through with a possible alternative explanation.

And this shows the level of commitment you have to the discussion.
Roman repeated things that were said time and time again in this thread.
It's nobody's fault but yours that you refused to read the thread. You were so sure that you were right and everyone else was wrong that you wouldn't even condescend to read anyone else's post.


I do not appreciate your nonsense, belittlement, and destructive useless condescending remarks, which you always have a nasty bad habit of doing. What the hell is your problem that you have to always resort to uncivilized rhetoric on a science forum

Useless?
Hardly.
You finally got the message.
You were the one to resort to vile behavior first in this thread, Valich. You lied. My disdain for you only grew as a result of your tampering with the quotes.
I have no regrets for any of the words I've said to you.
And I'll say them again should the need arise.


Sometimes you can post a good post, yet your postings always seem disintegrate into condescending sewer language.

As I've said before, profanity has nothing to do with anything. I can swear and insult til the cows come home and this won't detract from the content of my posting.
It's your problem that your mind turns off at certain stimuli.
Not mine.


Invert: You have an intelligent brain that can be chanelled to post respectable, insightful and intellectually helping and guiding replies. But equally, you have this dark that seems to always show through more than the good.

Why should I show respect to someone I don't respect?
I don't respect you, Valich.
There are some few things about you that might merit respect, but they are outweighed by the things that I find disgusting about you.

When I insult you, it is to attempt to lead you away from your idiocy.
And look.
It works.
At last.

I can only hope that it sticks.

[valich]

It is a shared derived or shared primitive allelomimetic pack behavior. Primitive means that it was present in a common ancestor. Derived means that it was not present in a common ancestor. Allelomimetic means that it was originally learned from watching another do it.

Those that did this were most likely more successful in the hunt and survived better to breed, hence the selection for this beneficial mutation. Another possibility is that it gave them an elevated hiearchy position in the pack (I doubt this) or that it gave them an advantage to attrack the female to breed (again, highly doubtful). So what other possible origin could it have had? Now it is just an unwanted vestigial trait in dogs.

Again, it would be interesting to know if foxes, coyotes and jackals do this too. I've never seen a dog or another Canidae roll in a carcass.

My dogs are anxious to do it more quickly after a bath so as to get a different smell, or hide or mix their own smell quickly. This only shows the intensity of the instinctive drive to do this behavior of hiding or mixing or acquiring a mixture of differnt scents as quickly as possible. But for what purpose? The answer cannot be found in domesticated dog behavior. It can only be found through observations in the wild or evidence from the Canidae ancestral past. What was the advantage of this mutation that allowed it to be so beneficial for survival?

[invert_nexus]

and tends to make others want to just ignore you.

I disagree.
By the way.
Do you think you're taking an authoritative stance once more?


I usually just use the option of putting your name on my ignore list for a while.

Your loss.


Chronically insulting others, as you have a habit of doing, is immature.

I only insult those who merit it.
I can't help it that you merit insulting so often.
I am more than sure that I am not unique in your life. I am sure you are insulted quite often.

[Theoryofrelativity]

[b]ToR,

Well, that would be a real shame, seeing as how this behavior is obviously very important and powerful to the canine. Why would you be a canine 'expert' if you don't care to seek an understanding of its most powerfully felt behavioral traits?


.

sorry invert but you seem to be contradicting yourself here




[b]ToR,

One must realize, however, that behavioral science, really isn't. Science, that is.
That is, the behaviors can be analyzed, but their root causes can only be conjectured.
.


[b]

This is the key thing that Valich fails to grasp in his desire to be a 'man of science and essential lifelong learning'.
It's ironically hilarious how his authoritarian stance is actually diametrically opposed to the very idea that he attests as his greatest passion.
Learning.

This is why he is such a fool.

in extract 1 you reply to my comment that experts do not appear (due to lack of any good sources on this topic) to be much interested in this trait, with a protest that they should be interested.

Then you acknowledge (as did I) that you can't really do anything other than speculate with this apsect of behaviour and critisise Valich for attempting to state he has the answer as FACT. Which I agree is a nonsense given no one else KNOWS this fact and as a fact it cannot ever be known.

Even humans cannot ever really know why we do what we do, even with the power of introspection and language.

So which is it?
You acknowledge the answer can't be known hence not much point trying to FIND the answer, or the answer is Known and thus valich may or may not be correct?

Note, 'investigating' the answer with a view to finding the correct answer is not the same as speculating about the answer. No doubt behavioural experts have speculated (hence my vague sources) but can't go beyond that, so do not try. Which makes good sense.

Are you going to try to find the footprints of god knowing full well they do not exist?

[invert_nexus]

So which is it?
You acknowledge the answer can't be known hence not much point trying to FIND the answer, or the answer is Known and thus valich may or may not be correct?

Sigh.
I never said that the answer is known and thus Valich is wrong. I was chastising Valich for acting as though he knew the answer. For arguing from authority. For failing to, even once, provide a logical rationale for his pet theory.

My every post in this thread has been to demonstrate that this is all theory and that's all it can be.

I'm frankly amazed at how you managed to interpret that second quote as you did. I don't understand how you were capable of it. It seems quite clear to me.

I do believe that Valich's camoflauge theory is wrong. And the reasons for this belief have been given time and time again.

When one cannot absolutely prove or disprove a theory, one can only argue for the merits or dismerits of it. One can provide logic behind why any particular theory fits any particular phenomenon.

This is what we have all done in this thread. We've discussed, logically, why it is that dogs might express this rolling behavior. We've all, except Valich, decided that, for various reason, the camoflauge theory fails. It is the least likely scenario of all those listed.

Valich never once managed to put forward an argument for his theory. He's lazy. He simply stated that this is the scientific fact and that we're all stupid, argumentative, and wrong to even think otherwise.

He has finally managed to get it through his thick skull that there are other possibilities. He's gone out searching for them and cut and pasted them into the thread. So, he's made progress. Unfortunately, he seems utterly incapable of thinking for himself still. But, perhaps he's learning.
One step at a time.



You acknowledge the answer can't be known hence not much point trying to FIND the answer

And I never once stated that there is no point in trying to find an answer.
That's ridiculous. Defeatist.

You do realize that, in the end, absolutely no knowledge is absolutely justified? This is a 'fact' of science. We can never prove anything. We can only place theories up for inspection and see how well they fit.

Does this mean that there is no point to trying to learn anything about the world in which we live?
No.

Look at everything that science has accomplished despite its failure to justify its knowledge in absolute terms.

One merely has to recognize the tentative nature of our theoretical framework. This allows us to alter our theories as new information comes in.
Valich's flaw is that he holds the scientific framework as sancrosanct and holy. Untouchable. He believes that the answers are known and he can find them in research papers. He thinks that he can be the authority handing down decrees of right and wrong.

Perhaps this is a legacy of his 'english teacher' past. English is a constructed system and thus can be said, in many ways, to be composed of a stricter framework than science. Math is the same way. However, both systems have their own fuzzy ends.

Language is ambiguous. It is not purposefully created, but rather adaptively created over time. Blindly. English teachers fail to realize that temporary nature of language. They have a distaste for slang, but slang is the sign of language's life. English teachers would kill their language in order to know it. Dismember it. Freeze it. Make it a specimen.

As to math, Godel kinda tore that apart.

But, regardless of all this.
There is a point to learning.
Just that one must understand the nature of learning.

[valich]

Invert: If anything you owe me an apology for your condescending insults and belittlement that you always seem to resort to at the end of a forum just to put other people down. Do you find enjoyment in this? It serves no useful purpose, stifles learning, and demotivates those of us who are trying to pursue scientific facts and truth. Further, I never read your's or anyone elses lengthy, taken-out-of-context, dissected cut-and-post replies where you then just go on to do nothing usefull and just continue to further cut the person down line-by-line. So what's the purpose in wasting your's and everybody else time by doing this? I have laid out all the views that I could find. Some of these are even contrary to my own, which you of course you are then so eager to jump on just to insult me further. And this is your usual inherent practice of perverted unscientific "sadism."

If you look over the first 5 or 6 pages of this forum, I think that - against all forms of criticism and some very bazaar ridiculous postings - I have authoritatively - Yes! I work in the field and consult with some highly prestigious world reknowned experts in this field, so I say "authoritatively" - established the fact that this is a:

Shared derived or shared primitive allelomimetic pack behavior (primitive means that it was present in a common ancestor: allelomimetic means that it was originally learned from watching another do it). Those that acquired this allelomimetic pack behavior were more likely to survive, breed and reproduce, hence evolution of an ancestral trait - the continuation of the trait - through a beneficial adaptation or Darwinian natural selection.

Roman's view on the middle of page six was the first post to add further substance, credence and better direction. He stated: "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....And the characterstic of all those places? It's not the overwhelming smell of rotting carcasses. It's the smell of shit....So I can see a dog rolling in cow dung to masquerade as a cow. Or at least blend into an environment already reeking of thousands of animals worth of shit....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 he discredits the notion that Canidae (wolves) do the same thing by rolling in carcasses because this gives the smell of death: "Who's left? The one with the smart genes that figured out that the smell of carcass is associated with predators." Further, "rotting meat in the wild is rare." And so is the persistent smell of a carcass rare." I am unaware of a herd of elk or caribou staying away from a pile of bones

Do we know for a fact that wolves roll in carcasses? Or just shit?
Do we know if coyotes, foxes and jackals do this too?

This forum is now much more productive and fruitful compared to the first 5 1/2 pages because we are now all looking at this behavior as a being a beneficial "pack behavior," possibly to benefit the predator's ability to catch prey. But there are other competing views that we now need to look at:

1) A behavior to mask the Canidae's own scent from the prey.

2) Wolves do this type of behavior in order to bring information back to the pack. They roll in something so they can tell everybody what they have found. Scent-rolling is a peculiarity of canidae as a means of bringing information about the interesting scents back to conspecifics which may not have accompanied the animal to the oderiferous site. This hypothesis has merits in that it would give others in the pack information worth pursuing about a possible still existent food source, or the potential location of nearby prey.

3) Esthetics: To a wolf, a smell is a fascinating and even beautiful item; the equivalent to us of a beautiful painting or picture. The information it may contain is also important and ownership of that information confers importance upon the bearer. But the problem is that, unlike a material object such as a rotting, dead bird, they can't physically pick up a smell so how can they take it away? Simple! Roll in it. Wolves and dogs are often seen to roll specific areas of themselves in smelly stuff and it is possible that they are accentuating the scent highlights of parts of their bodies as part of their status body language - or, in this case, scent language."

4) As aa way of gaining statis in the pack to increase one's rank order by showing off and flaunting a greater variety of scents than the others. Thus proving to other pack-mates that he's the best at finding the prey?


"In the answer to the original question [Why do wolves scent roll] is to do with wolves' desire to possess things. Wolves are born to possess; quoting from our previous article on wolf aggression: "How a wolf gains and maintains its rank within the hierarchy is a whole subject on its own but one of the major factors is the extent to which a particular animal can claim and control access to resources. The more control it has and the more it can keep for itself the more important it is - and 'importance' is obviously a key concept in rank and status. Wolves are born to possess. Anything which is of use or even just of interest is a desirable item to them and they will do their best to take possession of it and keep it…. to possess something is to be important, to investigate and understand it is to be even more important".


Rank order is not always linear and may be somewhat flexible in certain circumstances. Puppies and yearlings, for example, have a rank order, but this order may change from month to month, week to week, or even from day to day in the case of young puppies. (The rank order for adult wolves is usually more stable.) "Playing" wolves, who are engaging in behaviors such as chasing and running for fun, may "switch" rank temporarily, and a lower-ranking wolf will be allowed to mock-dominate a higher-ranking one. Some rank orders may be circular, with wolf A dominating wolf B who dominates wolf C who dominates wolf A, but this is rarely permanent. Also, low-ranking wolves of one gender may be able to dominate high-ranking wolves of the other, without changing their rank in the social order of their respective sex."

"Hvis det er noen trøst, så elsker de fleste hunder å spise menneskeavføring, og nesten alle ruller seg i det. Denne rullingen kalles "scent rolling" (duft rulling) og er en av de atferder vi ikke vet noe sikkert om. Ulver gjør det, og hunder gjør det, på nesten alle sterke og uvanlige dufter, men vi har ikke klart å finne ut HVA de egentlig gjør. Hva som er hensikten med denne atferden. Ta med duften tilbake til flokken å si: "Se hva jeg fant" - kanskje? Kamuflere sin egen lukt i jaktøyemed - kanskje? Vi vet rett og slett ikke. Jeg kan få alle ulver til å utføre denne atferden ved å dryppe en dråpe parfyme eller gni litt deodorant på bakken. Det behøver altså ikke være, for oss "vond" lukt, bare sterkt eller uvanlig." Can someone translate this last quote?

Finally, we cannot know the full spectrum of what a Canidae wolf interprets from what it smells. We know that the olfactory sense of smell in wolves and dogs is somewhere between 1000 and possible even more than 10,000 times or more better than ours and that a very large percentage of the wolf's brain is devoted to analysing the information it gets from a smell. Their scent information is processed in the rhinencephalon located at the front of the brain and is much larger and much more developed than in humans. The neural activity that goes on in this region is activated whenever the Canidae species has to solve a problem; so you could say that they reason with their noses. In fact, wolves' sense of smell should be counted as a different sense from ours. Wolves see details in scents that have no equivalent for us in any other sense than our sight. Our perception of the world is much more centered around our sense of sight. By contrast, the information and sensory experience which a wolf gets from a smell is unimaginable and is central to its perception of the world. The olfactory sense of a wolf is a world of scent landscape full of patterns, hues, shadows, impressions and tons of information - a fraction of ours. To a wolf, the scent mark of another wolf conveys details about the age, sex, hierarchy status, health and fertility of the wolf which it left there. Thus, to a wolf, smells are a source of information for the predator-prey hunt, a source of important information about its own species, and a source of pleasure and fascination.

[invert_nexus]

If anything you owe me an apology for your condescending insults and belittlement that you always seem to resort to at the end of a forum just to put other people down.

If I insulted you only to put you down, then I'd owe you an apology.
If I insulted you for no reason, then I'd owe you an apology.
However, I insult you for good reason. Because you behave poorly and unethically.

You've still not apologized for being a dishonest little shit in this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1179371#post1179371

I'm waiting.


Do you find enjoyment in this?

As a matter of fact, I do derive some enjoyment from insulting vile little worms such as yourself.
If you didn't behave as you did, then I wouldn't derive any satisfaction from pointing out your malbehavior and I would then no longer insult you.
Emotions are a goad, you know.


It serves no useful purpose, stifles learning, and demotivates those of us who are trying to pursue scientific facts and truth.

It does serve a purpose. It is a social cue for you to change your behavior to an appropriate one.
You are simply socially stunted. You never learn.
One can always hope though.

As to scientific fact and truth... there you go again.
You never learn.


Further, I never read your's or anyone elses lengthy, taken-out-of-context, dissected cut-and-post replies where you then just go on to do nothing usefull and just continue to further cut the person down line-by-line.

That just shows your learning deficit.
This is the best way to respond to a post, Valich.
In this way, we respond to specific points.
In this way the person we respond to knows exactly which point we are responding to with each point of our response.
It's called communication.
I'm sorry that you are unable to grasp it.

Of course, the reason you dislike it so much is because you often find yourself on the end of an insult and thus have misinterpreted this style of communication with insulting behavior.
This is your problem however. Perhaps someday you will learn better.
I doubt it though.


So what's the purpose in wasting your's and everybody else time by doing this?

You're not the only reader, Valich.
Just because you have poor reading skills doesn't mean that others share them.


I have laid out all the views that I could find. Some of these are even contrary to my own, which you of course you are then so eager to jump on just to insult me further.

I didn't insult you when I responded about how you posted views different than your own. I merely made the point that they are us unauthoritative as any other.

There's this little thing called intelligent discussion, Valich.
You put forward a theory then you back it up with logic.
You are incapable of this.


If you look over the first 5 or 6 pages of this forum, I think that - against all forms of criticism and some very bazaar ridiculous postings - I have authoritatively - Yes! I work in the field and consult with some highly prestigious world reknowned experts in this field, so I say "authoritatively" - established the fact that this is a:

Shared derived or shared primitive allelomimetic pack behavior (primitive means that it was present in a common ancestor: allelomimetic means that it was originally learned from watching another do it). Those that acquired this allelomimetic pack behavior were more likely to survive, breed and reproduce, hence evolution of an ancestral trait - the continuation of the trait - through a beneficial adaptation or Darwinian natural selection.

You have authoritatively stated something that was never in any doubt.
Duh. Instincts are inherited from ancestors. Duh.


Roman's view on the middle of page six was the first post to add further substance, credence and better direction. He stated: "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....And the characterstic of all those places? It's not the overwhelming smell of rotting carcasses. It's the smell of shit....So I can see a dog rolling in cow dung to masquerade as a cow. Or at least blend into an environment already reeking of thousands of animals worth of shit....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 he discredits the notion that Canidae (wolves) do the same thing by rolling in carcasses because this gives the smell of death: "Who's left? The one with the smart genes that figured out that the smell of carcass is associated with predators." Further, "rotting meat in the wild is rare." And so is the persistent smell of a carcass rare." I am unaware of a herd of elk or caribou staying away from a pile of bones

A viewpoint which has been stated again and again... but, you don't read people's posts...
As I said.
Your loss.


Do we know for a fact that wolves roll in carcasses? Or just shit?

Yes.



This forum is now much more productive and fruitful compared to the first 5 1/2 pages because we are now all looking at this behavior as a being a beneficial "pack behavior," possibly to benefit the predator's ability to catch prey.

You fucking idiot.
No one ever doubted this. This was never in question.
Christ you're fucking stupid.
See why I'm insulting you? Because you're being fucking dumb.

Although, the likelihood of this behavior benefiting the ability to capture prey is low. Social concerns are more likely.


1) A behavior to mask the Canidae's own scent from the prey.

2) Wolves do this type of behavior in order to bring information back to the pack. They roll in something so they can tell everybody what they have found. Scent-rolling is a peculiarity of canidae as a means of bringing information about the interesting scents back to conspecifics which may not have accompanied the animal to the oderiferous site. This hypothesis has merits in that it would give others in the pack information worth pursuing about a possible still existent food source, or the potential location of nearby prey.

3) Esthetics: To a wolf, a smell is a fascinating and even beautiful item; the equivalent to us of a beautiful painting or picture. The information it may contain is also important and ownership of that information confers importance upon the bearer. But the problem is that, unlike a material object such as a rotting, dead bird, they can't physically pick up a smell so how can they take it away? Simple! Roll in it. Wolves and dogs are often seen to roll specific areas of themselves in smelly stuff and it is possible that they are accentuating the scent highlights of parts of their bodies as part of their status body language - or, in this case, scent language."

4) As aa way of gaining statis in the pack to increase one's rank order by showing off and flaunting a greater variety of scents than the others. Thus proving to other pack-mates that he's the best at finding the prey?

2 and 3 seem most likely to me.
However, I also think that my argument for creation of a social pack smell has strong reasoning behind it.

1 and 4 are unlikely.


Can someone translate this last quote?

I think it's saying something about how stupid you are.


Thus, to a wolf, smells are a source of information for the predator-prey hunt, a source of important information about its own species, and a source of pleasure and fascination.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

[Theoryofrelativity]

And I never once stated that there is no point in trying to find an answer.
That's ridiculous. Defeatist.

.

you're doing it again.

You have confirmed the answer can not be found yet you insist on looking for it?

speculation is all one can do when wondering 'why'. The experts have speculated and drawn conclusions based on that speculation. You consider that speculation flawed. That is your privilage. But who is speculating from a position of most knowledge of the subject...you or they?

I am happy to accept a novices speculation.....I am the first to accept 'experts' can be blinkered and 'set' in one way of thinking.

But I don't expect them to keep looking for what can never be found.

Do you really think dogs rolling in poo is of such monumental importance that we should invest resources into finding out why?

[invert_nexus]

I am unaware of a herd of elk or caribou staying away from a pile of bones

On the contrary, they eat them for calcium.

However, bones are not rotting carcasses, now are they?
Come on, do try to stay in the real world here.

[invert_nexus]

Tor,


You have confirmed the answer can not be found yet you insist on looking for it?

Done it again?
I said the answer can not be absolutely found. That there is no absolute justification of knowledge.
But, that is not to say that a theory that fits and works and has useful purpose cannot be derived from the information at hand.

As I said, look at what science has brought to this world. Look at all the technological masterpieces. The cures to diseases. The knowledge of the workings of the universe.
All this with no absolute justification of any of it.
It's all theory. And it's liable to change at any moment.

But, it works.
Thus, there is good reason to look for theoretical understanding of the world.


The experts have speculated and drawn conclusions based on that speculation.

The experts have also shown a wide variety of speculations.
And, in fact, most of these speculations follow the same lines of the amateurish speculations in this thread.
Imagine that.
Hmm.


But I don't expect them to keep looking for what can never be found.


That's why you shouldn't do like Valich and go off looking for truth and fact. Look instead for useful and valid theoretical explanations.
This is how science exists in a post-positivist world.


Do you really think dogs rolling in poo is of such monumental importance that we should invest resources into finding out why?

Yes.

[invert_nexus]

Valich,

By the way, a point for you to consider. I wouldn't spend much time on you if I didn't see something in you that was worth the effort. You do have a passion and a drive that I find respectable. Your goal of lifelong learning is something that I share.

But, you are on the wrong path. You seek truth when there is no truth. You are like a pilgrim seeking the holy shrine. The truth handed down from on high. Absolute and sancrosanct.
Until you dispel these ridiculous notions, you will never truly learn anything other than rote.
Rote memorization is for multiplication tables, not science.
Science is about critical thinking. Something which you have failed to provide again and again.

In this thread, for instance, you have not once provided a valid explanation to back up your camoflauge theory.
Not once.


Also, your dishonesty in that post back on the first page made my disgust of you rise in ways that it never has before. Always before you have been befuddled and exasperating. But, in that post you were deceitful and vile.

I see that your character is more foul than I had previously imagined.

Because of this, I had given up hope on you altogether and had limited my responses to you to merely calling you a fool in short and simple terms as there was no purpose to try to educate you.

I slowly slipped back into educator mode, and I suppose I'm giving you another chance.

I'm not sure you're worth it though. I believe that I will shortly give up on you altogether. Your failure to acknowledge your dishonesty confirms that your dishonesty is to the bone.

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised about your dishonesty. You've lied before and you'll lie again.
Always the expert, are you not? In whatever discussion is taking place?
Amazing, that.

[Roman]

An added consideration for rolling after bathing is dirt baths. Many animals roll in dirt and mud to remove parasites. Wet fur might be a stimulus to roll in order to dry the fur.

It could be a way to get rid of parasites.
I never thought of that.

An old cure for head lice was to cover your head in cow shit. The cow shit smothered the lice.

Perhaps it's a similar reason for dogs?

[Roman]

I am unaware of a herd of elk or caribou staying away from a pile of bones

A pile of bones is not a carcass.
Actually, if a Cervidae calf dies, the mother will often hang out around the calf and mourn the calf's death. I've heard of this happening in cows, too.

But animals still get skittish when the smell of death is in the air.

[spuriousmonkey]

But animals still get skittish when the smell of death is in the air.

Except Nazis.

[Roman]

Except Nazis.

Or Arabs.

[valich]

The canine habit of rubbing on strong smelling substances is common among domestic dogs as well as wolves. Although the object of such behavior is usually carrion or dung, any strong or novel odiferous substance will evoke the response in the wolf--even expensive perfume! (Mech, 1970)

Dogs scented in such a manner are immensely interesting to other dogs. To the chagrin and irritation of the owner, the behavior is often exhibited immediately after a bath. Puppies as young as 3 months of age may show the habit.

SOME COMMON THEORIES:

CAMOUFLAGE: The most common theory for the habit is olfactory camouflage. By rubbing in the strongest ambient smell, the predator might enjoy some slight advantage while stalking its prey. While this theory seems plausible enough, it has been rejected by some authorities based on the hunting techniques of the wolf.

OLFACTORY IDENTITY: A second theory suggests that the habit provides a kind of scent identity for the pack--with any strong odor being a sufficient stimulus to infectious and ecstatic rubbing--regardless of the source. Captive wolves have been observed rubbing in the same scented spot until the whole pack is scented with the odor (Klinghammer, personal communication). Fox (1972) has suggested that the dog may be motivated by an "an esthetic appreciation of odors" (1972:222) or such behavior may serve to enhance social recognition and contact (Fox, 1971).

SCENT-MARKING: Kleiman (1966) has suggested that the typical physical movement associated with the pattern is intended to impart the animal's scent to the object rubbed upon--not necessarily to receive odor from it.

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Morris (1986) has rejected Kleiman's suggestion, arguing that if the canid's intention was to mask the odor with his own odor he would deposit an equally intense smell (feces or urine)--not simply rub on it. He has speculated that a possible purpose for the habit is to obtain and share information with other pack members about the surrounding environment via various scents the scouting wolf has rolled upon. Although pack members show great interest in the returning scout and appear to delight in the smells that he has collected, whether this exchange ever results in the initiation of a hunting sortie has not been determined. To my knowledge there has not been a controlled scientific investigation of this interesting phenomenon.

REFERENCES

Fox MW (1972). Understanding Your Dog. New York, NY: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, Inc.

Kleiman D (1966). Scent marking in Canidae. Symp Zool Soc, 18:167-177(reported in Mech).

Mech, LD (1970). The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species. Minneapolis, MN: Univ of Minnesota Press.

Morris D (1986). Dogwatching. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.

Steve Lindsay
Canine Behavioral Services
Philadelphia, PA

I have had some experience working with wolves and wolf-dog hybrids. I observed members of a pack, upon discovering the existence of some interesting scent, proceed to rub parts of their body (especially the back and side) on the source. When this same member returns to the pack, it is usually greeted by the other members who seem very excited to discover that one of them has returned with some exotic scent! It is as though an explorer who has ventured out of the pack to some foreign land has returned with "pictures" to show!

I think this may be a form of communication, whereby pack mates share individual experiences, and if anyone is interested in the source, they can be brought there?

Lai Chien Hsun
Singapore Zoological Gardens
http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/ae/archives/mar01-15.98

"Scent rolling is probably a way for wolves to bring information back to the pack. When a wolf encounters a novel odor, it first sniffs and then rolls in it, getting the scent on its body, especially around the face and neck. Upon its return, the pack greets it and during the greeting investigates the scent thoroughly. At Wolf Park, we've observed several instances where one or more pack members has then followed the scent directly back to its origin.

This scent smearing ritual isn't limited to stinky odors. In her studies, Goodmann placed different odors in the wolf enclosures and found that wolves roll in sweet-smelling scents too. Besides rolling in ode-to-cat, elk, mouse, and hog, they also rolled in mint extract, Chanel No. 5, Halt! dog repellant, fish sandwich with tartar sauce, fly repellent, and Old Spice. So the scents aren't necessarily foul, nor are they ones that wolves necessarily like. Goodmann states, "some of the Wolf Park wolves object when handlers put fly repellent on their ear tips but these same wolves often scent roll readily in fly repellents manufactured to be sprayed onto horses, provided the scents are sprayed on the ground and left for the wolves to discover. While this foul form of fragrant communication may be fine for wolves, it's not so fun when it's Rover sharing the news. What can you do to discourage this odiferous behavior? According to Goodmann, it's a hard habit to break. Even if presented with an odor over and over, wolves continue to roll in it. The same goes for dogs. Since your chance of finding a mint patch next to every dead fish is smaller than slim, the solution lies in your keen vision and ability as a trainer. Keep your eyes open for things that excite your dogÕs nose and before Rover's rolling in ecstacy call him back to your side. While the training time for a good recall makes this solution sound tedious, the time saved on needless baths makes the effort easily worthwhile.

Pat Goodmann, research associate and curator of Wolf Park in Indiana.
http://www.nerdbook.com/sophia/article1.html?num=29

[valich]

A pile of bones is not a carcass.
Actually, if a Cervidae calf dies, the mother will often hang out around the calf and mourn the calf's death. I've heard of this happening in cows, too.

But animals still get skittish when the smell of death is in the air.I was making reference to "a pile of bones" in reference to the fact that the smell of a dead carcass does not linger very long, nor do I think a dead carcass - the "smell of death" - is going to detour a herd of elk or caribou away from the site.

Do coyotes or foxes also roll in shit and carcasses? I imagine that they would, but I have never seen or heard of it. Does anyone have any experience of this? Thanks.

[invert_nexus]

It's amazing how you've gone out digging up this stuff and all it's saying is stuff we already said.

What does that say to you?
Hmm?

[valich]

Okay, I've got it. Both coyotes and foxes also scent roll. Most interesting, however, is that scent rolling has been observed in bears. A USGS biologist observed a brown bear rolling in the residue of pepper spray. http://www.securityprousa.com/usofpespnwe.html

Bears are not pack animals although they evolved from the same lineage as ancestral Canidae (wolves). This implies that scent rolling (rolling in shit and carcasses) is a "shared primitive" allelomimetic behavior dating back to Miacids in the Eocene epoch 60 million years ago and possibly even back into the Tertiary period. In other words, packs of donosaurs may have even rolled in shit and carcasses. But bears are not pack animals? Or were they when they first diverged from ancestral Caniformia ("dog-like") and went up into the trees.

[CANGAS]

I have personally observed a German Sheperd dog, very very familiar to me over many many years, roll on her back , very obviously of her choice, and apparently of her pleasure, on the putrid carcass of a dead songbird.

Star was a very dog-like German Sheperd.

[tablariddim]

I said:


I got it... it's a trophy smell. It's the smell associated with the hunt and the kill and is bound to impress. When dogs come upon the smelly stuff, a natural compulsion is triggered and they feel that they have to roll around in it to acquire the smell and it is evident that they enjoy it immensely. I think it has been proved that it doesn't act as camouflage. ”

And you said:


There is no doubt. Absolutely no question about this! And it is an accepted fact by ALL animal behavior biologists, that canidae species - and a few others - roll in shit and carcasses to hide their smell from their prey. Anyone who denies this is just trying to be argumentative and is ignorant of the facts. Site your sources: been then, done that, and seen this!

I hope you do not try to make a habit of being dumb, stupid and argumentative all your life???


This is a scientific forum, not a science fiction forum. And blind unsubstantiated speculative or imaginative posts are just the same as posting fantasy. So I'm assuming that this thread has now gone into "Alice in Wonderland."

And now, after umpteen pages of Invert being on your case; you say:


This thread has allowed me to realize another plausible viewpoint, i.e., that they roll in shit and carcasses to bring back the scent of what they have found for the benefit of the pack. This was brought to my attention by the observations made at the Wolf Park in Indiana. I have consistently maintained that this is definitely a shared allelomimetic pack behavior - and it is!

"Deceitful"? "Vile"? "Foul"? Explain.



Well, you were vile and foul to me...hypocrite!

[valich]

But why do they roll in other DOG's shit? It just makes them more noticable.

Also please give a list of other predators with similar behaviour and as an extra question: why cats don't do it?While researching this, I did also come across a veterinarian counselor who said some clients have told her that their cats like to roll in certain types of perfume.

[valich]

I said: And you said:
And now, after umpteen pages of Invert being on your case; you say:
Well, you were vile and foul to me...hypocrite!

Again, I apologize for not being as receptive to your viewpoint as I should have, but I believe that what you say is based on a "hunch," not fact. I do not see where anything posted has disproved the camouflage theory - lets call it a hypothesis - as you stated. And it is an accepted fact by all animal behavior biologists that I have ever known that canidae species - and a few others - roll in shit and carcasses to hide their smell from their prey. This is the most accepted hypothesis, many even do call it a theory, but now I have been made aware of a different plausible viewpoint, i.e., that they might be carrying the scent back, not as a "trophy," but to inform the pack that they have found a source of food. This would be in line with natural selection, but this does not explain why they would roll in shit.

Sorry for being dumb and stupid myself, but much more sorry for calling you the same. Must've been too late at night.

[tablariddim]

chill

[valich]

The only thing we know for certain is that it is a shared primitive allelomimetic pack behavior in all Canidae species. Since bears also scent roll, we can assume that it was instinctive in Miacids (Carnivora order) during the Eocene epoch 60 million years ago. Wolves diverged from this lineage into the Caniformia suborder ("dog-like") and bears then diverged into the Ursidae family (Ursus means bear). Back then dog's (Canids) had predators, so the camouflage hypothesis would make a lot of sense. No dogs are indigenous to the Americas. Ancestral wolves first crossed over from the Bering Strait land-bridge sometime over about or around 20,000 years ago. This behavior could very well have been passed down since the Tertiary period and served as camouflage back then. Perhaps we should look at rolling in shit and rolling in carcasses as being two separate types of behavioral traits.

[valich]

If we consider rolling in shit and carcasses as two separate behaviors, then the "trophy" hypothesis has merit for rolling in carcasses while the "camouflage" hypothesis has merit for rolling in shit, but are wolves that intelligent to "instinctively" know the difference?


Scent rolling is probably a way for wolves to bring information back to the pack. When a wolf encounters a novel odor, it first sniffs and then rolls in it, getting the scent on its body, especially around the face and neck. Upon its return, the pack greets it and during the greeting investigates the scent thoroughly. At Wolf Park, we've observed several instances where one or more pack members has then followed the scent directly back to its origin.

[invert_nexus]

I looked over my postings on page one and I do not see that I "lied" anywhere. I try to be an honest person. Where did I "lie"?

You lied when you quoted this:
"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."

And selectively edited so it read like this:

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

Note the missing word in your version.

You lied when you quoted this:

"because they are trying to hide their scent from their prey"

But the full quote was this:

"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"

This quote was from LindyLou, by the way. The LindyLou who you didn't know anything about.


That entire post of quotes you used as 'proof' for you camoflauge theory were all edited and not only that but they came from utter crap sources.
You were dishonest to the core.
Disgustingly so.


As I have already stated, during the first 5 1/2 pages of this thread there were a lot of silly fly-by-night views being put forth and I think that I was able to provide a proper direction for the forum to stay on track and focused in accordance to what we know.

Oh?
You're so full of shit, Valich.
Those 'silly fly by night ideas' are the exact same ideas that you're now pulling in from your vaunted experts.
We all came up with the exact same theories that you're now bringing out.
Yet, when we said them, they're silly.

Fuck you.


I still think you owe me an apology for your condescending remarks and belittlement, and for your use of "foul" language.

Ain't gonna happen. As I said, if I insulted you for no reason, then I'd apologize. I had good reason to insult you.
Still do, in fact. You're being a condescending little shit right now.
Silly ideas indeed.
Fuck off.

[valich]

Invert: I have no idea who LindyLou is. If I cited that as a direct quote, attributed to her, perhaps she heard it from me???

"Rolling in scat and carcasses is a behavior handed down from their ancestors who do this to camouflage their own smell when out on the hunt. They are trying to hide their scent from their prey."

This is a direct quote that comes from me as I was taught by my mentors. If I posted it as a quote, it was meant to reinforce what I have learned. Not from some fictional LindyLou. Whoever she is?

There you go again using foul language, and yesterday you chastize me for posting donkey pics. Same thing. You're being contradictory, irrational and hot-headed.

You swear and use the big F word against me. That's very unprofessional. You're being a stubborn old mule - far from a teacher. Then you hide behind your stance by telling me that you're going into your "teacher mode." You're a much bigger liar than I! Teacher my butt. The pursuit of knowledge has no room for mundane hot-headed hypocrites who are too proud to say they are sorry when they act like a jerk with foot in mouth.

This topic is very important to me because it directly relates to my passionate research area into brown bears and their paleontological origins, ecological habitat and behavior. Dr. Elizabeth Gain at Princeton University did her dissertation on this subject ("Wolf Perfume: Scent Rolling and Smell Investigations in Wolves") which I have ordered. I think I have covered all other scientific research material on this topic, and I will review all the posts when I have more time. I have also consulted with my friends in the NPS in Alaska and they will be getting back to me on this. I am doing what I can to be objective - and I have openly admitted and apologized for not being as objective as I should have been in the start. What more do you want?

Thank you very much for telling me how to delete the pics and edit. I was very embarrased yesterday that I had posted that pic. When I saw it on the internet it was only 1/4 the size, so I was unaware of the graphic nudity. Clearly that was inappropriate.

[invert_nexus]

This is a direct quote that comes from me as I was taught by my mentors. If I posted it as a quote, it was meant to reinforce what I have learned. Not from some fictional LindyLou. Whoever she is?

Valich.
Listen fucking close.
The quotes I posted in my last post are from you.
You posted them.
In this thread.
I've provided the link.
I've provided the quotes.
I've provided the manner in which you purposefully and deceitfully edited the quotes so as to make them seem authoritative when they were not.
You can refuse to acknowledge this all fucking day for all I care.
It just deepens my disgust for you.
You're a lying deceitful piece of shit.
With a broken brain.
I'm officially sick of you.
I give up.
You are a vile person.
A bad man.
Goodbye.

[spidergoat]

So...why do humans like to roll in shit?

[valich]

I said I would look over the posts when I have the time. You put things in quotes. I don't know if you are saying these are my quotes or if these are from this fictional LindyLou. Everything I have ever put in quotes on Sciforum has a link attached as a verifiable source. I'm not saying that this source is always credible or scientific in research, but I always cite my sources when I put something in quotation marks. You have not. That's unprofessional and unscientific. Again, you're being a hot-headed grump. Take a vacation for a week to cool down, then come back and look at the vulgar disgusting wording that you are using. I would never say what you are saying to my dog, because she deserves more respect. What do you want? What's the purpose? Do you think you are accomplishing anything by this? If so, then you certainly have a lot to learn!!! I suggest you cool down - chill out - before you have a heart attack. Then come back and be rational.

[Idle Mind]

"Rolling in strong smelling substances is 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!" http://www.dogbehaviour.com/behaviou...obsessions.htm

"rolling in a maggot-infested carcass (to hide her own scent, no doubt)" http://usads.ms11.net/eulogy.html

"because they are trying to hide their scent from their prey" www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/66481.html

"they rub in dead animals to hide their scent from predators....
it's a natural instinct"
http://www.mikeportnoy.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=1243175

"Wolves, jackals and dogs roll in decomposing animals to hide their scent."
www.groupsrv.com/religion/about146583.html

"Dogs will roll in nasty things to hide thier scent. In the wild, dogs have to hunt for thier food. If the animals that they hunt smell them those animals will run off. Therefore, by hiding thier scent with any kind of nasty smell, skunk, feces, ect.; they increase thier chances of catching something to eat." http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/s...36/an/0/page/0

"dogs have a primitive instinct to roll on decomposing things to hide their scent in the wild." www.fullerfamilyfarms.com/2005/09/page/7/
Read your own post, and check your own links. You edited out parts of the quotes you posted, then posted the links to the source. One of your reputable sources was a message board discussion (www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/66481.html) in which LindyLou was the poster of the message you quoted. You, valich, quoted LindyLou. Well, half of what she said, anyway.

[GeoffP]

So...why do humans like to roll in shit?

To frighten off dogs.

[valich]

Read your own post, and check your own links. You edited out parts of the quotes you posted, then posted the links to the source. One of your reputable sources was a message board discussion (www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/66481.html) in which LindyLou was the poster of the message you quoted. You, valich, quoted LindyLou. Well, half of what she said, anyway.

I posted what I came across on the internet that was relevant to the discussion to support a viewpoint, rather than posting irrelevant material. If you cite a partial quote, I think it is still appropriate to cite your source. In the case of the "champsdogsforum," in retrospect, since this is common knowledge - not that I agree with it now - I should have just reworded it without citing it as a source. don't you agree? But citing it as a source was reinforcing my position that it was common knowledge. If you add a word in aquote, then you should put it in brackets [...], but if you delete part of a quote - and I'll have to look this one up, then you either add the three period marka (...) or drop the quotation marks and still cite the source. Sorry if I made a trivial error here but like I said, I always cite my sources. Sciforum is just that: a forum. I'm not writing a research paper, journal artical or dissertation where accuracy is extremely crucial. I spend minutes on the web, as I'm sure you can see from my fast-typing spelling error, but months and years on a research paper, article, thesis or dissertation. I think this is an extremely trivial issue here.

[valich]

LindyLou, 07.04.05 11:00 GMT, posted: "I was told it was because they are trying to hide their scent from their prey." (www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/66481.html)
And I posted: "because they are trying to hide their scent from their prey."

Is this a quagmire? If I wanted to post, "because they are trying to hide their scent from their prey." Should I not put it in quotation marks if I read it from asource and then cite that source? The only think wrong here is that in my haste I neglected to add three periods (...). Professionally speaking, this is a direct quote, and certainly not a "lie" or being "dishonest" as Invert accuses me of - "The Man with the "Twisted" and Broken Brain." This is a forum, not a journal. More correctly it should been cited like this:

"...because they are trying to hide their scent from their prey." www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/66481.html

[invert_nexus]

You lied when you quoted this:
"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."

And selectively edited so it read like this:

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

Note the missing word in your version.


As to LindyLou. The issue with her was that you used her for a source, but her full quote was silly. It was not authoritative.
Although, the editing out of "I was told that" is practically identical to the editing out of "is thought to be".
It makes something anecdotal appear to be authoritative.

Face it. You didn't think anyone would click on your links.


As to your broken brain. I never accused your brain of being twisted. Just broken.
You can't even remember what you said from day to day.
That's considered a broken brain in my book.
It's like you are not even there inside.

[valich]

Invert: And when I reposted that I clearly stated that now I am putting it into my own words as a my quote. This is proper. Certainly not being dishonest. Chill out. I not only cited the original source for the quote, but when changed, said that it was now my own. That view was/is common knowledge. You do not have to put "common knowledge" sayings in quotations.

Anyways, let's get this forum back on track.

We now know that wolves roll in scat and carcasses to bring that information back to the pack. How is the pack able to decipher that info? How do they know the difference between bear scat (a potential rival and competing predator), other Canidae scat (little info gained there), or the scent of the prey (this could be learned recognition behavior). Is it instinctive or learned from what they have already hunted down, then recognized as a food source. Can they distinguish between the scent of scat and carcasses? And between the species that each scent came from? Why would bears roll in pepper spray? Or any scent?

[invert_nexus]

You do not have to put "common knowledge" sayings in quotations.

Common knowledge is useless.
Appeal to common knowledge fallacy.

You were dishonest by editing out the words "is thought to be" in order to make your quotes seem authoritative.
Case closed.

No use for you.

[Syzygys]

Yesterday my dog rolled in shit so much that his face was covered and I had to wash it, yuk!

[valich]

In some dogs this is a hard habit to break and I could never break it in any of my males. However my female Elkhound only rolled in Elk scat once. I caught here doing it, said "no!," and she has never done this again. She loves to sniff at any new scent she comes across, but she will not roll in scat or carcasses.

[valich]

Other predators do it. Actually bears do, but bears are hardly even predators. What bears have in common with dogs is an extremely sophisticated sense of smell. All signs point to this behaviour serving an intraspecific purpose, that they cover themselves in scents for the benefit of the advanced scenting abilities of their kin.
It would be helpful if you could elaborate on what you mean by "intraspecific purpose." Actually bears are predators at the top of the food chain, without any other predator, but they are also omnivores.


Some dogs do occassionally "stalk" certain kinds of prey, and know to stay downwind of them. I know my dog will stalk wallabies like a cat, and circle downwind from them before charging in.
But there's some variables to take into consideration. He's really learnt this from hundreds of failed attempts to course them fairly, also he's of molosser ancestry, and mastiffs are odd canids in many ways, with many cat like traits....I think wolves might stalk jackrabbits and hares, but really this behaviour of covering themselves in stink is just far more significant than any importance canids place on stealth.
It just really wouldn't make sense.
This would imply that hunting in stealth is a learned behavior and not instinctive. Many on this thread have posted that wolves do not hunt in stealth, but there are exceptions to this in all Canidae. Why do you think that mastiffs are different? I have no experience with mastiffs but have never heard anything about them being at odds with this behavior. In many ways, as in?

[Dr Lou Natic]

It would be helpful if you could elaborate on what you mean by "intraspecific purpose."
I think I meant to say inner-specific? (always get those mixed up)
Anyway, what I mean is all signs point to "rolling on stinks" being for members of one's own species to notice.
And be intimidated, impressed/aroused whatever.
The animals doing it have sophisticated senses of smell, that's what they have in common, not a particularly significant need to go unnoticed by prey animals.
The animals which do have a particularly significant need to go unnoticed by prey animals (felines) are unusually finnicky about keeping clean.
This says alot.


Actually bears are predators at the top of the food chain, without any other predator, but they are also omnivores.
Stop saying "actually" before your unnecessary grade school clarifications, I suspect you will never "teach" me anything about animals. Stop trying, it's insulting.

Bears aren't animals preoccupied with optimising their hunting performance.
Knowing bears is knowing stealth isn't particularly high on their priorities.
This isn't to say it's never employed, but they aren't governed by a need to be stealthy like cats are.
Even though they aren't pack animals, they do interact with members of their own species alot and it's important for them to be able to intimidate rivals.
Since the sense of smell is so primary for them, it makes sense that they "g" themselves up with stinks. Like humans try to get muscles and tattoos to intimidate rivals, because sight is our primary sense.


This would imply that hunting in stealth is a learned behavior and not instinctive.
For dogs yes. It comes naturally to cats, but isn't an important evolutionary demand on canines, so it isn't in their instincts.
However, excessive trial and error can lead to them learning to use stealth to their advantage if traditional canine tactics aren't proving productive.
I'm not saying dogs are completely oblivious to the benefits of stealth, but they hold many things in a higher regard, some of which are at odds with optimal stealth.


Why do you think that mastiffs are different? I have no experience with mastiffs but have never heard anything about them being at odds with this behavior. In many ways, as in?
You wouldn't have heard about it, we're at the very complicated end of understanding the subtle differences between canid types here.
Doggiesfordummies.org probably doesn't touch on this no...

Mastiffs are, relative to the traditional canine blue print, lacking in endurance but superior in explosive power.
They have soft cushioned feet for grip in close-quarter interactions(like fighting) at the expense of durability over long distances on rugged terrain.
They are flexable like cats, with loose joints that allow their limbs to rotate to greater degrees than traditional canines.
Again, all for close-quarter combative situations.
They're ultimately not as well suited to the stereotypical canine hunt as the classic dog, they've deviated in a somewhat cat-like direction, so utilising stealth in hunting to a more pronounced degree than other dogs(still far less pronounced than cats) is a natural compensation they could be expected to make.
And my observations would align with this.

I also have experience with more classic types of dog, dogs with unfailing endurance and hard feet (longdogs and scenthounds), built for archetypal canine hunting tactics, and I know that stealth is much less likely to enter the realms of their consideration in a predation situation.
Even with my dog (and with similar behaviours I have observed in wolves hnting particularly swift small game animals) getting downwind is a minor last minute thing after spotting oblivious quarry.
Stealth isn't such a significant consideration so as to make dogs plan ahead and mask their odour, their odour is already much too important to them in everyday social interactions to even entertain that notion for a second.

[valich]

I am not trying to teach you anything: only trying to further my own knowledge.

Bears are solitary predators. By the time they meet a sow to breed with, the scent would be long gone. It's a shared primitive instinctive behavior.

You didn't answer the question about mastiffs: only described their morphology and strength. What observations have you made about mastiffs regarding scent rolling. Do they differ here?

I think we need to differentiate scent rolling in scat and scent rolling in carcasses. Yes, it has to be "species-specific." Good point.

[invert_nexus]

I think we need to differentiate scent rolling in scat and scent rolling in carcasses.

Why?

[valich]

Because according to observations - posted above - the wolves in the pack follow the scent of the carcass back to the source, not the scat. Dog's also roll in other dog's scat. What benefit would this be to the pack? Rolling in a carcass and bringing that info back to the pack would benefit their survival and be consistent with natural selection, but rolling in scat would not.

[invert_nexus]

It would all be consistent with the other theories presented.
I.e. creation of a pack smell and the personal smell theories.

Ah. But you don't want those to be correct.
So you interpret the data to follow your emotional whims.
Yes?

[valich]

Hypotheses: not theories. I rely more on observations and facts:

"When a wolf encounters a novel odor, it first sniffs and then rolls in it, getting the scent on its body, especially around the face and neck. Upon its return, the pack greets it and during the greeting investigates the scent thoroughly. At Wolf Park, we've observed several instances where one or more pack members has then followed the scent directly back to its origin."

These observations do not support the "pack smell" hypothesis.

Brown Bears have also been observed scent-rolling: rolling in pepper spray residue. Brown Bears are not pack animals, nor do they hunt in stealth, but Polar Bears do hunt seals in stealth. So I wonder if Polar Bears scent roll.

[invert_nexus]

Hypotheses: not theories.

Correction noted.
Well done.


These observations do not support the "pack smell" hypothesis.

And what about rolling in shit?
Rolling in perfume?
Rolling in any strong smell they come across?
Which hypotheses do these behaviors support?
Surely the wolf didn't roll in perfume to tell its wolfy buddies where the best perfume stores are.

Ever consider that these behaviors are intermingled?

Consider.
The wolf that finds a carcass to roll in and brings that smell back to the pack and is greeted in the manner which you describe is a wolf that has been away from the pack at the time of the rolling.
But, if the wolf had been with the pack, then all the wolves would have rolled in it.

Different motivations for the same behavior.
Depending on context.

[valich]

I stated: "I think we need to differentiate scent rolling in scat and scent rolling in carcasses."

You asked: "Why?"

I answered.

[invert_nexus]

And I offered my response to your answer.
I think your reasoning is flawed.
If only the one type of behavior were observed, then that would be one thing; however, it's not.

[Alva]

Heh, I read through this entire thread, thinking it'd answer my question.

[valich]

And what about rolling in shit?
Rolling in perfume?
Rolling in any strong smell they come across?
Which hypotheses do these behaviors support?
Surely the wolf didn't roll in perfume to tell its wolfy buddies where the best perfume stores are.

Ever consider that these behaviors are intermingled?

Consider.
The wolf that finds a carcass to roll in and brings that smell back to the pack and is greeted in the manner which you describe is a wolf that has been away from the pack at the time of the rolling. But, if the wolf had been with the pack, then all the wolves would have rolled in it.

Different motivations for the same behavior.
Depending on context.

You can't say that my reasoning is flawed when I haven't even developed a hypothesis. As you should now know, I have abandoned my original commonly held "camo theory" and am pursuing further investigations into the facts. What I requoted is not what "I" described: these are the observations made at the Wolf Park in Indiana that we now have to take into account. These are the best direct observations that I have yet to come across. The "trophy" hypothesis would support these observations but it is too superficial of an explanation: needs more depth of insight. It is definitely a shared primitive allomemitic pack behavior, but why? To what end? Bears do it too, but they are not pack animals. This supports the insight that it is a shared primitive behavior, meaning that is inherited from ancestral behavior. Bears diverged from the same lineage as Canidae, so it could be a vestgial behavior of an original pack behavior. Behavioral traits are just as vestigial as morphology traits.

We do not know that "if the wolf had been with the pack, then all the wolves would have rolled in it." This is another unknown that needs factual support, right? I've owned more than one dogs and they did not have the same tendency to roll in the same scat. I don't know. It's still an open field of speculation.

[valich]

Heh, I read through this entire thread, thinking it'd answer my question.
I don't know how long you have been on Sciforum, but if you've been on for any length of time you should know that some forums can go on for a very long time due to the diversity of views and input. Have you learned or discovered anything? Life is all about learning: lifelong learning. And the only thing ever constant is change.

[invert_nexus]

You can't say that my reasoning is flawed when I haven't even developed a hypothesis.

Your reasoning is flawed for the reasons I've already given up above.
Because there is more involved than the communication hypothesis.
There are other observations that have been posted in this very thread where wolves will roll in any strong-smelling substance.
This does not jibe with the idea that the wolf is bringing home the scent of meat to its pack brothers and sisters.
Also, the rolling in shit does not fit with this.

As I said, I believe that there is a mixture of things going on here.
The communication hypothesis would only inspire behavior when a wolf is away from the pack. When it is in a sort of solitary mode.
When it is with the pack, in social mode, it exhibits the same behavior (rolling in meat) but for a completely different... effect.

Thus, I see no reason to separate the rolling in shit from rolling in carcasses.
Not in a general sense, anyway.

The observations do not merit such a stark categorization.


We do not know that "if the wolf had been with the pack, then all the wolves would have rolled in it." This is another unknown that needs factual support, right?

According to several posts, this is one of the leading hypotheses held by the experts. I suppose to be strictly scientific here, we need observations to back it up, but we're not wildlife researchers here.
None of the 'research' you're doing is really scientific. It's all just allegorical and anecdotal.
You could go out and spend a few seasons with the wolf pack if you care to really find out.
Game?

[valich]

I totally agree with you. And this is the basis for my persisent inquiries. The transmitting of "communication hypothesis" does not take into account all the observations that have been posted. I also agree that there is a "mixture of things going on here." This is why I suggested that, "maybe we should look at rolling in scat and rolling in carcasses as a separate form of behavior."

I do not understand what you mean by stating: "The communication hypothesis would only inspire behavior when a wolf is away from the pack. When it is in a sort of solitary mode." You can not communicate solitarily if there is no one around to communicate with?

"When it is with the pack, in social mode, it exhibits the same behavior (rolling in meat) but for a completely different... effect."

Again, we have no evidence or observations that all members of a pack will scent-roll in the same scat or carcass. Yes, I am a "wildlife researcher." This is my vocation and major and this is what I am doing right now. Unfortunately I do not have the support, financial backing, or exclusive unreserved interest to focus solely on this, but it is an area of interest related to my current research studies. What I am doing here is not "allegorical," but yes I am relying on observations, as I can do no better at this point in time, although I also have observed wolves in the wild. I've been to Alaska three times so far, but I have no personal experience about wolf behavior regarding this subject. I have spent months camping out in the bush amongst wolves but have not observed this behavior. In lieu of this I am taking into account what is being posted on this thread. Perhaps in the future I will research it more in the wild. I just do not have the time right now to concentrate on this as a priority, but it does relate to my priority area of research.

[invert_nexus]

This is why I suggested that, "maybe we should look at rolling in scat and rolling in carcasses as a separate form of behavior."

Yes. But this isn't necessarily the best way to look at it.
Rather, they should be looked at separately in certain instances and together in others.
The key is in knowing which is which, eh?


I do not understand what you mean by stating: "The communication hypothesis would only inspire behavior when a wolf is away from the pack. When it is in a sort of solitary mode." You can not communicate solitarily if there is no one around to communicate with?

It is only when a wolf is solitary that it needs to communicate with such explicit information. When the wolf is with the pack, the pack can see (and smell) for itself.

It takes the scent of the carcass back to the pack to communicate.


Again, we have no evidence or observations that all members of a pack will scent-roll in the same scat or carcass.

Well. Let me ask you this. How could it be a leading theory if there weren't evidence or observations that would back it up?

Let me ask you something else. Do you really think that only a couple of wolves in a pack would roll in a nice, juicy, rotten carcass? Why? Why not the whole gang?
You know damn well that they'll all get in the act. They'll all want their own piece of the pie.


What I am doing here is not "allegorical,"

Sure it is. You're just googling for stuff. That's hardly scientific.
Take LindyLou for example.
Your 'common knowledge'.


Perhaps in the future I will research it more in the wild.

Well, get back to us in the future then.

[Alva]

Have you learned or discovered anything?

Not yet...

But I feel it's getting there, for you at least.

[valich]

Invert: the previous leading upheld theory by all behavioral biologists was that scent-rolling was to hide their scent for the hunt. Only relatively recently has this theory been debunked. There is no leading theory now.

I know no of observations of the entire pack rolling in a carcass.

We do know that this is a way of bringing information back to the pack. If it is the scent of a carcass, then I would think that it is a learned behavior, i.e., a shared recently-derived trait. The other members of the pack recognize the scent of the carcass and follow it back to the kill to stuff their bellies. This makes a lot of sense, but rolling in scat does not. Again, why do bears scent roll? they are not pack animals. Therefore, I think we can assume that it is a shared primitive behavior passed on down from Canidae/Miacid pack behavior and that is instinctive.

[valich]

Abstract: This article discusses training canines for conservation projects. Dogs are trained to find scat of big carnivorous animals, such as grizzly bears. By following scat trails, researchers can trace bears' itinerant habits, see what they eat, and discover the density of populations. Using dogs is much cheaper than other means. 60% of the dogs chosen to train for this work end up failing. It is tough work and requires the right disposition."
Source: Etter, Lauren. 2006. "Scratch 'n' Sniff: Special Canine Unit Knows to Nose Scat." Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition; 9/23/2006, Vol. 248 Issue 71, pA1-A8, 2p.

[invert_nexus]

Only relatively recently has this theory been debunked. There is no leading theory now.

Man. You go from one extreme to the other, don't you?
I don't think it's ever been 'debunked' as far as I know.
It's just that it's not as likely as some of the other theories. It still might play a part in the general gestalt though.

As to 'leading theory'. There are 'leading theories'. Plural.
That is, there are several theories which fit the evidence depending upon context and interpretation. Some theories fit the evidence better than other theories. But, each theory has its merits and also its detriments. Otherwise they wouldn't be touted as 'leading theories'.

Stop looking for the final answer.
There is none.
Only gentle gradations of context.

[valich]

Well yes, I definitely agree. But you're the one that inferred above (5 posts up): "How can this be a leading theory." I never suggested that it was? I stated: "we have no evidence or observations that all members of a pack will scent-roll in the same scat or carcass." And that was your comment?

I have a good friend in the NPS in Alaska who asked around abit amongst colleagues and just sent me this reply:

"The main reasons that I hear from people up here is that they roll in dead stuff (often herbivores) to cover up their own scent when hunting and to fool
members of other species."

[invert_nexus]

I never suggested that it was?

Well.
There goes your poor reading skills again.
Remember? The whole broken brain issue?

There have been various posts and links in this thread which do state that the communal pack smell theory is one of a few leading theories.


"The main reasons that I hear from people up here is that they roll in dead stuff (often herbivores) to cover up their own scent when hunting and to fool members of other species."

I'm curious if you're now able to interpret the anecdotal nature of this response? Hopefully your education is proceeding enough that soon you'll be able to converse in conversational english with the rest of us.
I won't hold my breath.

Wait.
Why am I talking to someone as disreputable as yourself?

Shame on me.
Mommy told me not to talk to lowlifes.

[valich]

Remember the whole "TWISTED "broken" brain issue." That is sooo dumb to post and you know it.

So here we have another expert who has lived in Alaska for over twenty-five years, hikes constantly in the bush, owns a pack of dogs, asks all her NPS friends that live in Alaska, and upholds the previous "leading theory": The main reason that they roll in dead stuff is to cover up their own scent for the hunt.

I am not the least interested in your anecdotal nature or anectodal responses, nor do I have time for them. If you don't have anything factual and contributory to add to the thread, then don't post.

[Idle Mind]

All around the mulberry bush...

[Dr Lou Natic]

Yeah, how annoying. Anyone would think we hadn't clearly established how incredibly unlikely the "cover their own scent" theory was pages ago...

[Roman]

I don't know if bears roll in carcasses, per se. They do lie on top of carcasses, but to keep bears and other scavengers off their kills.

Bears mark their territory by standing up near a tree and clawing and biting it. This way, other bears can compare to where they match up on the tree.


Remember the whole "TWISTED "broken" brain issue." That is sooo dumb to post and you know it.

So here we have another expert who has lived in Alaska for over twenty-five years, hikes constantly in the bush, owns a pack of dogs, asks all her NPS friends that live in Alaska, and upholds the previous "leading theory": The main reason that they roll in dead stuff is to cover up their own scent for the hunt.

I am not the least interested in your anecdotal nature or anectodal responses, nor do I have time for them. If you don't have anything factual and contributory to add to the thread, then don't post.

Those same people will be likely to tell you father bears eat their cubs.
Which is completely wrong.

[Syzygys]

Today it was a dead mole. So I am happy to report, that my dog is an equal opportunity ROLLER. Shit or carcass, it makes no difference for him...

[invert_nexus]

I am not the least interested in your anecdotal nature or anectodal responses, nor do I have time for them.

So. You have no time for anecdote? Then why should you pust something such as the following?


So here we have another expert who has lived in Alaska for over twenty-five years, hikes constantly in the bush, owns a pack of dogs, asks all her NPS friends that live in Alaska, and upholds the previous "leading theory":

Funny. I could have sworn that the quote you gave from this guy said something about people saying stuff rather than peremptorily stating with authority anything about wolf and/or dog behavior. Also, funny how the quote mentions "main".
Hmm.
You haven't learned anything.
Imagine that.


If you don't have anything factual and contributory to add to the thread, then don't post.

I've contributed quite a bit. I've been trying to teach you the meaning of fact and how science works, but you just don't seem to get it as evidenced by your previous anecdotal evidence which you seem to claim as greater than that.

Also. I've been trying to teach you some morality. Yet you keep posting lies such as the following:


Remember the whole "TWISTED "broken" brain issue."

More evidence of your disreputable character.
I demand an apology for lying.
I never said this.
You've misquoted me.

[invert_nexus]

blah blah blah blah
blahblah blah
blah blah
blah

[invert_nexus]

The Ballad of the Man with the Twisted Broken-Brain:

There you go again.
You just can't stop lying, can you?
Disgusting little creep.

[valich]

Stop saying "actually" before your unnecessary grade school clarifications, I suspect you will never "teach" me anything about animals.
The word "actually" is politely used in English. You don't like English?

Contrary, I taught you that bears eat crustaceans and clams - something you first denied (review) - and cited numerous examples of Brown Bears being larger than Polar Bears (2,500 pds. vs 1,970 pds.). It's much easier to drag a Polar Bear across solid Arctic ice than to cut a new road into Alaskan boreal forest and tundra on permafrost to get it out just to have it weighed. How could this be done? Who would finance such a ridiculous astronomical investment just to get their name in a book? Brown bears also gorge on moths and lilies - an excellent source of nutrition. One study I read said that Grizzlies sometimes eat up to 20,000 moths per day.

[invert_nexus]

Contrary, I taught you that...

Hmm.


I am not trying to teach you anything:

Contradictory little twerp.

[invert_nexus]

blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah?
Blah.
Blah blah blah?
"Blah blah blah blahblah::"

Blah.

Retard.
And a dishonest one to boot.
Nothing worse.

[valich]

I am an honest man. I do not lie. And I do my best to be an objective scientist, weighing all the facts: pros and cons. Constantly and actively researching and gathering as much factual data as I possible - time permitting. I readily admit when I am wrong and apologize when it is due, as you can quickly rereview on this thread - something unknown to the man with "The "Twisted" Broken Brain" who is too proud and stubborn because he is nothing more than a senile, stubborn old man who speaks in vain riddles, tooting his horn to entertain a pitiful increasingly faultering ego. Not a "man," a "thing" that finds sadistic pleasure in cutting down and belittling others - a most solid sure subtle sign of intellectual immaturity and egotistic vanity. I wonder if you even managed to graduate from high school you little stubborn old twerp?

Now the "thing" - the "it" - only has a one-word vocabulary: "blah." A very concise overview of what goes round in that little egg you carry on top of your neck.

[valich]

One fact highlighted by the Alaskan NPS biologist, supported by my correspondences with the NPS, is that they only roll in herbivore scat and carcasses: food and prey, not rival predators. We have no accounts that Canidae roll in other Carnivora scat or carcasses.

If scent rolling was just to bring info back to the pack, wouldn't it be more important to bring info back about potential competitors and other predators?

This new fact adds important clarity to delineate the hypothesis.

Still, no one has yet addressed the issue of why bears also scent roll? They have no predators and are not pack animals. Therefore, no hypothesis, except for "inherited shared primitive allomemitic trait" has yet to be stated that takes this into account.

[invert_nexus]

I am an honest man.


I readily admit when I am wrong and apologize when it is due, as you can quickly rereview on this thread

Two lies.
If you were worth the time, I could show it beyond a reasonable doubt. In this thread and in so many others in which you've taken part.
However, you're not worth the time.
You're just a pathetic miserable wretch.
A retard.
And a liar.


something unknown to the man with "The "Twisted" Broken Brain"

Heh.
Too stupid to even think up your own insults.
What a pitiful example of a human you are.
You really should commit suicide. Do the Earth a favor.
Please tell me you don't have children. And don't plan to ever have any.


If scent rolling was just to bring info back to the pack

And who, if I may be so bold, ever suggested any such thing?
Retard.

[Roman]

Invert, try and keep your bipolar disorder under control, will you?
Us sane people don't like to be reminded of your mind wounds.

[Theoryofrelativity]

Two lies.
If you were worth the time, I could show it beyond a reasonable doubt. In this thread and in so many others in which you've taken part.
However, you're not worth the time.
You're just a pathetic miserable wretch.
A retard.
And a liar.



Heh.
Too stupid to even think up your own insults.
What a pitiful example of a human you are.
You really should commit suicide. Do the Earth a favor.
Please tell me you don't have children. And don't plan to ever have any.



And who, if I may be so bold, ever suggested any such thing?
Retard.


Note to members

dogs and shit do not mix,

the length of this thread is ridiculous and the insults more so

how about instead discussing why a dog can't let go of it's bone?

[invert_nexus]

I only resort to such lame insults when referring to pieces of shit such as Valich.


Invert, try and keep your bipolar disorder under control, will you?
Us sane people don't like to be reminded of your mind wounds.

They took my zyprexa away!

[Roman]

Note to members

dogs and shit do not mix,

the length of this thread is ridiculous and the insults more so

how about instead discussing why a dog can't let go of it's bone?

I got a bone you won't want to let go of...


...bitch.

[valich]

Why do bears roll in pepper spray? One NPS biologist - his name is Smith, John Smith I think - advocates against using pepper spray as a bear defense. I think he advocates this because some dumb users think pepper spray is just like mosquito repellent and so they then spray it on their clothing and tents thinking that this will "prevent" bear attacks, but this "attracts" bears. But why would bears roll in it - scent roll?

[Roman]

Why do bears roll in pepper spray? One NPS biologist - his name is Smith, John Smith I think - advocates against using pepper spray as a bear defense. I think he advocates this because some dumb users think pepper spray is just like mosquito repellent and so they then spray it on their clothing and tents thinking that this will "prevent" bear attacks, but this "attracts" bears. But why would bears roll in it - scent roll?

Some say they like the way it tastes.

And I couldn't imagine spraying that stuff on my clothes and tent. You ever get pepper sprayed? It hurts like hell, and I've never even got a faceful of the stuff.

[valich]

Yes, I did! But just from a slight touch of the trigger or from some residue. The one time we had to evacuate the tent after I accidently threw the canister next to me before going to bed, causing a slight squirt. My eyes burned for about an hour afterwards as I kept flushing them out in the stream we camped next to.

I also love hot food and often pour tons of pepper on what I cook. Maybe bears like it for the same reason, but this doesn't seem to explain why they would roll in it - only lick it.

[spuriousmonkey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6183379.stm


US research had confounded the established belief that people have a poorer sense of smell than animals.

The work, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, asked people to follow scents on the ground, as a dog would do, and found they were as good.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42358000/gif/_42358073_sniffing203.gif

Those who took part were blindfolded and wore thick gloves and earplugs to force them to rely exclusively on smell.

Two thirds were able to follow the scent.

And while they remained slower than the animals at tracking scents, their performance improved over time.

In other tests, it was found that humans required both nostrils to be working to be able to track scents.

It seems humans aren't as bad at smelling scents as we like to think. We walk upright, but if we put our noses to the ground we can move with the dogs.

[valich]

I've read this study some where before, or one similar. Canidae have a long snout for a reason - it contains a long olfactory mucous membrane system lined with billions of olfactory receptors that can distinguish tens of thousands - probably more - unique scents: at least 10,000 times more smells than humans can detect. Dogs have over 2 billion olfactory receptors while humans only have about 10 million. The olfactory information is used for individual recognition, to maintain affiliations, to reduce competition - such as by marking their territory - and to bring back information to the pack, etc.

Dogs only have 30% more olfactory receptors (OR) genes that encode for their olfactory receptors than humans - rats and mice about 60% more - but 70% of the human OR genes are nonfunctional pseudogenes (see: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/6/2870 and http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=16022). Dogs have about 1200 (1178) OR genes compared to 350 for humans. However, even though the number of genes that encode for olfactory receptors are only about four times as great, the big difference in olfactory ability lies in the much greater number of olfactory nerve cells and the way that they are processed in the brain. The olfactory receptors send signals to the olfactory lobe in the brain, and canids' olfactory lobes are much larger than humans'.

"Although humans do have a good sense of smell—we can detect about 10,000 different odors—our olfactory capability is not as good as those of many vertebrates, especially fish and other mammals. A dog, for example, has up to 40 million nerve endings per square centimeter of nasal epithelium, many more than we do." http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/biog105/pages/demos/105/unit10/tastesmell.html

"Dogs have 40 times more olfactory cells – the cells that allow the recognition of a smell – than humans do. As a result, a dog has 200 million olfactory cells against 5 million in humans." http://expasy.org/prolune/pdf/prolune014_en.pdf.

The key in Canidae's superior scent recognition is the plethora of volatile odorant molecules that they are able to detect through their large and long complex olfactory epithelium. Canids have seven transmembrane domains in their olfactory system that are enervated by thousands of nerve cells spread across their olfactory epithelium. Each neuron has one distinct odorant receptor that can bind with many specific and different odorants with different affinities. But if more than one bind with many different affinities then this enables the differences in scent that they can detect to be exponential.

"The size of the epithelium is a good indicator of the acuity of an animal's sense of smell. For example, the surface area of a human epithelium is 10 cm, whereas the surface area of a dog's epithelium is 170cm^2. Dogs also have 100 times more receptors per square centimeter than humans, so, needless to say, dogs have a much better sense of smell." http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/UBNRP/Smell/nasal.html

The size of the snout does matter a lot. Consequently, I think that breeder's who breed short muzzle pug-faced dogs - for whatever reason they do so? - are doing the dog an injustice because they are artificially genetically engineering a loss to its original wolf-like olfactory ability. Not to be a racist, but aren't they breeding toward an inferior canid subspecies? Why deprive the dog of its inherent sense of smell?

"Gene Studies:
From rodents through the primate series to humans there is a progressive reduction in the proportion of functional olfactory receptor genes. Mice have approximately 1,300 olfactory receptor genes, of which some 1,100 are functional, whereas humans have only some 350 functional genes of approximately 1,000. The conclusion seems obvious: the low number of functional olfactory receptor genes in humans compared with rodents—and presumably most other mammals—is directly correlated with the evolutionary decline in the human sense of smell." http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020146
See also: The Human Sense of Smell: Are We Better Than We Think? http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=406401

TOP SECRET: On the Prowl with the Secret Bomb Dogs
http://www.salon.com/people/2002/03/04/bomb_dogs/story.jpg
"These dogs enjoy their work: There is no greater demonstration of vocational happiness than a bomb dog on the scent of something explosive. And it's lucky for us that they love it like they do....Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, the government's primary center for bomb-dog training, used to talk to reporters about its training program, but since Sept. 11, officials there have been under orders from the Pentagon to keep all bomb-dog information classified. The closest they'll come to actual data is saying that the number of dogs being trained there has "increased." The Federal Aviation Administration, which gets many of its dogs from Lackland, plans to have 300 bomb-dog teams at 80 airports by 2003, but officials there won't say what, exactly, those dogs will be doing, how many will be at each airport or how the dogs have been trained." http://www.salon.com/people/2002/03/04/bomb_dogs/

[valich]

Femal rodents scent-mark when is estrus. Male rodents then overmark the female's scent-mark. Source: "Scent Marking in Rodents," by Thomas, Shawn A. and Jerry O Wolff. 2003 Symposium. http://www.nri.org/ratzooman/docs/MN96%20Chapter%202.pdf

[Varda]

i dont know if this has been said before in this thread, but i would just like to comment that regardless of the reasons why dog roll on carcasses and shit, they invariably do, and that is absolutely disgusting and retarded. not to mention that a day after you showered them, even if you leave them inside, they start to stink again like magic. and of course, to crown it, they eat shit. and they love it. bird shit is a specially desired little treat it seems... and then they come drool on you, lick your hands, try to lick your face

gross

they are cute alright, they do cute things sometimes, but why anyone would want a dog as a pet is beyond me

[francois]

You are right, Varda. Dogs are poopy animals.

[valich]

This is a scientific research forum, not a forum dedicated to senseless and silly human anthropomorphic criticism about canidae behavior that apparently you have no understanding of and little regard for.

[francois]

By "poopy" I meant that they are animals that like to roll in and eat poop. Probably for excellent reasons. You know. As a way for communicating and conveying social hierarchy among the pack. Is there something unscientific about that? Maybe you ought not be so quick and judgmental to say who has no understanding of what. You big poopy head.

[spuriousmonkey]

http://sciforums.*******************/modhat.png Modhat is on.

Hello,

this is your friendly biology & genetics subforum moderator.

This is not a scientific research forum. It's a forum for people interested in science or participating in an 'intelligent' community, or whatever we want it to be as a community as long as it fits with the overall sciforum spirit.

Please let us not instruct people as an individual what they can and cannot post. That seems to be the task of the moderator and/or moderator/administration team and/or sciforums community.

Any complaints against certain posts can be conveyed to your friendly biology & genetics subforum moderator by sending him a friendly PM, or if you want a really slow response use the report button. Unfriendly PMs are regarded less favourable than friendly ones. Your biology & genetics subforum moderator will then evaluate the complaint on merit, possibly consult the moderation/administration team and/or community if necessary (extreme cases), and act or not act accordingly.

have a very nice day,

Your friendly biology & genetics subforum moderator.

[invert_nexus]

This is not a scientific research forum.

Lies!!
I only post here because my research grant mandates that I must.
If this isn't a scientific research forum then why is all the cutting edge scientific research taking place? And where the hell is all the funding going?
Yes. I know that you're bitter because you work with stem cells and thus can't get funding from the American government, but you made your bed, lie in it.

Now, I've got some scientific research to get to. I'm almost ready with that paper on false authoritative asshats who can't tell the difference between science and a hole in their head. I can't decide whether I should submit it to Science, Nature, or Sciforums... Sciforums is the most exclusive scientific journal, with the most widespread user base... But the others are easier to publish in with less stringent peer review...
Decisions, decisions...

[spuriousmonkey]

Submit it to PLOS one (not to be confused with PLOS biology). It's 'semi'-peer reviewed and the reviewing procedure takes a month or less. Superfast.

You can get all kind of crap...i mean...good stuff in there.

[Varda]

This is a scientific research forum, not a forum dedicated to senseless and silly human anthropomorphic criticism about canidae behavior that apparently you have no understanding of and little regard for.

my post wwas meant as a side COMMENT, unrelated to the discussion, but related to the subject, and my criticism is not towards the habits of the dogs, but to people who bring them into their homes.

you don't have to take on me your frustration for being owned all over this thread you know?... this is just a discussion board after all, your career isn't over... don't get sweaty tits over it

[francois]

lol... valich, it could all stop, if only you stopped with the pretense.

[macswan69]

I have two basset hounds. I have found that when i put flea drops on them the male will roll in other dogs shit. much to the dismay of my husband.
I therefore think he does it to mask the smell of the drops. he is picky about the shit he rolls in. the fresher the better and it has to be a bigger dogs poo too. hope this helps

[Johnnycake]

All I can contribute, is that my dog smiles from ear to ear when rolling in anything dead. He seems to relish every moment of it, as if savoring the very stench that invokes near vomiting from me. And then he climbs onto my lap, and tries to share it with me (from the kindness of his heart). I'm no scientist, but I think they love the smells of these things, and want to wear it proudly. the way people flaunt fine perfumes. My dog (Frank) absolutely hates it when I put something good smelling on him. They like different odors than we do, because different things excite them. We don't go around sniffing other peoples asses, because; 1) it just isn't acceptable in MOST circles. 2) we don't have the olfactory for it. Dogs can be likened to teenagers though, in the fact that if they like a smell, they drench themselves in it. I've never had a dog that stealthily hunts. They chase! And they make a lot of noise doing it, so I don't buy the evolutionary 'sneaky hunter' argument.

[Alien Cockroach]

Dogs roll in shit and carcasses for the same reason that lions roll in shit and carcasses. They do this in order to disguise their scent, so their prey will not be able to detect them as easily.

[nietzschefan]

My dog does not do this.

[WillNever]

I know. I've owned dogs all my life... and never has one of them eaten shit or rolled around in shit.

They've killed animals... but they don't roll on them. They just keep them close by. While I'm sure some of that stuff has happened, once on a very seldom basis, I still wonder if the people who post this stuff have ever actually owned any dogs.

[Syzygys]

I know. once on a very seldom basis, I still wonder if the people who post this stuff have ever actually owned any dogs.

You know shit. I know dozens of dogs by name because I go to a dogpark twice a day. Most of them if there is a fresh kill roll in it like crazy. Small dog, big dog, all kind. I cleaned up dear, owl, fox and racoon carcasses in the last 3 years.(somebody had to do it)

My new theory is that they might want to claim it this way.

Try to socialize your dogs and take them out occasionally. They would love it...

P.S.: Dearshit is also a favorite rolling material....

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Mod note:

Okay, that’s it. :rolleyes:

This thread became stupid years ago when it degenerated into a slanging match. It’s a mixture of information, disinformation and a whole lot of egos butting heads. It has become entirely too long to manage and there’s nothing more to be said that hasn’t already been said somewhere in the 230+ posts, so I’m closing it.