Why dogs like to roll in shit and carcasses?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Syzygys, Oct 17, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2006
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    So...why do humans like to roll in shit?
     
  8. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    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.
     
  9. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,709
    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.
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    To frighten off dogs.
     
  11. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    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.
     
  12. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    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
     
  13. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    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.
     
  14. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    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?
     
  15. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    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.
     
  16. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Yesterday my dog rolled in shit so much that his face was covered and I had to wash it, yuk!
     
  17. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    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.
     
  18. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    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.

    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?
     
  19. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  20. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    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.
     
  21. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Why?
     
  22. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    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.
     
  23. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    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?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page