Differences in the Behavior of Landraces and Breeds of Dogs - Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals - page 201

distance. In contrast, wild canids, which scavenge dumps at night, usually
initiate flight before observational contact. The flight is rapid, increasing the
interspacing many times and perhaps terminating foraging for long periods
of time.
Village dogs in Zanzibar were shy of people although they often rested in
proximity to them or begged for food. Village dogs withdrew only when
approached too closely. Many showed little interest in people unless the peo-
ple were eating. They paid scarce attention to us crawling around taking their
pictures. Most often they “foraged” in a way that increased the distance
between them and the observer. To lay a hand on one was difficult and
attempts were sometimes greeted with threats (snarl/growl or barking) and
withdrawal. (Rats displayed similar behaviors on Pemba, often approaching
our picnics and begging for food, often successfully, but scampering off,
squealing, if we tried to catch one.)
In Ethiopia, Ortolani et al. (2009) reported differences in flight distance
behaviors among dogs in different villages, suggesting developmental differ-
ences. The attitudes toward and treatment of dogs by local people affected
their adult hazard-avoidance behaviors.
In some villages of the world, dogs are preyed upon by people. One com-
mon report on Pemba was that North Korean construction workers bought or
captured dogs to eat. Local people viewed this behavior with a combination
of mirth and revulsion. However, the eating of village dogs (often puppies)
is reported virtually worldwide ( Corbett, 1985; Lantis, 1980; Podberscek,
2009; Serpell, 1995; Titcomb, 1969 ).
Dogs that intrude in some noxious way are killed by people. On Pemba,
when the dog population is high, the army can be called out to reduce the
number of dogs in the face of obnoxious behavior or the presence of disease.
Evolution
One of the requirements for evolution and divergence of species is large
populations of animals, over time. Village dogs, with loose or no attachments
to people, living within or on the outskirts of villages, are a good model for
understanding the origins of the dog and perhaps other domestic animals.
The people on Pemba, generally ambivalent to dogs, are likely to echo the
attitude of late Mesolithic village people who would not have realized that a
transformation of wild canids to domestic dogs was possible.
The hypothesis presented here is that the growth of villages in the early
Neolithic period created a new niche, which attracted wild species. The initi-
ator of the adaptation to village life is the wild species itself ( Coppinger and
Smith, 1983 ). Those species which could invade successfully, adapted
quickly. For some large portion of the dog population this niche has
remained open and growing to the present, and people still have little influ-
ence on the direction of morphological and behavioral adaptation. This is