Dog owners, would do you think of the following statement?

It seems to me that every time someone wants to make a distinction between "animals" and "humans" science will eventually prove them wrong.

We are animals. Our brains allow us to feel emotion, why would other species be incapable of the same functions? Are emotions unique to humans? Definitely, not. We may not see emotions or understand animal communication in other species as well as we do our own; but, dogs not only "read" us, but they learn to communicate with us. While a domesticated dog may learn communication techniques that enable them to communicate with humans in a way that we understand, this does not mean that in the wild the pack does not communicate, nor that wild dogs do not feel emotion. They just communicate in a way that WE are not as adept at reading.

The same is true for elephants, the great apes, mammals in general, and probably many other species that we do not understand so well.

So, your premise is false.

We ourselves may be nothing more than walking blobs of chemical reactions, but nonetheless our emotions are equally real to us. The same with other animals all with varying degrees.

Ava Girl's answer made me smile. But, deep down inside we're all dogs, right?

DDDogs have three behavioral drive groups: pack, prey and defense. You seem to be only half correct in your assumption. Dogs are trained to alert on heart attack sufferers in advance of an episode because they have the instincts to tune in to what their masters health condition is in. Some dog owners over exaggerate what their dog is capable of and that is not the dogs fault, that is a people problem, 90% of the time a problem with a dog is the owner is not trained properly.

The pack drive is a group behavior and this is the one that trainers key in on. Since dogs are a social animal, that desire to be a part of the group and to fit in are important to the dog’s well being. The canine now is a part of a family, instead of the pack of wolves. The dog needs the physical contact, the petting, the grooming, the playtime and the attention it gets during training, as well as the acceptance it receives from the human family pack. The dog will do anything it needs to do to get the acceptance as a member of the “human” pack, rather than face being ostracized.

The prey drive refers to the hunting, killing and feeding behavior that dogs have inherited from their wolf ancestry. When a dog is exhibiting behaviors such as looking intently at another animal, tracking in the woods, standing still and listening, perhaps cocking its head so that the location of the sound can be more accurately ascertained, barking, chasing, jumping, tearing and shaking objects, digging and burying, all are examples of the prey drive.

The defense drive has to do with fight or flight instincts, self preservation and survival. This does become complex, because the same stimuli that causes a dog to flee at one age, will cause the same dog to fight when older. The temperament test can gauge the fight or flight behaviors in an individual dog, and give the owner a hint as to how to train and give commands to the dog. Whether a hard, or soft, approach to training is necessary.

I do not agree with this one. If this were true a dog would be of NO use whatsoever once spayed or neutered. They would not be able to move as their brains' function would be used up. In his desire to be the "highest order" man does tend to over-simplify way too much.

Dogs show emotion. Because a person cannot see it or understand it does not mean it is not there. It simply means that person has no clue how to process their own thought processes when it comes to this area. That does not speak to the dogs nature, but the humans.

You mean "what do you think". It says "adept at", and it says "tend to", it doesn't say that self-preservation and continuation of the species is all their brains are capable of. But let's take the idea a little further. If we accept that dogs survive by living in a pack structure, then anything they do to preserve the pack structure is aimed at preserving life as they know it. Love, care, anxiety when that structure is disturbed, protecting other members of the pack, whether canine or human, is all part of preserving what they need to survive. So, I would agree with the statement, poorly expressed as it is. You could argue that it's true of humans as well as every other creature on earth.

My dogs brains are adept in manipulating me out of treats, that would fall under your self-preservation category, and chasing bunnies in the back yard, hmmn not sure what category that falls under. Hogging the heating pad on the bed at night would be self preservation, wait, crisis, crisis, there is a cat on the other side of the pond, well this question might be too deep for me and my dogs.

I'd say the statement is basically correct. In cases of neglected or unsocialized dogs or those that must live in a feral state, like any creature their world shrinks to the most basic biological functions in order to survive.

Dogs that live a richly complex life as part of a pack with humans don't --or shouldn't!-- have to worry where their next meal comes from and when responsibly spayed and neutered, the frustration and drive to seek a mate is also eliminated. So they share our resources as companions and/or protectors to some degree or another (working dogs or not) but as a very different species they must constantly use their superior senses to observe us to try to understand where they fit and what is expected of them. It's logical for this behavior to be driven by self-preservation.

Dogs ARE capable of great devotion, grief, depression, rage and happiness. They don't have any understanding of the concept of "good" and "bad" or revenge. This is true whatever environment a dog lives in.

I disagree. Even in the wild dogs are in a family called a pack, it is just called something different. If that statement were true a dog would not care about who the pack leader was they would just stay together to hunt and all go their separate ways, randomly grouping with other dogs. They would not be as territorial as wild dogs are, because they could survive with other dogs in their space they choose not to.

I agree with the basic idea you're suggesting, that all those wishy washy human emotions people put onto an animal are garbage. A dog's actions are not based off of "love". Love is a human emotion.

Certainly, they become bonded to us as people & have been bred with the desire to please us as their owners. Because of this they will learn from a reward/praise & react upon that. Their bonds are not like what we feel as human beings to one another. It's a whole different ball game.

I don't understand why so many people push the fact that dogs are just like humans when they aren't. What's so insulting & demeaning about a dog being a DOG? It's absurd.

I could see that being true in a pack that has no human contact, as you are talking about survival instinct. In an environment where dogs have been bred for thousands of years to please man, I disagree.

You could use that statement for the human species as well. Self-preservation is present in all species.

True in a sense.

Dogs view us as their pack. We are their alphas.

They treat us as they would treat an alpha dog; willing to give themselves to keep the Alpha alive, if that's what it took.

We might be different species' - but the dogs still view us as their 'family'.

I neither agree, nor disagree.

ETA:

I would like to hear from whomever gave Chi the TD..?

Every animal *does* have self-preservation. It's not something that's just forgotten over the period of a couple thousand years.

Without self-preservation, humans wouldn't be here today. Neither would the subject of our affairs, dogs. Nor wolves, nor horses, nor caterpillars, nor squirrels, nor worms.