Are dogs humans best friend?
Why we should start to see dogs differently
If you are a dog person, such as I am, the article headline might raise some eyebrows. Don’t get me wrong, I love dogs. I’m the type of person that when I see one on the street I just happen to smile. If there is one joyful activity that I look forward to during the day is going to the park with my two dogs and just playing with them.
Having two dogs allows me to observe the relationship between them, which I find simply amazing. From the different ways of barking, the body gestures, what they sniff and how, and mainly that feeling we get when they feel comfortable with your company.
However, nothing is perfect. Many times we seek to romanticize or venerate these animals for the simple fact of the strong bond they have with us, something that goes beyond culture as we will see below.
The evolution of dogs
Dogs, like any other species, have evolved through various adaptations that were forced by the environment. The common ancestor — a species that predates both — between modern dogs (Canis lupus familaris) and the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was a species of wolf, with populations in what is now known as Siberia. Contrary to popular belief, the first dogs began to diverge 37,000–42,000 years ago from the gray wolf, which presupposes that at the time when contact with humans began, there was already a species that was at least genetically distinct from the wolf.
The domestication of the dog is a rather controversial subject, with several theories being put forward. One of them proposes that, as human populations began to form groups and establishments and, therefore, accumulate food remains, individuals of the ancient dogs approached these establishments. The more aggressive ones were eliminated, leaving the more docile ones and, progressively, favoring that characteristic. Others claim that this may have occurred in an inverse way, where the hunting processes of human groups were benefited by the same hunting procedures of these dogs, thus generating a mutualism, and also allowing other carnivore species to stay away from the establishments. It can also be thought of as a combination of these two theories, which would make a lot of sense.
What is clear, however, is that domestication occurred between 20,000–40,000 years ago, with the burial of a puppy found to be 14,000 years old. This example demonstrates the strong bond that began to be forged between humans and dogs, which through selective breeding were acquiring different evolutionary characteristics, such as genetic changes making them omnivorous or behaviors typical of modern dogs, such as tail wagging.
Dogs have benefited humans to a great extent, where some authors assume a co-evolution between the two species. However, recent estimates put the domestic dogs at 1 billion across the globe, an astonishing number that should be taken seriously. Why? Let’s see.
Domesticated and Feral dogs
Domestic dogs are dogs completely dependent on humans, having a person or family in charge of their feeding and care. They are mostly concentrated in urban centers and usually have emotional and economic (in terms of food and care, they don't pay taxes, yet) ties with their owners. Within this category we can add those known as stray dogs since, although they do not have an attributable person or family, they depend mainly on the food provided by people and live in urban or peri-urban centers.
On the other hand, there are feral dogs, which by their own definition: “A feral animal is one that is untamed or wild. Think of a feral dog as one that was born in the wild, not unlike a wolf or a bear. Feral dogs have never had contact with humans, or if they have, they have learned that humans are just a part of their environment”. They don't depend on humans either from an affective or economic point of view; they live abstracted from this relationship. Likewise, these types of dogs can be found in urban and peri-urban centers and even in non-urbanized areas.
Basically, they are the version of dogs in their “natural” environment. They are excellent hunters, and scousers and form quite numerous groups with extremely complex relationships. With all this in mind, feral dogs are considered one of the three most harmful invasive species, after rats and cats (a subject for another article).
Impacts of feral dogs
According to a 2017 study on ‘The global impacts of domestic dogs on threatened vertebrates’ published in Biological Conservation, about 188 wild species are currently threatened by free-ranging dogs worldwide. This figure is alarming. Considering the impact that humans have caused and are causing on wildlife in all corners of the world, that our best friend is one of those responsible for the decline of biodiversity is a big irony.
The impacts of feral dogs are not only restricted to predation but also generate behavioral changes in their prey — by making them more aware, and thus reducing their fitness —, transmitting diseases (both to wildlife and humans), compete with other non-invasive predators, and can also generate interbreeding with wild canid species.
It must be taken into account that the mentioned cases above have a greater significance in natural protected areas (NPA), since it is here where the control and monitoring of these packs is more difficult to carry out, and eventually cause more damage.
Social issues
Here we come to the crux of the matter: people’s perception of dogs. I get it, feral dogs are not not golden retrievers, but they are still our beloved four-legged friends. That is why tackling this problem has a strong social and public consideration component.
To illustrate this point I will relate to an experience. In November 2024 I attended a mammal conference in San Luis, Argentina. One of the talks I was interested in was about the increase in feral dog populations in Santa Cruz province. The speaker showed the enormous expansion in numbers of feral dogs in a single decade, without quantifying the impact on wildlife. Erroneously, in my opinion, the exhibitor differentiated some of these dogs as stray dogs because there were some people who considered them as their own, although these dogs were out hunting for days. The practices they carried out during the time of the study were to trap dogs individually and neuter them. Obviously, with the huge number of feral dogs, the sampling effort is enormous and they did not manage to control the population. So I asked: What other way is there to control them? Resigned, he replied: “Well, you can control them lethally, but first you have to differentiate between which is feral and which is stray and then talk to the public entity in charge of that area to carry out the control”.
Of course, in Argentina, and in many other places around the world, there is no regulatory framework that allows you to carry out this type of control, which with other exotic species is endorsed without issue, exclusively because they are dogs, although as we saw, they are not the types of dogs that we know. This is an example of the limitations that exist among scientists and managers to carry out effective control strategies and plans, in this case of feral dogs, to contribute to the solution of the biodiversity decline that we observe worldwide.
My example speaks particularly of a region in Argentina, but I invite you to look for the incredible struggles that are occurring in India, Brazil and many other examples.
Solutions?
I used a question mark on purpose, since there are solutions, as to everything in life, the question is: At what cost? For example, during the 20th century, the Galapagos Islands suffered one of the largest depredations of their native fauna by feral dogs, impacting iguanas, turtles and sea birds. Strategic control plans were imposed in 1979, and by 1981, the vast majority of these dogs were eradicated, generating an increase in the island’s biodiversity. What they used: poisoned flesh baits and hunting by humans. It does sound horrible, but they solved it.
I am a strong advocate that collective and planned measures solve problems with great efficiency. However, the example above has the problem of having been carried out on an island, where control is easier due to the null migration and the null presence of other predators apart from the feral dog facilitated the procedure.
In large territories, emphasizing first in NPA, strategies have to have a systematic approach without the use of poisoned baits to avoid cross-killing, but yes, hunting is necessary. This does not mean that it must be done deliberately and without any control. It has to be in the most humane way possible, where the government entity in charge of the NPA puts the necessary resources to formally employ professional and trained people for the job, with multiple uses between firearms and darts to put the animal to sleep peacefully.
Collective actions, well organized and with scientific consensus can improve the current situation, we just have to start discussing it.
