Man’s Best Friend: Man’s First Garbage Collector?

Recent genetic forensic evidence had shown that mankind started to domesticate dogs not as hunting buddies – but as garbage collectors?

By: Ringo Bones

During the start of the 21^st Century, the National Geographic Society had shown evidence – via genetic science – on how humanity migrated out of that lush prehistoric savannah on the African continent for which we had evolved and migrated throughout every corner of the globe. And as of late, recent genetic studies of canis lupus familiaris – also known as the domestic dog – have shown that the domestication of man’s best friend is much more recent than previously thought.

Previously accepted conventional wisdom suggests that mankind first started domesticating the dog from captured wolf pups that are later trained to be hunting and foraging “assistants” about 30,000 years ago. But recent genetic forensic evidence obtained by the DNA analysis of the genetic material of dogs in a study recently conducted by Cambridge University suggests that the domestication of the dog occurred much more recently – about 11,000 years ago – about the same time when mankind discovered the rudiments of agriculture and started settling into large communities - a result that somewhat rewrites the domestication timeline of man’s best friend.

According to Dr. David Sargan of Cambridge University, the recent DNA-based findings suggest that wolf varieties that were better able to digest the starches found in wheat, barley and other grain crops first domesticated by mankind 11,000 or so years ago were the ones that gradually evolved into the present breeds of domestic dogs. For all intents and purposes, wolves first start to gradually evolve into dogs in the ancient garbage pits of the dawn of our agricultural society 11,000 years ago. The findings not only explain why dogs, until the present day, developed the taste for biscuits while their wolf cousins have never been partial to such treats. Does this mean that the real origin story of man’s best friend – the domestic dog - is rather mundane and somewhat a tad ignoble? 

Pet Social Networks For Our Increasingly Social Animals?

Given that pets now have their own social networks, are they now competing with us humans who are previously the only supposedly “social animal” on planet Earth?

By: Ringo Bones

The issue might seem trivial or esoterically academic to the general public – but it is now official, your pet can now apply for his or her own social network profile at mysocialpetnetwork.com. And besides, we humans had been hogging Facebook during the past few years. But are social networks for your beloved pet just too facetious and trivial for everyday practicality?

Some folks already have the “bragging rights” that their dog’s Facebook profile got 200 friends during the first week of joining and so does another who owns a 150 US dollar koi whose Facebook friends are already nearing the 1,000 friends mark. But unbeknown to their owners, a dedicated pet social networks can have uses that could one day save your dog’s and other pet’s life. As some human Facebook users already have testimonials on how they met someone with compatible blood and kidneys on the famed social network that had saved their life.

In more affluent parts of America and Europe, medical advances in veterinary medicine and veterinary healthcare already rivals that of humans and even though it may still cost 5,000 US dollars for your dog to get an artificial hip replacement for life-extension purposes – your dog’s vital medical information – like blood type and organ histo-compatibility – could prove a lifesaver if you have access to extra dog blood that’s compatible to your dog. And probably the most practical way to get such data is that if your pet dog had joined a kind of pet social network. And assuming your dog wins enough prize-money at dog shows to pay for upmarket veterinary surgery, then access to other dogs willing to donate compatible blood for surgical use can prove to be a lifesaver.

Does Your Pet Deserve A Vacation on the ISS?

Some pets may be over-pampered, but does your dog truly deserve a working vacation on the International Space Station? Space tourism can't be much weirder than this. Space dog, anyone?

Pet Custody Laws: Desperately Seeking Legal Precedents?

Given that an overwhelming majority of Americans consider pets as family members, should pets owned by legally married couples be subject to the same custody laws in cases of divorce?


By: Ringo Bones


Currently there’s a 50% chance that marriages in the United States will end in divorce – so it is no longer a question of “if” but a question of “when” where a more legally binding custody ruling becomes necessary in cases when a legally married couple will fight over custody of their commonly owned pets. But should a custody law for pets modeled after preexisting custody laws governing child custody be the most equitable solution for both couples?

Divorce is defined as the legal severing or suspension of marital relations under the conditions, and on the differing grounds, authorized by the various countries of the world. Divorce embraces either absolute divorce or the complete dissolution of marital relations and varying degrees of judicial separation as in limited divorce. But should a pet or pets be considered as “human children” in divorce court proceedings in order to form an equitable custody and alimony settlements? Since sharing of veterinary bills and visitation rights will probably be a primary issue, it does seem logical to grant the couples’ pet or pets a legal status similar to that of children in divorce settlements.

It is not unusual in divorce proceedings for the petitioning spouse to ask for alimony and for the custody of the children of the marriage. A decree for alimony is for purposes of full faith and credit treated as a money judgment. For it to be entitled to full faith and credit there must therefore be a jurisdiction over the person.

Courts usually require residence or domicile as a jurisdictional factor on awarding child custody. Most state courts have held that the parent being sued over custody need not be served locally with process. There is, however, a relatively recent U.S. Supreme Court case in which a divided court came to a contrary conclusion. In any event, custody is only final as an adjudication of facts as of the time of the decree. Upon a showing of changed conditions which affect the welfare of the children, the court which made the original award may change its order. Since a court need give a foreign judgment or decree no more effect than it has where originally granted it may reward custody. Most courts are, however, of the opinion that they should only change the status of the children where to do so is patently in his or her best interest.

It is customary for alimony, or allowance for support for the wife and children of the marriage, to be awarded to the wife who succeeds in an action for either absolute or limited divorce. In some U.S. states, alimony is allowed in an action for annulment of marriage, despite the theoretical inconsistency involved, although in Texas, allowance for support of the wife, as distinguished from division of the spouse’s property is not granted upon absolute divorce and in Pennsylvania such allowance in case of absolute divorce is awarded only to an insane wife.

Temporary alimony, pending the outcome of a suit for divorce or separation, is ordinarily granted to the wife. Considerations governing the amount of the alimony awarded are the earnings and means of the husband, and to a lesser extent the earnings and means of the wife. Only rarely is the wife denied the custody of the children, so in the issue of pet custody, this legal precedent might be equitable to both parties. But when it comes to shoehorning preexisting legal precedents to apply to pet custody and / or alimony, some could see it as a waste of taxpayers’ money in establishing legal precedents for equitable settlement in pet custody litigation in a courtroom setting – never mind taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Establishing legally binding and equitable pet custody laws during divorce must start somewhere, right?

Is Desexing and Neutering Your Pets Inhumane?

Given that we universally value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is the veterinary procedure of desexing and neutering your cat, dog or other pets in order to stop reproducing inhumane?


By: Vanessa Uy


This idea probably dawned on a number of people when the world’s best-loved smut peddler Larry “Barely Legal” Flynt was featured on every major news network asking Uncle Sam for a 5 billion dollar “sex stimulus” bailout package during the start of 2009. But seriously, is the practice of desexing and neutering your quadropedal air-breathing pets – with the help of your friendly neighborhood veterinarian – so that they won’t be able to reproduce inhumane?

Even though the keyword here is “reproduction”, given that here in the somewhat liberal Christian West we consider the joy of experiencing sexual pleasure as a “God-given right”. Shouldn’t we extend that right to our fellow animals, given that for all intents and purposes our concept of “animal rights” is nothing more than an anthropomorphic-based one-to-one congruence to Human Rights?

Even though PETA – people for the ethical treatment of animals – though busy in reminding all of humanity the “evils” of excessive meat consumption and ostentatious wearing of mammalian fur as a fashion item, are “mysteriously” silent when it comes to the issue of depriving domesticated animals from experiencing the “joys of sex”. Sometimes I wonder if this particular argument conveniently devolves into that “if it has never been born, it won’t experience pain and suffering” kind of reasoning.

No matter whatever side you take on this particular issue, it is usually the prevailing local ordinance that takes legal precedence. If your locality has a mandatory well-enforced pet ownership quota law, pet owners usually have no choice but to comply with prevailing desexing and neutering laws as a means of keeping their pet population down. But lest we forget there is this global financial crisis that deserves immediate action, the issue whether pet desexing and neutering is inhumane will have to take a back seat-for now.

Pet Taxidermy

Used to be an extremely esoteric practice, but does stuffing your beloved pet or subjecting them to taxidermy after they die a symptom of pet owner’s insanity?


By: Vanessa Uy


“Civilized people bury their dead.” - or so everyone with a Western / Christian orientation were lead to believe. But does stuffing your beloved pet or having then worked by a taxidermist after they die in order to have them displayed on your living room like they are still alive a symptom of their owner’s insanity? After all, isn’t letting go a part of one’s loving devotion?

The practice of taxidermy used to be the preserve of big game hunters and museum curators exhibiting unusual animals usually acquired during an “African Safari”. But during the last twenty or so years ago, the practice of stuffing your deceased pets or pet taxidermy had gained popularity in the United States. Were pet care practices that are deemed “too unusual” in the rest of the world, is seen as just business as usual.

Given that the practice of taxidermy would have become extinct decades ago because of relatively recent International Wildlife Conventions had made the wholesale slaughter of endangered animals – especially from exotic locales like continental Africa - a criminal act. The practice of pet taxidermy could be seen as a godsend to every professional taxidermist.

Maybe it is just that I find being in close proximity to dead animals – no matter how well preserved – really freaks me out. To me at least, taxidermy has its place in museums and the like – but not in my living room. If pet taxidermy is your thing, by all means have your beloved dog, cat, or any other pet stuffed and displayed on your own living room. You could be commended for keeping the endangered trade of taxidermy alive and well. Maybe those ancient people who invented “civilization” were on to something when they chose to bury their dead?

Pet Vaccinations: Too much of a Good Thing?

Though increasingly a necessity for our four-legged friends living in an environment optimized for humans. Are we vaccinating our pets more than is absolutely necessary?


By: Vanessa Uy


Pet vaccinations – especially for one’s beloved dog or cat – are there to protect them from viral infections which could easily spread in the confines of an increasingly urbanized environment that is optimized for humans than canines and felines. But recent studies have shown that pet owners had been inadvertently endangering their pets by either giving them duplicate vaccinations due to lax record keeping. Or by not sufficiently spacing their shots.

Studies also show that poorly managed vaccination schedules that can lead to duplicate doses and / or insufficient spacing schedule of vaccination can cause a range of problems like your dog or cat suffering from allergies. In some cases, cancerous growths can develop in the area between the shoulders were the vaccination shots are given.

Majority of vaccine doses usually lasts three years and giving them too often will certainly cause reactions, even the possibility of your pets going into an anaphylactic shock. At present, most veterinarians have already cut back their vaccination schedules to once every three years for the de rigeur or standard vaccines like the dog staple rabies, distemper, parvovirus; While for cats it’s a vaccination against panleukopenia.

To me, this serves as good news, given that our pets are not very fond of needles. Just as well because imagine your dog or cat acquiring a 40 dollar-a-day heroin habit. This could be a less of a problem if your dog or cat has a lucrative – preferably seven figures worth in American currency - recording contract from a major label executive. But seriously, less frequent vaccination jabs does translate to a less traumatic impression of your pet to your friendly neighborhood veterinarian. This also spells as good news if you are mindful about maintaining the size of your carbon footprint to the most sensible minimum if you live fairly far away from your veterinarian and must take the family car to commute.