Recently, I came across a Quora thread with the question, "Do dogs that have not been selectively bred not belong to a certain breed and look like "generic" dogs?" and it featured this image:
|
| photo by Daniel Stewart |
And I thought, "Aspin man na" — but, nope, it's actually an African village dog! Many commenters chimed in, saying they have similar-looking street dogs in Cambodia, India, Turkey, the Dominican Republic, you name it.
Well, it makes sense. After all, dogs — and accordingly, street dogs and strays — live virtually anywhere human settlements exist (cities, villages, dumps, etc.) However, there are two points that I find interesting:
1. Free-roaming dogs exist in almost every country and outnumber pet dogs by a large margin.
2. Village dogs/city street dogs all over the world look almost exactly the same.
|
|
Photo from Raymond and Lorna Coppinger. Top left,
Mali. (Photo by Kristina
van Haagen.) Center left,
South Africa. (Photo by
Daniel Stewart.) Bottom left,
Cuba. (Photo by Jane Brackman.) Right,
Vietnam. (Photo by Alain
Weiss.) |
The universal village dog which belongs nowhere and everywhere
In Brazil, native unbred "mongrel" dogs are called vira-lata caramelo (caramel mutts). In Costa Rica, they are called zaguate; in Chile and Bolivia, quiltros; and in the Philippines, aspin (asong Pinoy) or askal (asong kalye) (*More here).
It's amusing how Filipinos tend to claim askals/aspins as our own special "breed" of dog. Aspin means Philippine dog, which somehow implies it is native to the country (but we know this isn't the case). The Philippines national football team is even called "Azkals."
But Filipinos are not alone in our affection for our honorary canine citizens. In Chile, a National Mutt photo competition was held in search of the Bicentennial Chile Dog, and there were even calls to make the quiltro a national symbol. In Brazil, there was a petition to stamp the vira-lata caramelo in their new R$200 bill.
|
| Look at this cutie ~ a caramel mutt from Brazil |
What village dogs are, what village dogs are not
In an article for Rover.com, Elizabeth Geier explains that village dogs are not breeds, nor are they entirely breed-less. They are not necessarily stray dogs and are most certainly not feral. They are domesticated (in the sense of the word) but may not be necessarily socialized.
Village dogs are often successfully adopted by people, whereafter they are restricted to a house or yard or perhaps allowed to roam free. Some are neighborhood dogs without owners but are cared for by the community. And, of course, there are free-ranging/stray dogs that are left to fend for themselves.
The descriptions above sum up the diverse conditions of aspins in our country. Perhaps the most fitting definition of the village dog, by canine experts Raymond and Lorna Coppinger, is "a natural species that lives close to humans, finds its own food, and mates perfectly well without human control."
Village dogs as "the truly archetypal dogs"
Many of us refer to village dogs as "mixed breeds" or "mongrels." They are often dismissed as cast-offs in the domestication process. However, the Coppingers argue in their book "What Is a Dog?" that village dogs are not the result of the mongrelization of purebreds. Rather, the village dog is the outcome of natural selection, whereas purebred dogs are the products of artificial selection.
The Coppingers assert that village dogs and street dogs "contain the essential essence of dog." They even go so far as to claim that village dogs are the "real" dogs and the ancestral type of modern breeds.
In an article provocatively titled "Only Street Dogs are Real Dogs," the Coppingers called purebreds "kennel club creations," which struck me as funny, bold, and true. And indeed, when we think about it, cross-breeding, inbreeding, and sexually isolating dog types — to produce dogs with short legs, curly coats, and unnatural proportions (too big or too small) — has nothing at all to do with the dog's evolution.
On the other hand, the village dog — which we often call a mongrel — is
an animal that evolved all on its own. This dog is uniquely adapted to
its ecological niche — a niche within human-populated areas where they
manage their own feeding and reproductive lives. The consistency in their traits
implies natural selection at work. Why else would the
worldwide population of dogs — from the street dogs in the Philippines,
Mexico, and China, to the village dogs in Africa and India — look almost
exactly alike?
As observed by the Coppingers, village dogs, wherever they may be in the world, are "neither too big nor too small." In warm-weather regions, mid-sized, short-coated, and dark-tan colored dogs are prevalent. They tend to have pricked ears and pointed snouts, minus the characteristics (like floppy ears) of "domestication syndrome."
In a variation attributed to Bergmann's Rule, free-ranging dogs tend to be larger and more rough-coated in higher latitudes and colder climates. This variation indicates their adaptation to a different ecological niche adjusted according to climate and geography.
I guess what I'm trying to say is …
Village dogs are amazing! They may not be unique by way of a "national symbol," but they are true masterstrokes of evolution and natural selection. Why are aspins so undervalued and looked down upon when they are the naturally evolved, self-selected dogs? These animals are finely adapted and beautifully designed by Nature. With just the right size, an efficient build, a no-maintenance coat, a survivalist nature, and healthy genes — shouldn't they be everyone's ideal dog?
Comments
Post a Comment