In his excellent and informative article, Do Wolves Kill for Sport?, Brian Palmer ends with this:

Dogs are the only animal that definitely kills for sport, but that's only because humans taught them to do so. When a farmer finds a few dead chickens killed during the daylight hours with no missing body parts, the neighbor's dog is almost always the culprit.

So this (my italics) is short for: we bred them this way, right? That is, we can teach them all we want, but absent parent teaching offspring, that goes to the grave with them, right? We selected the sport killers for breeding, we used the rest for dog food (or something like that). Just wondering (rhetorically, as always) if I'm being picky (or wrong).

-----

One thing that fascinates me, evolution wise, is most recent common ancestor of stuff.

A: A few years ago my wife, a very infrequent and nervous boat driver, got off course in some early morning mist, hit some rocks and busted up the propeller. In her accounting of what happened, when she initially hit the rocks she hesitated, then sped up and ground her way into the clear.

B: My dog is essentially blind. (Schad may exit at this point.) What's tough on him is when there is some type of unexpected low-to-the-ground debris in an area that is normally clear for walking. Like, say, under an apple tree (but in the house too). He can't see the apples, but as I observe him, when he feels these odd things under and about his feet, he hesitates for a split second, then speeds up until he feels himself clear.

A and B connected?

By the way, proper procedure for A is to cut the engine immediately, tilt the engine up, grab your pole or paddle and push your way clear. But this is not how we're programmed, I guess I'm contending (and in her defense).

Anyone who's watched wolves, wild dogs, cats, any mammal with relative intelligence will see that there's a propensity to play, including with prey. It's ridiculous to blame humans for dog behavior, because all we do is enhance or encourage what's already there.

As for dog/wife and reaction behaviors, I think flight as a reaction is pretty much the norm amongst mammals, birds and reptiles. It's hard to access the higher functions of the brain in a panic situation, altho it's less likely your dog will think through a situation, while your wife can be trained more easily to do so.

I guess technically you could be playing with prey (= ritualistic behaviour, perhaps?) while not killing for sport. Like hunt-play-eat instead of hunt-eat. Not a hunter or farmer, so pretty naive on this stuff, I guess.

On dog/wife, I didn't see that under the broad fight-or-flight category but makes sense .. thanks.

As a general rule of thumb: if you find yourself threatened by an unseen/unevaluated threat, changing the scenery somewhat without hesitation is a pretty good strategy most of the time.

I am more inclined however to the uncertain footing hypothesis. It's not a bad response when hiking on scree as a matter of fact, if the footing feels unreliable, scamper thee to terra firma. Works also when walking on hot coals and stepping on snakes.

All of us are familiar with the dog poo two-step. A special hop executed in response AFTER the offending pile has already been encountered. As if walking like a Monty Python skit will somehow undo the damage.

Your wife's responses, alas, while not exactly found in the USCG manual for safe operation of small watercraft, was in fact a perfectly sound guy instinct. Wherein more power is a general solution to everything involving motorized transportion, be it losing traction in deep snow, running aground, or fording a swift stream with a low clearance vehicle. I am sure the annals of highway patrol accident investigations are loaded with meatheads accelerating INTO wrecks.

It is an instinct shared by both Captain's Smith and Hazelwood to their undoing.

my 'cut the engine' answer was a bit too neat. there's always that moment of disbelief (did i just do that?), like if i get out of this quickly it never happened. same with the toast on the floor, etc.