Content uploaded by Marco Adda
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marco Adda on Sep 20, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Studii de antrozoologie
Etica și lumea non-umană
Coordonatori
Irina Frasin
George Bodi
Codrin Dinu Vasiliu
© 2021 Coordonatorii volumului. Toate drepturile rezervate. Repro-
ducerea integrală sau parţială a textului, prin orice mijloace, fără
acordul coordonatorilor, este interzisă şi se pedepseşte conform legii.
Acest volum a fost posibil prin nanțarea ofertă de Academia Română prin
intermediul proiectului Nr. GAR-UM-2019- XII-3.1-9/15.10.2019 - Etica
și lumea non-umană. Fundamente etice pentru re-gândirea relației om-
natură. Grant de cercetare realizat cu sprijin nanciar din Fondul Recurent al
Donatorilor, aat la dispoziţia Academiei Române şi gestionat prin Fundaţia
„PATRIMONIU” GAR-UM-2019- XII-3.1-9.
Studii de antrozoologie
Etica și lumea non-umană
Coordonatori
Irina Frasin
George Bodi
Codrin Dinu Vasiliu
PRESA UNIVERSITARĂ CLUJEANĂ • 2021
ISBN: 97-606-37-1203-6
Referenți științifici:
Dan Gabriel Sîmbotin
Eugen Huzum
Bogdan Olaru
Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai
Presa Universitară Clujeană
Director: Codruţa Săcelean
Str. Hasdeu nr. 51
400371 Cluj-Napoca, România
Tel./fax: (+40)-264-597.401
E-mail: editura@editura.ubbcluj.ro
http://www.editura.ubbcluj.ro/
5
Cuprins
Introducere .................................................................................................... 7
Irina Frasin
Humanimal Bond: an Inquiry on What We Owe to Animals ......................... 11
Ionuț Alexandru Bârliba
Despre relația dintre oameni și animale. O scurtă investigație asupra sinelui
elementar ..................................................................................................... 36
Abu Bakar Siddiq
Familicide expedites your death too –The perils of anthropocentric approach
towards nonhuman animals ......................................................................... 48
George Bodi
Arheologia , etica și animalele non-umane. Un punct de vedere ................. 66
Liviu Adrian Măgurianu și Daniel Măgurianu
Incognito în evoluția vieții ........................................................................... 76
Codrin Dinu Vasiliu
Efecte ideologice ale biofotograei ............................................................. 93
Cătălina Daniela Răducu
Despre femei și alte primate: natura și perspectiva feminină .................... 102
Marco Adda
From Dogs Domestication to Covid-19: Reconsidering Human-Dog Co-Existence
in the Anthropocene ..................................................................................... 118
Alina Simona Rusu
Noi și pisicile comunitare: Coexistență optimă prin soluții bazate pe educație
(Service-Learning) .................................................................................... 133
Aurora Hrițuleac
Relația copil – animal de companie în era digitală. Rolul animalelor de
companie în dezvoltarea psihologică a copilului ....................................... 143
6
Cuprins
Lavinia Codrea
Protecția animalelor de companie în legislația din România .................... 155
Luminița Ailincăi, Raluca-Oana Rusu și Corneliu Gașpar
Ethical and Legislative Considerations on the General Provisions for the Use
of Experimental Animals ............................................................................ 176
Raluca-Oana Rusu, Luminița Ailincăi, Corneliu Gașpar,
Viorel-Cezar Floriștea și Gheorghiță Vlad
Bunăstarea animalelor, o prioritate importantă privind sănătatea
animală și siguranța alimentului ...................................................... 192
118
From Dogs Domestication to Covid-19: Reconsidering
Human-Dog Co-Existence in the Anthropocene
Marco Adda
Independent Researcher, AEDC Anthrozoology Education Dogs Canines
Abstract
Studies on domestication reveal the parallel evolution of dogs and humans. The
many debates and the diculty of adapting science to good practices have resulted
in some critical confusion around the perception of dogs and has adversely impacted
approaches in dog parenting, dog training, and dog behaviour assessment. While
many features of dog domestication are still in a grey zone, we need to invest more
resources in helping people and the community to understand their relationship with
dogs from an evolutionary perspective and to support them in reframing the value of
dogs for human societies. More eorts in integrating knowledge about the parallel
evolution of dogs and humans to good practices are required. While free-ranging dogs
may represent a window on the early domestication stage, pet-companion dogs can
provide insight on some essential points. Additionally, the recent Covid-19 pandemic
and subsequent massive lockdowns have tremendously impacted the lives of people
and animals worldwide, including companion dogs and free-ranging dogs. Changes
in the ecology and behaviour of free-ranging and wild animals have been observed
and notable gains for the environment have occurred. This signicant event recalls the
concept of rewilding and fosters reconsiderations of the impact humans have on other
species, the ecosystem and the climate. The human-dog interaction and co-existence in
the age of the Anthropocene is one aspect that can be reconsidered. As well, the dog-
human alliance can be reframed and leveraged. Here we propose some perspectives
to support further reections on these topics with the event of Covid-19 potentially
signalling the transition into a new epoch.
Keywords: domestication, dogs, Covid-19, rewilding, Anthropocene
The Holocene and Domestication
Approximately 11,700 years ago the earth shifted from the Pleistocene age to the
Holocene age, a shift precipitated by a signicant event. The last glaciation is
considered the principal circumstance marking that transition (Mikkel-Holger et al.,
2020). Such a change inevitably corresponds to a major human transformation: the
shift from hunting-gathering groups and lifestyle to pastoral, horticultural, and then
agricultural societies (Smith, 1998). Humans transitioned from moving and roaming
to a more sedentary lifestyle, learning how to take advantage of plants, land, and
animals. In addition, domestication started in dierent periods and various geographic
areas. This phenomenon is widely studied and is critical to the understanding of pet
companion dogs, free-ranging dogs, other canids and animals. While some may be
familiar already with the term domestication, that is not necessarily the case for all
To cite this chapter:
Adda, M. (2021). ‘From Dogs Domestication To Covid-19: Reconsidering Human-Dog Co-Existence In The Anthropocene’ in
Studii de antrozoologie Etica și lumea non-umană. PPRESA UNIVERSITARĂ CLUJEANĂ, Romania.
119
Etica și lumea non-umană
dog parents, dog caretakers, and other dog lovers. What is domestication, how does
it inuence the life of dogs and humans, and why is that signicant?
Domestication involves two dierent connotations, namely, the historical
period during which humans transformed some animals and plants through cultural
and technological innovations (Ellen and Fukui, 1996) and domestication intended
as evolution, a ‘process by which animal populations become adapted to man and
the captive environment by genetic changes’ (Price, 1984). Domesticated animals
occupy niches created and preserved by humans. By re-organising nature according
to their needs, humans have shaped new environments where animals have had to
adapt. This process has occurred over time. Some domesticated species became
part of human families and shifted from a wild to a human-conditioned lifestyle.
That is the case of dogs, cows, sheep, and rabbits, among many others. Dogs are
known to have been the rst species to be domesticated and the anthropogenic milieu
is tangible in the case of dogs. From an evolutionary perspective, domestication
equates the adaptation of dogs to a human-modied environment. It reveals essential
understanding about dog and human evolution, inspiring the interest of many
scientists (biologists, palaeontologists, and zooarchaeologists etc.). If most scientists
agree on domestication to have started 10,000–33,000 years ago, where it started is
vastly discussed. Here we target the consequences of the domestication process, a
new stage in dog and human evolution and history.
An Ancient Alliance
Dogs, Wolves, and Other Canids
Archaeology, zooarchaeology, anthropology and history, among others, invest
signicant eort into exploring fossil evidence of wolf- and dog-like animals. Most
comparative archaeozoologists agree that dogs can be distinguished from wolves by
their generally reduced body size, smaller teeth, shorter snout and facial part of the
skull (Musil, 2000). However, whether modern dogs have descended from an ancient
dog or a wolf is still debated, and where wolves, dogs and/or other ancient canids
diverged is not fully clear. Other main questions under investigation are: in what
aspects dogs and wolves diered; what happened if dogs hybridised with wolves;
and how the encounters among dierent dog populations occurred when large
human populations migrated across continents followed by their dogs. Additionally,
some investigations target the cultural aspect of the relationship between dogs and
humans, including that there is now evidence people used to practise ritual burial of
dogs. Thus, domestication may also reect a spiritual connection between humans
and dogs (Bejenaru and Bodi, 2015; Morey, 2006; Sergis, 2010).
Historical and Cultural Components
Crossing the Bering Strait to America, humans likely migrated to the “New World”
well before 16,000 years ago. However, later migrations may have been more
prosperous due to dog-like canids accompanying hunter-gatherer humans, around
15,000 years ago (Leonard et al., 2002). The rst evidence of dog-like presence in
the Americas dates back to 9,000 BP (Grayson et al., 1988). The proclivity to bury
120
dogs with people suggests a close relationship between Native American hunters
and dogs at least until around 7,000 BP. Other dog burials from Egypt emerged by
agricultural communities of Merimde dating around 6,800 BP, further suggesting
a critical role for canids in these cultures (Brewer et al., 2001; Davis et al., 1978).
That timeframe marks the period when dogs likely entered Africa (Von den Driesch
and Boessneck, 1985). Remains of drawings and small sculptures dating around
6,000–4,000 BP helped to facilitate the identication of dogs. Egyptian pottery and
rock art (5,700 BP) portray dogs like sighthounds with a lean body, curly tails, and
straight ears (Brewer et al., 2001). Some dogs may have also reached Australia as
well during that period, colonising the continent and bonding with Aboriginals for
lengthy periods (Corbett, 1995; Smith & Litcheld, 2009). Evidence suggests that
dogs and humans have been intertwined in many ways for at least 10,000 years.
Genetics
Genetic studies are critical to the research and understanding of dog evolution. Recent
DNA and other heritable facets have revealed essential elements, while acquiring
ancient DNA (aDNA) may disclose fundamental details on evolution. Comparing the
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence of wolves, coyotes and dogs may shed light
on genetic divergence and clarify when and how some canids diverged from others.
However, calculating wolf-dog genetic divergence may be problematic in that new
wolf populations have undergone underwent a dramatic decline in the last 200 years,
losing genetic variability (Leonard et al., 2005; 2007). Similarly, the advent of dog
breeds also resulted in a loss of genetic variation (Larson et al., 2012). Therefore,
the genetic dierences in wolves and dogs today do not accurately reect the past.
Genetic analyses of ancient and endemic breeds may reveal higher proximity of dogs
and wolves (Irion et al., 2003), as in the case of Bali dogs, among others (Irion et
al., 2005).
Recent Domestication
A recent stage of domestication dates back 200-250 years, and for most dogs 100-
150 years or less. Dog breeds, such as German Shepherds, Labradors, Dobermans,
and all of the breeds as we know them today, have been “created” by humans. Many
people are not necessarily aware that by selecting some traits desired by humans (i.e.
physical or behavioural characteristics), only certain individual dogs were allowed
to breed. Generation after generation, the desired traits were rened and impressed
into the genetics of those animals (genotype) and their observable traits (phenotype).
In 200 years, humans selected specic traits and subsequently created about 400 dog
breeds now recognised by international organisations (e.g. the Kennel Club–UK,
the American Kennel Club–US, and others). That resulted in changes to genetics,
appearance, and behaviour of dogs. The same applies to other animals. Furthermore,
this “short-term” domestication may also refer to free-ranging dogs present in
Indonesia, India, South America, and Eastern Europe, among other countries where
changes in economics, landscape, and demographics are rapidly occurring. Such
changes impact the behaviour and appearance of free-ranging dogs, and subsequently
generate an accelerated process of domestication/breeding for some free-ranging
121
Etica și lumea non-umană
dogs (Adda, 2016). In fact, that is the case of Bali dogs (Corrieri et al., 2018).
All the above represent complementary areas of research involved in the
reconstruction of the origin of dogs and human evolution.
Domestication and Its Biases
The term domestication often comes with biases, imbalances that may hinder a
broader comprehension of the events. Among these biases:
1. The term domestication comes from the Latin “domus,” a word which refers to
the homes of wealthy people of the upper class of the ancient Roman Republic.
For the general population’s house, the term “insulae’ was used (Ball Platner,
1929). Furthermore, while insulae referred to a single place, domus consisted
of several areas. Such terminology reects domestication being perceived as
the privileged experience of non-human animals to be part of the human world.
Hence, it was generated a crucial bias in the perception of domestication of dogs
and how we frame it, and which continues today to inform our behaviour around
dogs, for example, free-ranging dogs.
2. Domestication is often referring to dog-human co-evolution. This consideration
is at the core of the scientic discussion, for there is no absolute clarity as to
whether dogs and humans co-evolved or evolved in parallel. Such an essential
dierence needs further clarication as the evolution of dogs has been strongly
intertwined with human evolution for the last 50,000 years. Knowing and sharing
about dog domestication and human-dog evolution can have a signicant eect
on the knowledge we have about dog behaviour and their interactions with
people. That aspect is a central consideration for those working with dogs and
humans as consultants, dog behaviour facilitators, dog trainers and others. Co-
evolution would indicate a signicant selective challenge and an evolutionary
response between two species. As such, selective pressure occurs (Thompson,
2005). Thus, both humans and dogs would have changed in functional (adaptive)
ways because of their evolutionary relationship. An intriguing illustration of
this theory can be found in Paxton (2000). Dogs, due to their superior olfactory
ability, may have oriented humans in the environment, which supported selective
changes in human facial structures (both nasal and oral) and the development
of skills related to speech and sounds. This theory has not been exempted
from some critiques (Beko, 2000), and despite the widespread credit to the
co-evolution of dogs and humans, there is no hard evidence for its support.
Nevertheless, undoubtedly, humans and dogs bonded. It is also necessary to
remember that while wolves and hunters were competitors due to the overlap in
their dietary niche, the two species connected at a certain point. Ultimately, we
can be condent that human groups and canine groups have evolved over time
and continue to evolve in a parallel manner.
3. Domestication is biased in its perception that it was an event of the past,
something dating back centuries and millennia with no eect on the present.
However, domestication is not a process that ended at some point in the past. It is
an on-going process; it is still occurring today in dierent forms and geographic
areas.
122
4. Domestication may be gender-biased, namely, it is often related to human
males. For example, some canids were associating with human (males) during
hunting activities (Brewer et al., 2001; Clutton-Brock, 1984). Conversely, the
domestication of dogs may also and importantly relate to women. Possibly
women were giving food to canines approaching villages, thus playing a crucial
role in the domestication of dogs. This is something to consider and further
research.
Figure 1 – “Woman buried with dog (cast).” Photo © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem.
The Anthropocene
The Anthropocene (Cooper et al, 2018; Crutzen, 2006; Lewis et al, 2015) refers to
a time when humans substantially impacted the planet. The date is variable, with no
clear consensus on when it began. Some allocate it to the 20th century, identifying the
atomic bomb of Hiroshima as the starting point. Others date it back to the beginning
of farming itself, 5,000-10,000 years ago. However, there is consensus on what the
Anthropocene indicates: detrimental eects of human activities on the planet, other
animals, and human health. Regardless of when it started, it has clearly impacted
the environment and, therefore, the climate. This is particularly important today,
with many scientists discussing human activity, rather than natural processes, to be
the principal cause of accelerated global warming (Al-Ghussain, 2018). Agriculture,
the industrial revolution, urbanisation, massive deforestation around the globe,
plastic production, and various forms of pollution have all contributed to astonishing
changes to the planet.
For this discussion, the industrial revolution is identied as the starting
point of the Anthropocene. In the 18th century, from around 1760, the industrial
123
Etica și lumea non-umană
revolution occurred, beginning in dierent periods in the Americas, Europe and
other places. During this time, humans underwent a vital transition, shifting from
agricultural societies to industrial and later post-industrial societies. As well, that
is when the rst fossil fuel economy began, corresponding to a critical shift in
history. Burning organic carbon in fossil fuels supported large-scale production and
resulted in the growth of mines, factories, and mills. While the demand for coal
increased, carbon dioxide emission amplied, to the detriment of the environment.
With the advent of industrial societies, dogs underwent a crucial passage. Modern
dog breeds gradually replaced ancient dog breeds, resulting in the modern breeding
of dogs. Humans breeding dogs resulted in approximately 400 dog breeds known
nowadays. Previously, the Holocene’s advent and a shift to agricultural societies also
corresponded to a signicant transition in dog history, with domestication occurring.
The bottom lineis that humans and dogs have undergone major shifts and signicant
events in parallel (Miklosi, 2015). Although the data varies depending upon how
things are framed historically, geologically, geographically, and by other points of
reference, humans and dogs have been walking side-by-side and evolving together
for the last 12,000-15,000 years.
Figure 2 – Holocene and Anthropocene, an infographic overview.
Modern Dogs
Modern dog breeds represent the majority of family dogs today. Such dogs dier
from ancient breeds of wolves and dogs and show minimal or absent wolf admixture.
Modern breeds date back only about 200 years (Lindblad-Toh et al., 2005; vonHoldt
et al., 2010) as the result of high breed-specic selection pressure. Substantial
(directional) selection for desired traits has created remarkable morphological
dierences among dog breeds (Ostrander and Lindblad-Toh 2006) as recent breeding
124
has stretched the modication from wolf to dog and from ancient dogs to modern
breed dogs. Behavioural-functional and aesthetical (morphological) reasons have
been determinants for those achievements, with highly specic behaviours targeting
specialised functions, such as herding, hunting, guarding and companionship,
resulting in quantiable (behavioural) dierences between dog breeds. Additionally,
preference for body size, coat colour, tail length, muzzle size and other phenotypical
traits has determined a crucial dierence in aesthetical appearance.
Recent dog breeding also has impacted the health of Canis familiaris due to
a dramatic drop in the genetic diversity (heritage) of dogs. A lack of such diversity
is central for many of the medical conditions that have emerged in dogs during the
last two centuries. Human behaviour also has aected the lifestyle of companion
pet dogs and produced behavioural issues and changes in personality traits (Corrieri
et al., 2018). In other words, the domestication of dogs has dramatically altered
many factors with a high impact on behaviour, including physiology, foraging and
food provision, ecology, reproduction, and social structure (Axelsson et al., 2013;
Goodwin et al., 1997;). Besides, modern dog breeding has dramatically altered the
continuity of wolf/ancient dogs and modern dogs. However, the majority of dogs
currently living in the world (about 85%), and some wild dogs, partly preserve the
link between ancient and modern canines.
Dogs and Humans: Look at Those Proportions.
Dog Population
When we talk about dogs and humans, we are referring to the two most widely
distributed mammals on the planet. The global human population is close to 8 billion,
while the global dog population is slightly less than 1 billion. It is a simple equation:
there are approximately eight people for every dog on the planet. However, it is
relevant to remember that just approximately 15% of dogs present on this planet are
pet-companion dogs, that is, dogs living in a house setting with one or more persons.
In most cases, those dogs are brought outside with a leash, are getting prepared
food and receive medical assistance and other forms of care. Conversely, most dogs
present on the planet (85%) are free-ranging. As previously noted, the domus (our
homes) is framed as the privileged centre of the human-dog interaction. Therefore,
we may tend to perceive that 15% of the global dog population, pet-companion
dogs, as the privileged normal, and we may tend to consider as “non-normal” the
remaining 85% of dogs, which are free-ranging. Such a perspective may contribute
to justifying actions taken towards those “non-normal” dogs, such as elimination,
culling, isolation, sterilisation, and other forms of controlling them. Conversely, with
pet-companion dogs, we have developed practices like dog parenting, dog training
and Animal Assisted Intervention (AAI), among others. While free-ranging dogs
are closer to nature and less conditioned by human behaviour, pet-companion dogs
garner the main benet of human companionship. This phenomenon can be observed
similarly worldwide, including in Europe, the United States, Australia, and Japan,
among other places.
125
Etica și lumea non-umană
Anthropocentrism
It is imperative to reect upon and reassess this anthropocentric perspective, where
we consider the domus as the centre of the world and reconsider dogs’ presence
around the globe. Thus, we should review human-dog interactions and reshape such
an anthropocentric approach to other-than-human animals (Frasin, 2020). We need
to understand domestication in its evolutionary process and bring that knowledge
into approaches to dogs and dog-related practices. As part of this shift, it is essential
to support both professional and non-professional people in their learning. Through
awareness it will be possible to understand that every time humans interact with
dogs, they are also determining how the domestication process continues.
Figure 3 - Dogs vs Humans percentages.
A New Vision
The subject of domestication is an essential topic for those facilitating the interaction
of dogs and humans. It reects the yet-to-be-claried history of human migration,
evolution, diet, rituals and the story of dogs, wolves, and other canines. While
domestication resulted in various benets for dogs regarding food and shelters, it
altered several behavioural traits. For example: living in a “safe” environment results
in a loss of tness and reduces the overall responsiveness of dogs to environmental
novelties (Adda, 2016; Corrieri, et al., 2018; Price, 1984). Conversely, exposing pet-
companion dogs to a broad degree of experiences can improve their overall tness
and wellbeing. While tameness may have been part of the process of domestication
(Belyaev, 1979; Hare and Tomasello, 2005), the concept is also at the core of critical
confusion in the realms of dog training and behaviour. A widespread perception
is that dogs should be obedient, compliant, and submissive. Such a perspective
126
results in, and justies forms of, dog training based on dominance, abuse, and the
compliance of dogs to human cues. While adaptability is essential for dogs, it does
not necessarily match with tameness. In fact, dogs may benet from being supported
in their cognitive skills. Dogs and humans are two species travelling along time,
continuing to evolve together and in parallel, inuencing each other. Provided such
knowledge, people can understand and give a consequent relevance to dogs entering
into their homes and lives. People can become open to a broader perspective on human-
animal and human-dog interaction. From this perspective, people can reconsider dog
behaviour dierently, with empathy, self-investigation, and a willingness to work
on the relationship they have with their dogs. Ultimately, people can understand
that the dog-human interaction implies that process where modern humanity has
been shaped. Homes are the place where humans and dogs reshape each other in an
anthropogenic (and often anthropocentric) setting. Every interaction we have with a
dog today is the consequence, the landmark and the starting point of our past, present
and future parallel evolution with dogs (or co-evolution). Understanding that aspect
would determine the trajectory of the dog-human reciprocal attendance for decades
to come. That is crucial and can further empower the interaction of people and dogs,
and can transform the way people behave and interact with their dogs at home or
with free-ranging dogs. That can further inuence the process of evolution of dogs
and humans.
Covid-19 - A Time of Restriction and Transformation
The Covid-19 pandemic has impacted the life of people all around the globe, with
critical repercussions for people’s lifestyle, food provisions (Butu et al., 2020; Dinu
Vasiliu, 2020) and many other aspects of life. Starting with January 2020, we all
have undergone some version of a full or partial lockdown. The interaction we
previously had with our space and our environment changed. In addition, Covid-19
fatefully impacted the planet’s life, including wildlife, people, and dogs (Rutz et al.,
2020). Did Covid-19 usher in a new epoch? Did we shift from the Anthropocene
to the Covidcene age? That may sound like a preposterous provocation. However,
if we reect upon what happened to the dog-human interaction, referring to those
dogs living in the homes of people, that 15% minority of the global dog population,
those dogs experienced the same restrictions and limitations as humans (Morgan et
al., 2020; Oliva and Johnston, 2020). Although people could still bring dogs outside,
they could not go as far as before. They could not drive away from a city to bring a
dog to a park or a valley where they were used to going. While undergoing similar
restrictions, people and dogs shared their processes. Conversely, free-ranging dogs,
that 85% majority of dogs, had more space to roam because people were restricted.
While there were fewer humans around, free-ranging dogs expanded. Wildlife
expanded too, as well as nature on the whole, land, ecosystem, and plants. Many types
of research are investigating those events, and time is required to understand those
mechanisms. However, numerous anecdotes, preliminary observations, and camera
traps highlight the shift in the ecology of wildlife and the expansion of vegetation.
While humans were locked down, nature and wildlife were reclaiming space in those
human-dominated landscapes created for the last centuries by taking away that land
127
Etica și lumea non-umană
from animals and nature. Some wonder what would happen to the planet if humans
were long-term restricted or disappeared completely? (Beko 2018a; Beko 2018b;
Pierce and Beko 2021; Weisman, 2007). Covid-19 has provided a glimpse into that
scenario, a draft response, namely, human and pet-companion dogs get restricted
while free-ranging dogs and wildlife and plants get rewilded. Due to post-pandemic
restrictions, we have been un-wilding. Rewilding represents a paradoxical response
to those events.
Rewilding
Rewilding carries several meanings, all of which are signicant. The term is
associated with conservation biology and relates to the restoration of wildlife
in certain areas (Paul, 2005). It has been used in ecology to restore the land and
reconsider the impact that humans have on the planet (Grayson et al, 1988). Although
it initiated as an ecological idea, rewilding is gaining traction within and outside
environmental settings. The core aspect of rewilding is the preservation of natural
ecosystems, including the investment of eorts and resources by humans to repair
those ecosystems harmed by human activity. Diversity and abundance have been
aected by the human intrusion on land. Rewilding supports nature in recovering
its balance, letting the land return to a wild state, one which is diverse, sustaining,
and abundant, and where humans and nature are equal parts of a global ecosystem
(Jørgensen, 2015). For this to happen, a mind-set shift is essential since human
activity has often proved destructive to the biodiversity of the plants. The World
Wildlife Fund (WWF) Living Planet Report (2020) alerts our attention to the fact
that for 46 years (1970-2016), through hunting, destroying habitats and pollution,
68% of the global animal population has declined or disappeared (WWF, 2020).
Conversely, under natural circumstances, ecosystems are self-sustaining and do not
require human intervention. As humans have interfered with the ecosystems’ health,
it is their duty to help ecosystems to recover their natural balance.
There are several approaches to rewilding. For example, the reintroduction
of wolves into an area with an over-abundance of ungulates restores a natural
balance for those animals, for other species and for the surrounding ora. This
approach is observed in Yellowstone National Park, where the reintroduction of
wolves has resulted in a healthier ecosystem, with animals and plants beneting
from their presence. (Ripple and Beschta, 2012) Another example is where dierent
areas of wilderness were once part of the same landscape. With time, those areas
became separated by human intervention, construction, and occupation. Protecting
and creating corridors that link such areas is another core approach to rewilding.
(Wolf and Ripple, 2018).Encountering with the natural world, ora, and fauna is
another essential component of rewilding. Rewilding is benecial to the land and
the animals but including humans as part of a large and complex natural ecosystem
is necessary. Re-establishing wild areas and interacting with them at any level
(walking, camping, sighting etc.), allows humans to get in touch with a fundamental
part of themselves. Interacting with nature allows humans to ee the sanitised and
unnatural environments they have created, enabling an experience evermore crucial
following events such as the Covid-19 pandemic.
128
It is time to engage in the anthrozoological discourse, addressing the
questions of how can humans reconnect to nature and how can we reintegrate dogs
into nature or let dogs express their wilderness, their natural inclination to be in
nature? How can the human-dog bond be expressed more naturally? Provided that
rewilding does not mean relocating in a forest with our dog, how can humans recover
their connection with nature and rewild, to some degree, through activities? How
can pet-companion dogs be rewilded? How can those dogs support and represent
an opportunity for humans to reactivate the wildness within? All of these questions
need to be included in the conversation.
Conclusion
Understanding domestication and the evolutionary process of dogs and humans
across time is at the core of reframing the dog-human interaction. Bringing an
evolutionary perspective into dog-human practices is necessary to actively inuence
the dogs’ and humans’ side-by-side development. Facilitators, dog trainers, and other
professionals are on the frontline of those tasks, and they can help people improve
their understanding of domestication and human-dog parallel evolution. Rewilding
dogs and humans can convey a renewed perception of the dog-human interaction
and provide a new direction for the dog-human advancement and alliance. Further
studies, philosophical considerations, and discussions are gravely needed to reveal
the underlying links between humans, dogs, other animals, and nature.
Acknowledgements
I want to express my gratitude to the committee for inviting me to the 3rd Edition of
the Anthrozoology Symposium, Iasi, Romania. My deep appreciation goes to Irina
Frasin, George Bodi and Codrin Dinu Vasiliu for coordinating the edition of this
volume and to assist me with this essay. Their work is essential. My thanks also go
to all the institutions and colleagues in Romania for their eorts in paving the way
to Anthrozoology. Thank you also to Cathirose Petrone for her prompt and precious
support on the editing of this essay.
Bibliography
● Adda, Marco. 2016. Bali Dogs. An overview on an endemic canine
population. Unpublished Manuscript.
● Adda, Marco. 2018. Free-Ranging Dogs as a resource for the
community. Unpublished manuscript.
● Al-Ghussain, Loiy. 2018. “Global warming: review on driving forces
and mitigation”. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 5
October. doi:10.1002/ep.13041.
● Axelsson, Erik, Abhirami Ratnakumar, Maja-Louise Arendt, Khurram
Maqbool, Matthew T. Webster, Michele Perloski, Olof Liberg, Jon M.
Arnemo, Åke Hedhammar, and Kerstin Lindblad-Toh. 2013. “The genomic
129
Etica și lumea non-umană
signature of dog domestication reveals adaptation to a starch-rich diet”.
Nature 495, 360–64.
● Ball Platner, Samuel. 1929. A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome.
London: Oxford University Press.
● Bejenaru, Luminița, and George Bodi. 2015. “Animals in the Economy and
Rituals of the Cucuteni Settlement from Poduri–Dealul Ghindaru (Bacău
County, Romania)”. Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica 20(1): 91-101.
● Belyaev, Dimitry K. 1979. “Destabilizing selection as a factor in
domestication”. Journal of Heredity, 55: 301–8.
● Brewer, Douglas J., Terrence Clark, and Adrian A.Phillips. 2001. Dogs in
antiquity: Anubis to Cerberus: The Origin of the Domestic. Warminster: Aris
& Phillips Ltd.
● Butu, Alina, Ioan S. Brumă, Lucian Tanasă, Steliana Rodino, Codrin Dinu
Vasiliu, Sebastian Doboș, and Marian Butu. 2020. “The Impact of COVID-19
Crisis upon the Consumer Buying Behavior of Fresh Vegetables Directly
from Local Producers. Case Study: The Quarantined Area of Suceava
County, Romania”. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17(15): 5485. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155485.
● Beko, Marc. 2018a. “As Dogs Go Wild in a World Without Us, How
Might They Cope?”. Psychology Today. September 2. 2021. https://www.
psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/201809 /dogs-go-wild-in-
world-without-us-how-might-they-cope. Accessed on February 28
● Beko, Marc. 2018b. “How Will Dogs Reshape Nature Without Humans
to Control Them?”. Psychology Today. October 14. Accessed February 28,
2021. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animal-emotions/ 201810/
how-will-dogs-reshape-nature-without-humans-control-them
● Beko, Marc. 2020. “Changing Behavior of India’s Street Dogs During
Lockdown”, The Press, New York, October 18. https://www.psychologytoday.
com/us/blog/animal-emotions/202004/ changing-behavior-indias-street-
dogs-during-lockdown. Accessed: 20 Oct. 2020
● Cooper, Anthony H., Teresa J. Brown, Simon J. Price, Jonathan R. Ford,
and Colin N. Waters. 2018. “Humans are the most signicant global
geomorphological driving force of the 21st Century”. The Anthropocene
Review 5(3): 222-229.
● Corrieri Luca, Marco Adda, Ádám Miklósi, and Enikő Kubinyi. 2018.
“Companion and free-ranging Bali dogs: Environmental links with
personality traits in an endemic dog population of South East Asia”. PLoS
ONE 13(6): e0197354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197354
● Clutton-Brock, Juliet. 1984. “Dog”. In: Evolution of domesticated animals,
editor Ian Lauder Mason, 198–210. London, New York: Longman.
● Corbett, Laurence K. 1995. The dingo in Australia and Asia. New York:
Comstock/Cornell University Press,.
● Crutzen, Paul J. 2006. The “Anthropocene”. In Earth System Science in
the Anthropocene. Emerging Issues and Problems, editors Eckart Ehlers,
Thomas Krat. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-
26590-2_3
● Davis, Simon J.M., and François R.Valla. 1978. “Evidence for domestication
130
of the dog 12,000 years ago in the Natuan of Israel”. Nature 276: 608– 10.
● Dinu Vasiliu, Codrin. 2020. “Our Relationship with Pets during COVID-19
Crisis”. Conference paper, Anthrozoology Symposium, 6-8th of November
2020, Iași, Romania, Gh. Zane ISER.
● Ellen, Roy, and Katsuyoshi Fukui (eds). 1996. Redening nature: ecology,
culture and domestication. Oxford: Berg.
● Frasin, Irina. 2020. “Înțelegerea animalelor și re-gândirea relațiilor cu natura
și cu cei diferiți”. In Studii de antrozoologie. Gândind dincolo de limite,
editors Irina Frasin, George Bodi, Codrin Dinu Vasiliu, 17-134. București:
Editura PRO Universitaria.
● Goodwin, Deborah, John W.S. Bradshaw, and Stephen M. Wickens. 1997.
“Paedomorphosis aects agonistic visual signals of domestic dogs”. Animal
Behaviour 53: 297–304.
● Grayson, Donald K., Paul W. Parmalee, Lee R. Lyman, and Jim I. Mead.
1988. Danger cave, last supper cave and hanging rock shelter: the faunas.
Anthropological papers of the AMNH; v. 66, pt. 1. New York: Museum of
Natural History.
● Hare, Brian, and Michael Tomasello. 2005. “Human-like social skills in
dogs?”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 439–44.
● Irion, Dawn N., Allison L. Schaer, Tomas R. Famula, Marcia L. Eggleston,
Shayne S. Hughes, and Niels C. Pedersen. 2003. „Analysis of Genetic Variation
in 28 Dog Breed Populations With 100 Microsatellite Markers”. Journal of
Heredity, 94(1): 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/ jhered/esg004
● Jørgensen, Dolly. 2015. “Rethinking Rewilding”. Geoforum 65: 482–
488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.016
● Larson, Greger, Elinor K. Karlsson, Angela Perri, Matthew T. Webster,
Simon Y. W. Ho, Joris Peters, Peter W. Stahl, Philip J. Piper, Frode Lingaas,
Merete Fredholm, Kenine E. Comstock, Jaime F. Modiano, Claude
Schelling, Alexander I. Agoulnik, Peter A. Leegwater, Keith Dobney,
Jean-Denis Vigne, Carles Vilà, Leif Andersson, and Kerstin Lindblad-Toh.
2012. “Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology,
and biogeography”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 109(23): 8878-8883. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1203005109
● Leonard, Jennifer A., Robert K. Wayne, Jane Wheeler, Raúl Valadez, Sonia
Guillen, and Carles Vilà. 2002. “Ancient DNA evidence for Old World origin
of New World Dogs”. Science 298: 1613–16.
● Lewis, Simon L., and Mark A. Maslin. 2015. Dening the
Anthropocene. Nature 519:171–180. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14258
● Lindblad-Toh, Kerstin, Claire M. Wade, Tarjei S. Mikkelsen, Elinor K.
Karlsson, David B. Jae, Michael Kamal, Michele Clamp, Jean L. Chang,
Edward J. Kulbokas III, Michael C. Zody, Evan Mauceli, Xiaohui Xie,
Matthew Breen, Robert K. Wayne, Elaine A. Ostrander, Chris P. Ponting,
Francis Galibert, Douglas R. Smith, Pieter J. deJong, Ewen Kirkness, Pablo
Alvarez, Tara Biagi, William Brockman, Jonathan Butler, Chee-Wye Chin,
April Cook, James Cu, Mark J. Daly, David DeCaprio, Sante Gnerre,
Manfred Grabherr, Manolis Kellis, Michael Kleber, Carolyne Bardeleben,
131
Etica și lumea non-umană
Leo Goodstadt, Andreas Heger, Christophe Hitte, Lisa Kim, Klaus-Peter
Koepi, Heidi G. Parker, John P. Pollinger, Stephen M. J. Searle, Nathan
B. Sutter, Rachael Thomas, Caleb Webber, Broad Sequencing Platform
members, and Eric S. Lander. 2005. Genome sequence, comparative analysis
and haplotype structure of the domestic dog. Nature 438: 803–19.
● Miklósi, Ádám. 2015. Dog Behaviour, Evolution and Cognition. 2nd Edition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
● Mikkel-Holger, Sinding S., Shyam Gopalakrishnan, Jazmín Ramos-Madrigal,
Marc de Manuel, Vladimir V. Pitulko, Lukas Kuderna, Tatiana R. Feuerborn,
Laurent A. F. Frantz, Filipe G. Vieira, Jonas Niemann, Jose A. Samaniego
Castruita, Christian Carøe, Emilie U. Andersen-Ranberg, Peter D. Jordan,
Elena Y. Pavlova, Pavel A. Nikolskiy, Aleksei K. Kasparov, Varvara V.
Ivanova, Eske Willerslev, Pontus Skoglund, Merete Fredholm, Sanne Eline
Wennerberg, Mads Peter Heide-Jørgensen, Rune Dietz, Christian Sonne,
Morten Meldgaard, Love Dalén, Greger Larson, Bent Petersen, Thomas
Sicheritz-Pontén, Lutz Bachmann, Øystein Wiig, Tomas Marques-Bonet,
Anders J. Hansen, and M. Thomas P. Gilbert. 2020. “Arctic-adapted dogs
emerged at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition”. Science 368(6498): 495-
1499. doi: 10.1126/science.aaz8599
● Morey, Darcy F. 2006. Burying key evidence: the social bond between dogs
and people. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 158–75.
● Morgan, Liat, Alexandra Protopopova, Rune I. D. Birkler, Beata Itin-
Shwartz, Gila A. Sutton, Alexandra Gamliela, Boris Yakobsone, and Tal Raz.
2020 “Human-dog Relationships During COVID-19 Pandemic; Booming
Dog Adoption During Social Isolation.” SocArXiv. June 5. doi:10.31235/
osf.io/s9k4y.
● Musil, Rudolf. 2000. “Evidence for the domestication of wolves in Central
European Magdalenian sites”. In: Dogs through time: an archaeological
perspective, editor Susan J. Crockford, 21–8. Oxford: Archeopress.
● Oliva, Jessica Lee, and Kim Louise Johnston. 2020. “Puppy love in the time
of Corona: Dog ownership protects against loneliness for those living alone
during the COVID-19 lockdown”. International journal of social psychiatry.
doi:10.1177/0020764020944195
● Ostrander, Elaine A., Urs Giger, and Kerstin Lindblad-Toh, eds. 2006. The
dog and its genome. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
● Paul S. Martin. 2005. Twilight of the mammoths: ice age extinctions and the
rewilding of America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
● Paxton, David W. 2000. “A case for a naturalistic perspective”. Anthrozoös
13: 5– 8.
● Pierce, Jessica, and Marc Beko. 2021. A Dog’s World: Imagining the Lives
of Dogs in a World without Humans. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
● Price, Edward O. 1984. “Behavioral aspects of animal domestication”. The
Quarterly Review of Biology 59: 1–32.
● Ripple, William J., and Robert L. Beschta. 2012. “Trophic cascades in
Yellowstone: The rst 15years after wolf reintroduction”. Biological
Conservation 145(1): 205-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.
2011.11.005.
132
● Rutz, Christian, Matthias-Claudio Loretto, Amanda E. Bates, Sarah C.
Davidson, Carlos M. Duarte, Walter Jetz, Mark Johnson, Akiko Kato, Roland
Kays, Thomas Mueller, Richard B. Primack, Yan Ropert-Coudert, Marlee
A. Tucker, Martin Wikelski, and Francesca Cagnacci. 2020. “COVID-19
lockdown allows researchers to quantify the eects of human activity on
wildlife”. Nat Ecol Evol 4:1156–1159. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-
1237-z
● Sergis, Manolis G. 2010. “Dog sacrice in ancient and modern Greece: From
the sacrice ritual to dog torture (kynomartyrion)”. Folklore: Electronic
Journal of Folklore 45: 61–88.
● Smith, Bruce D. 1998. The emergence of agriculture. New York: Scientic
American Library.
● Smith Bradley P., and Carla A. Litcheld. 2009. “A Review of the
Relationship between Indigenous Australians, Dingoes (Canis dingo)
and Domestic Dogs (Canis familiaris)”. Anthrozoös 22(2): 111-128. doi:
10.2752/175303709X434149
● Thompson, John N. 2005. The geographic mosaic of coevolution. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
● vonHoldt, Bridgett M., John P. Pollinger, Kirk E. Lohmueller, Eunjung Han,
Heidi G. Parker, Pascale Quignon, Jeremiah D. Degenhardt, Adam R. Boyko,
Dent A. Earl, Adam Auton, Andy Reynolds, Kasia Bryc, Abra Brisbin, James
C. Knowles, Dana S. Mosher, Tyrone C. Spady, Abdel Elkahloun, Eli Geen,
Malgorzata Pilot, Wlodzimierz Jedrzejewski, Claudia Greco, Ettore Randi,
Danika Bannasch, Alan Wilton, Jeremy Shearman, Marco Musiani, Michelle
Cargill, Paul G. Jones, Zuwei Qian, Wei Huang, Zhao-Li Ding, Ya-ping
Zhang, Carlos D. Bustamante, Elaine A. Ostrander, John Novembre, and
Robert K. Wayne. 2010. “Genome-wide SNP and haplotype analyses reveal
a rich history underlying dog domestication”. Nature, 464(7290): 898–902.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature08837
● Weisman, Alan. 2007. The world without us. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
● Wolf, Christopher and William J. Ripple. 2018. “Rewilding the world’s
large carnivores”. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5: 172235. http://doi.org/10.1098/
rsos.172235
● World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Living Planet Report, 2020. Accessed on
February 28, 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/wwf-living-
planet-report-2020-reveals-68-drop-wildlife-populations
