Wild vs. Domesticated Animals: Why Domestication Has Nothing to Do With How Dangerous Pets Are
Photo Credit Mike Via Flickr
"Wild animals are dangerous"
It is very common to hear people say things like “you can take the animal out of the wild but you can’t take the wild out of the animal”, or this more ridiculous statement: “all wild animals can be dangerous”. You might have even heard some people state that wild animals are dangerous, period. These vast groups of animals are dangerous compared to what, exactly?
I’ll let you in on a surprising secret. So-called wild animals are not all dangerous in captivity, and some so-called domesticated animals are. This is an indisputable fact. If you don’t believe this, I can easily prove it.
A wild animal is an animal that lives in the wild, free from human influence. Here are three wild animals that are completely harmless to humans: the green frog (Lithobates clamitans) the house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and the eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus).
So what’s up with these statements exclaiming that wild animals are dangerous?
Now hold on a second, when we said ‘wild animal’ we meant animals like tigers, sharks, and crocodiles, not little frogs!
Well gee how was I supposed to know that? Why do groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) use the word ‘wild animal’ and ‘large, dangerous wild animal’ interchangeably?
"Keeping wild and exotic animals as pets threatens public health and safety as well as animal welfare."
"Caring for wild animals is difficult or impossible" —HSUS
Animal rights organizations are not worried about being accurate with their statements because they are mostly against the ownership of animals. Therefore the numerous exceptions are not really important to them.
- Top 10 Most Dangerous Exotic Pets | Get the Facts
Captive wild animal attacks often make the news. Find out which exotic pets kept in private homes are the most dangerous.
Exotic pets are NOT 'wild animals'
I don’t believe the term ‘wild animal’ should be used to describe human-habituated tame animals because their behavior is vastly different from animals that are parent-raised without humans.
Wild animals are animals that were born and raised in natural conditions. Animals living with and raised by humans that are not domesticated should be simply referred to as non-domesticated animals. 'Tame wild animal' is also acceptable.
Taming refers to a normally wild-natured animal that has been socialized with humans so that it is tolerant and relatively docile in human presence. Yet since some domesticated animals are untame when raised in the wild, some domesticated animals are technically tame as well.
This behavior is unheard of in wild animals
What is domestication?
Nearly every version of what ‘domestication’ means to most people is invalid. Here are a few examples of what many think a ‘domesticated animal’ is that can easily be disproven by presenting examples of domesticated species to which it doesn't apply:
- Domesticated animals can’t survive in the wild. Utterly untrue. In fact, domesticated animals are some of the best survivors, reproducing invasively in environments that are not their own (feral cats, horses, swine) while many ‘wild animals’ fail at doing so. That is why we do not release captive animals without extensive rehabilitation. In many cases, feral domesticated animals have caused various wild animals to become extirpated.
- Domesticated animals are tame or good-natured. Bulls (intact cattle Bos Taurus) are well known to be dangerous and aggressive. Why? Because just like many “wild” animals, they have instincts and raging hormones. Domesticated mink are extremely dangerous for their size.
- Domesticated animals recognize humans as part of their social structure. Not only is this common in any social mammal or bird as long as it has been hand-raised, but even some solitary animals like bobcats and tigers will bond with their owner to the same level as any domesticated cat. Alternatively, domesticated cats that are not hand-raised do not accept human ownership, just as a wild animal doesn’t. If it is not in the nature of the animal to be part of a hierarchy, like fancy mice or goldfish for instance, this behavior will not spring up due to domestication.
- Domestication takes thousands of years. The Russian fox experiment produced significantly tamer silver foxes in only 50 years.
Here is the only consistently acceptable way to define the arbitrary concept of domestication:
Any animal that has undergone a change at the genetic level due to selective breeding to better suit a human interest.
This definition, and only this definition, fits every so-called domesticated animal. Notice that this definition does not include any measure of tameness, welfare in captivity or house living, or any measure of generations needed to produce the result.
If the genetic change and better suitability for human use is present, the animal can be considered to be domesticated. It needn’t be as physically and psychologically unique from its starting point as a wolf and a Shih Tzu.
Domesticated animals may have certain traits in common, such as breeding well in captivity, having easy to meet dietary needs, and reaching maturity quickly, but this is not unique to them. Domesticated animals are native to nowhere because their genes are human-selected vs. naturally selected. Hybridization can also result in this.
An example of a "wild" animal
Some animals, like golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) are extensively bred in captivity but are not genetically different beyond some insignificant alterations due to the founder effect; therefore they are technically not domesticated.
This means that when someone says “wild animals are dangerous to keep as pets”, they are talking about hamsters.
Both golden hamsters and tigers are non-domesticated animals that are frequently bred in captivity. Other animals thought to be domesticated but probably aren't include cockatiels, ball pythons, budgies, gerbils, and dwarf hamsters.
The domesticated cat fallacy
Some cat owners might tell you that a cat is ‘less domesticated’ than dogs, due to their independent nature. This is completely untrue. As I’ve discussed above, the concept of ‘more or less domesticated’ is invalid. Cats are DIFFERENT from dogs. Domestication has nothing to do with dog-like behavior (although a few feline breeds are genetically more tame and passive). The domesticated cat is genetically different from its original ancestor and is more suitable for the role humans have bred it for. That’s all it takes!
This is also a "wild" animal
Why aren’t domesticated pets dangerous?
Very simple. Well, first of all, as outlined before, some domesticated animals can be a threat to human safety or even considered dangerous—but putting that aside, as a general rule, much of the domesticated animals that we associate as non-dangerous in comparison to so-called wild animals have all descended from wild animals that are not that dangerous, relatively speaking.
To clarify: A tiger is considered a dangerous wild animal, and a domesticated cat is not. Are tigers more dangerous because they aren’t domesticated? No!
Tigers are dangerous because they are over 800 pounds of pure, carnivorous muscle, having evolved to take down prey much larger than itself. Fully grown tigers are larger and stronger than the largest, strongest dog.
Domesticated cats and their ancestors (the African wild cat) could not kill a human if they tried (cats can, and have attacked humans). To reiterate, domesticated cats were never ‘dangerous’ to begin with. Let’s look at the evolutionary history of some other popular domesticated animals.
The domesticated dog is THE quintessential model for domestication for most people. No other domesticated species exhibits as much behavioral, psychological and morphological variation. This might be the reason people confuse domestication as a process aiming to achieve what has been done with dogs. But dogs are unique, and they are the only large carnivore that has been domesticated.
Dogs have descended from an extinct wolf-like canid that shares a common ancestor with the extant grey wolf. Through the mechanism of neoteny, which means the retention of juvenile traits, which was induced through many generations of selective breeding, dogs have adopted a very strong psychological connection to humans.
How this happened is very controversial, but we can deduce that the dog’s (likely more than one) wolf-like ancestors were a population of animals with a high tolerance toward human presence, and perhaps, unlike some populations of wolves such as those which terrorized France in earlier centuries, were a lot less dangerous.
Even the grey wolves of today are touted as mostly harmless toward humans in the wild, and two reported deaths from wild wolves have occurred in North America in the last 100 years. Unlike big cats, wolves are common ‘ambassador animals’ that respectable zoos and conservation societies trust on a leash around the public (cheetahs pose a similar or smaller risk to humans, but they can't be domesticated because they breed poorly in captivity).
Of course, just like regular dogs, wolves have the potential to attack due to various factors. Some domesticated dogs are more aggressive than wolves because we have channeled that territorial instinct into our desired result. Dogs are a mixed bag of different wild instincts re-shaped and re-directed for the domestication purpose. Domesticated dogs can become more dangerous if they are unsocialized and form coalitions due to the pack instinct, which wolves of course are predisposed toward.
The ancestor of the domesticated pig is the wild boar (Sus scrofa), and while they rarely attack humans in the wild, they do possess the capacity to attack and kill, and some have done this (warning, links contain graphic photos), most often during the rutting season in January and February. However, the main danger of wild boars is due to their weaponry, which are long protruding canines that are used for fighting. Luckily for us, our selective breeding has resulted not only in reduced (but not eliminated) aggression, but no canines. Our next example has not.
Non-graphic de-horning video
Domestic cattle, whose ancestors are extinct wild cattle (Bos primigenius) cannot easily be bred to lack their horns, so in order to achieve a less dangerous animal, they are removed early in the animal’s life.
Castration is also commonly practiced in livestock animals that may lower aggression. During the rutting season, domesticated male camels can be somewhat dangerous to handle if they aren’t castrated. Studies have shown that many dog bite incidences were committed by non-neutered dogs.
What good is ‘domestication’ for human safety if animals must be mutilated before they can be considered non-dangerous?
Size DOES matter
Another giant factor I’ve discussed here is the absurdity of not taking into account size when it comes to the danger an animal may present. Regardless of disposition, large animals can all be fatal to humans. Every large domesticated animal (horse, cow, camel, large dog) has caused human fatalities. Therefore, when someone brings up that a large non-domesticated animal (such as killer whales, and their captivity has suffered immense criticism) has once killed someone, that is not an argument that they are more or less dangerous than a domesticated animal. There is an inherent risk with all animals that are large and strong. The larger and stronger the animal, the bigger the risk.
Environment also shapes animal behavior!
As I tirelessly bring up, animals are not merely robots that are programmed to behave one way. Non-domesticated animals that are hand-raised and socialized by humans are likely to be drastically different from their wild counterparts.
This is why it is silly to compare house cats to animals that exist in the wild. A proper comparison of the traits of domesticated cats and their wild counterparts would have to take into account their environment, therefore feral cats should be compared with wild African wild cats and feral dogs with wolves. We will then see that the behavior and psychologies of these species will form more parallels.
Having ample food and being away from the pressures of nature also change animals. Some animals likely retain juvenile traits into adulthood (not genetically) when they are not forced out of the nest/den to hunt for themselves in natural conditions. This can lead to an increase of sociability, play behavior, and reduced prey drive. No wonder people visit zoos and often exclaim that wolves and tigers act 'just like my dog/cat!'
So what makes some animals dangerous?
A combination of size, disposition, territoriality, how the keeping of the animal is traditionally practiced, and the physical weaponry of the animal.
In other words, place any animal capable of harm with a human that is not willing to, or doesn’t understand its behavior, regardless of domestication, and disaster can strike.