Forum Post

Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

Last post 05-15-2008 9:26 PM by ron2. 165 replies.
Page 11 of 12 (166 items) « First ... < Previous 8 9 10 11 12 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 05-11-2008 1:37 PM In reply to Lee Charles Kelley

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    Lee Charles Kelley:

     

    ron2:
    I think dog behavior offers more proof to independent evolution from similar canids than derivation from one of the wild canids. That one behavior is the thing that dogs do that other canids do not do. Dogs, canis familiaris, look to humans for cues. Canis Lupus does not. Neither does Canis Latrans.
    You may be right that the fairly brief evolutionary history of the dog in tandem with homo sapiens is primarily responsible for this behavior. But from my understanding of the main study that gives us this factoid (if you will), the domesticated dog's ability to follow a human's gaze, etc., may very well be a learned, not genetic set of behaviors.

    LCK 

     

    Actually Ron's statement is true.  Another study found that young puppies, without formal training will also follow a humans pointing signals and be aware of the directions of human gaze.  The point being that intensively socialized wolf pups (taken from their mothers at less than 10 days and raised exclusively in human society) will not follow follow human pointing or gaze signals.  Therefore, the conclusion is that there is a genetic difference in the ability/desire to follow human direction between wolves and dogs.  For a scientific discussion of dog's social cognition see Adam Miklosi's Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition (Oxford Biology) published this year.  I have this from two professors of animal cognition who research dogs, that this book is the best synopsis of current research into dog cognition.

    • Post Points: 0
  • 05-11-2008 2:01 PM In reply to Lee Charles Kelley

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    Lee Charles Kelley:
    On the flip side, when some breeds are bred more for their social nature than for their hunting skills, as has been done with some Labs and golden retrievers in the last 20 years or so, you tend to get unexpected aggression where you didn't see it before. You used to NEVER see aggression in Labs and goldens, and the reason we're seeing it more and more NOW has to do with the fact that they've been bred recently more for their "friendliness" than their hunting skills.
     

    Once again, not true.  Breeding only for friendliness does not create aggression.  The rise in aggression in Goldens ,which I can speak to and Labs, which I can speculate on, is poor breeding.  In Goldens, as in all breeds, there are a range of personality types.  Luckily, most are friendly, but some with aggression issues will appear and a certain part of aggression is genetic.  Now, good breeding practices will cull out the Goldens with aggressive tendencies, through spay/neuter.  Unfortunately, they are not all culled.  Sometimes, like in puppy mills, the "breeders" don't care about temperament issues, they just want to pump out puppies.  Even worse, is that some "breeders" who breed for show or performance will breed a dog with an incorrect/aggressive temperament because that dog has done very so well in the ring or in the field.  This has produced aggressive Goldens all over the place.  Believe me, this is something that infuriates the Golden community, and reputable breeders are doing everything they can to eliminate these dogs from the genetic pool.

    There can be idiopathic aggression in Goldens, and poor socialization or traumatic experiences can cause aggression, but breeding Goldens with very friendly temperaments to each other will not cause aggressive Goldens.  I need to add that reputable breeders do not only care about friendliness, although correct Golden temperament (which is more than just friendliness) is possibly their first priority in selecting dogs to breed.  They are also concerned in health, structure, longevity and most with working ability.  

    • Post Points: 0
  • 05-13-2008 8:27 AM In reply to GoldenAC

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    GoldenAC, totally in agreement with your last two posts.  I do see a rise in aggression in POPULAR breeds, but it also happens in the hunting breeds that have great hunting lines.  A good breeder will not continue to breed SOLELY for hunting ability if the pups turn out nasty.  Breeding is a complicated pursuit, certainly, because there are more variables than just hunting ability versus aggression.  But, I doubt you will convince someone who thinks that the only solution to most canine problems is to to heighten their prey/play drive.  That would be like saying that the solution to all human behavior problems is to run the Boston marathon.

    Regional Director for Massachusetts, International Positive Dog Training Association
    Director, SeniorCare Pawsitive Connections Program

    AKC CGC Evaluator #3669
    Therapy Dogs, Inc. Tester/Observer

    Sioux, CGC, TDInc.
    Maska, CGC, TDInc.
    Sequoyah, CGC
    Fergie, Retired Lap Dog, Age 19
    Dancer, CGC, TDInc. (1989-2006) #1 Heart Dog

    "If you talk to the animals they will talk with you and you will know each other. If you do not talk to them you will not know them and what you do not know, you will fear. What one fears, one destroys." - Chief Dan George

    "The fidelity of a dog is a precious gift demanding no less binding moral responsibilities than the friendship of a human being. The bond with a true dog is as lasting as the ties of this earth can ever be." ~ Konrad Lorenz



    • Post Points: 0
  • 05-13-2008 8:34 AM In reply to GoldenAC

    • snownose
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 09-29-2006
    • Michigan to Southeast
    • Posts 5,178
    • Points 405

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    GoldenAC:
      Another study found that young puppies, without formal training will also follow a humans pointing signals and be aware of the directions of human gaze.  The point being that intensively socialized wolf pups (taken from their mothers at less than 10 days and raised exclusively in human society) will not follow follow human pointing or gaze signals.  Therefore, the conclusion is that there is a genetic difference in the ability/desire to follow human direction between wolves and dogs. 

     

    Could that be that wolf cubs are more wild, so to speak, and wolves in general have not been domesticated like dogs have been over thousands of years? That study seems flawed to me.....domesticating an animal for weeks or even months is not the same as domesticating over thousands of years.....

    • Post Points: 0
  • 05-13-2008 10:47 AM In reply to snownose

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    snownose:

    GoldenAC:
      Another study found that young puppies, without formal training will also follow a humans pointing signals and be aware of the directions of human gaze.  The point being that intensively socialized wolf pups (taken from their mothers at less than 10 days and raised exclusively in human society) will not follow follow human pointing or gaze signals.  Therefore, the conclusion is that there is a genetic difference in the ability/desire to follow human direction between wolves and dogs. 

     

    Could that be that wolf cubs are more wild, so to speak, and wolves in general have not been domesticated like dogs have been over thousands of years? That study seems flawed to me.....domesticating an animal for weeks or even months is not the same as domesticating over thousands of years.....

     

    That IS the whole point.  Dogs have been domesticated, that is, humans have selected for certain traits in dogs that appeal to the humans.  Some of which have to do with the ability of dogs to communicate with humans, both signaling to humans and understanding human signaling.  Those abilities made dogs more valuable to humans.  In addition, some of the characteristics selected for had to do with ease of training, so yes, there is a training element here.  Experiments have shown that you (the general you) can not train wolves (even intensively socialized wolves) in the same manner that you can train dogs and to the same extent that you can train dogs.  However, the point of these experiments is to demonstrate that dogs have different genetic capacities to follow human direction than wolves due to the process of domestication. 

    • Post Points: 0
  • 05-13-2008 10:55 AM In reply to GoldenAC

    • snownose
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 09-29-2006
    • Michigan to Southeast
    • Posts 5,178
    • Points 405

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    GoldenAC:
    That IS the whole point.  Dogs have been domesticated, that is, humans have selected for certain traits in dogs that appeal to the humans.  Some of which have to do with the ability of dogs to communicate with humans, both signaling to humans and understanding human signaling.  Those abilities made dogs more valuable to humans.  In addition, some of the characteristics selected for had to do with ease of training, so yes, there is a training element here.  Experiments have shown that you (the general you) can not train wolves (even intensively socialized wolves) in the same manner that you can train dogs and to the same extent that you can train dogs.  However, the point of these experiments is to demonstrate that dogs have different genetic capacities to follow human direction than wolves due to the process of domestication. 

     

    You keep saying intensively socialized wolves.....how many generations of wolves are you talking about? The experiment in Russia with Foxes comes to mind......

    • Post Points: 0
  • 05-13-2008 11:25 AM In reply to snownose

    • Dog_ma
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on 06-25-2007
    • San Diego County, California
    • Posts 1,321
    • Points 795

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    snownose:


    You keep saying intensively socialized wolves.....how many generations of wolves are you talking about? The experiment in Russia with Foxes comes to mind......

     

     

    One generation of wolves. Studies have found that wolf puppies raised with humans and dog puppies raised with humans have different abilities to respond to human cues. Studies have also found that dogs are more responsive to human eye cues than chimpanzees.

    These studies strongly suggest that the domestic dog has evolved/been bred into an animal that is uniquely responsive to human beings. There is also some evidence that suggests humans began to lose nose power when dogs first became a part of human life ... we outsourced our sense of smell. Stick out tongue You could say that dogs and humans have co-evolved as companions.



    "Are you a dog trainer?"
    "No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night."
    • Post Points: 0
  • 05-13-2008 12:00 PM In reply to Dog_ma

    • snownose
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 09-29-2006
    • Michigan to Southeast
    • Posts 5,178
    • Points 405

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    Dog_ma:

    One generation of wolves. Studies have found that wolf puppies raised with humans and dog puppies raised with humans have different abilities to respond to human cues. Studies have also found that dogs are more responsive to human eye cues than chimpanzees.

    These studies strongly suggest that the domestic dog has evolved/been bred into an animal that is uniquely responsive to human beings. There is also some evidence that suggests humans began to lose nose power when dogs first became a part of human life ... we outsourced our sense of smell. Stick out tongue You could say that dogs and humans have co-evolved as companions.

    I see all that, but my whole point of the flaw in the study is, that one can not compare pups from domesticated dogs over thousands of years to one generation socialized wolf cubs....of course there will be a big difference between the two......as you mentioned dogs and humans co-evolved as companions.....

    • Post Points: 0
  • 05-13-2008 2:11 PM In reply to snownose

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    snownose:
    I see all that, but my whole point of the flaw in the study is, that one can not compare pups from domesticated dogs over thousands of years to one generation socialized wolf cubs....of course there will be a big difference between the two......as you mentioned dogs and humans co-evolved as companions.....
     

    Yes you can if your point is to show that domestication has led to genetic changes in dogs behavior.  The point is not to see if wolves would develop the same changes if some one tried to recreate the dog starting only with wolves. 

    The only reason that they use intensively socialized wolves is to remove any bias of socialization between the particular wolf pups and the dog pups and the only reason I stress it is that Miklosi does since I guess it has been an issue in previous experimental protocols.  

    • Post Points: 0
  • 05-13-2008 2:16 PM In reply to Dog_ma

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    Dog_ma:

    snownose:


    You keep saying intensively socialized wolves.....how many generations of wolves are you talking about? The experiment in Russia with Foxes comes to mind......

     

     

    One generation of wolves. Studies have found that wolf puppies raised with humans and dog puppies raised with humans have different abilities to respond to human cues. Studies have also found that dogs are more responsive to human eye cues than chimpanzees.

    These studies strongly suggest that the domestic dog has evolved/been bred into an animal that is uniquely responsive to human beings. There is also some evidence that suggests humans began to lose nose power when dogs first became a part of human life ... we outsourced our sense of smell. Stick out tongue You could say that dogs and humans have co-evolved as companions.

     

    .... allowing us to concentrate, in evolutionary terms, on growing more sophisticated mouth parts and ultimately the power of speech....

    just thought Idthrow that little nugget out there.  Carry on. 

    "Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life." (Pratchett, Jingo)

    "I used to look at [my dog] Smokey and think, 'If you were a little smarter you could tell me what you were thinking,' and he'd look at me like he was saying, 'If you were a little smarter, I wouldn't have to.'" - Fred Jungclaus
    • Post Points: 0
  • 05-13-2008 2:17 PM In reply to snownose

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    snownose:

    Dog_ma:

    One generation of wolves. Studies have found that wolf puppies raised with humans and dog puppies raised with humans have different abilities to respond to human cues. Studies have also found that dogs are more responsive to human eye cues than chimpanzees.

    These studies strongly suggest that the domestic dog has evolved/been bred into an animal that is uniquely responsive to human beings. There is also some evidence that suggests humans began to lose nose power when dogs first became a part of human life ... we outsourced our sense of smell. Stick out tongue You could say that dogs and humans have co-evolved as companions.

    I see all that, but my whole point of the flaw in the study is, that one can not compare pups from domesticated dogs over thousands of years to one generation socialized wolf cubs....of course there will be a big difference between the two......as you mentioned dogs and humans co-evolved as companions.....

     

    YES!  And that difference is genetics! Smile 

    "Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life." (Pratchett, Jingo)

    "I used to look at [my dog] Smokey and think, 'If you were a little smarter you could tell me what you were thinking,' and he'd look at me like he was saying, 'If you were a little smarter, I wouldn't have to.'" - Fred Jungclaus
    • Post Points: 0
  • 05-14-2008 4:09 PM In reply to spiritdogs

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    spiritdogs:
    Breeding is a complicated pursuit, certainly, because there are more variables than just hunting ability versus aggression.  But, I doubt you will convince someone who thinks that the only solution to most canine problems is to to heighten their prey/play drive.  That would be like saying that the solution to all human behavior problems is to run the Boston marathon.

    You're missing my point almost entirely. Breeding for certain types of hunting skills automatically makes dogs more social. But breeding only for "social" characteristics can cause behavioral problems, aggression among them, that the breeder wasn't expecting. As for you analogy to the Boston Marathon, that's just silly. First of all if you think my solution to all canine problems is to heighten the dog's prey drive, you don't really understand anything I've said here. Either that or you're using hyperbole to bolster a weak argument.

    As for the marathon analogy, that's ridiculous. What can I say? Human beings are much more complicated than dogs.

    But the fact remains that the primary reason dogs are social, and the primary reason that they've been in a symbiotic relationship with the human (and proto-human) race for so many tens of thousands of years is directly related to the unique form of group hunting that evolved in wolves and that some other wild canids also exhibit. Incidentally, other than canines human beings are the only other land mammal who hunts animals larger and more dangerous than themselves. So there's another connection to the hunting instincts right there.

    I haven't read Miklosi's study, but I did glance through some of his book. And it looks interesting. My main problem with the dog-pup/wolf-cub study is that if you ask me there weren't enough controls in place. Raising a puppy is a much more complicated process than can be scientifically evaluated properly. There are far too many hidden variables. You can raise three different pups from the same litter and each one will be paying attention to you in a different way at different times. And even if your response to each pup's behavior is always exactly the same (which it couldn't possibly be) the pup will extract different information from each interaction in any number of different ways that might not be apparent at the time, if at all, ever. So to take only 5 dogs and 5 wolves and have them interact with 10 humans, and expect the results to be conclusive or even an indicator of much of anything is quite a stretch. Then there's the fact that most humans have different unconscious, emotional responses to puppies than they would to a wolf cub, no matter how cute she is. These unconscious differences might be quite small, but over time they would be magnified, because each social interaction will set a template -- or will alter whatever template is already in place -- for the next experience, and the next, and the next.

    There are lots of genetic differences between dogs and wolves, and being more likely to look to a human beings for cues about behavior may very well be one of them. (Or it may be that we have genetic differences in our emotional responses to dogs as opposed wolf puppies.) But even so, without taking all kinds of hidden variables into account, doing larger samples, etc., you can't reach any rational conclusion about this. Is it genetic? It may be, at least partially. But there's probably a lot of hidden learning going on during the initial relationship between the young animals and the researchers. And whatever the kind of results have been "reached" so far that certainly doesn't mean that dogs are more intelligent than wolves or chimps, just that their adaptive emotional and social forms of intelligence are probably somehow tied to their interactions with human beings (probably through the process of EEC). It just means that dogs are more flexible, socially and emotionally, than wolves. We already knew that. And it has nothing to do with higher levels of intellect -- it's a huge mistake to think it does.

    Anyway, that's how I see it,

    LCK 

    "Clicker training has not taught me a whole bunch, other than that people can get wrapped up in fads and catch phrases." Bob Bailey

    "If a lion could talk we would not be able to understand him." Wittegenstein. "If a lion could talk we would understand him perfectly, but we would learn very little about ordinary lions from him."Daniel C. Dennett

    "Dogs don't care who's alpha and who's not. Only emotionally dysfunctional owners and trainers do." Jack Field
    • Post Points: 0
  • 05-14-2008 5:36 PM In reply to Lee Charles Kelley

    • ron2
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 09-10-2007
    • far north central Texas
    • Posts 9,464
    • Points 500

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    http://www.univie.ac.at/mcogneu/lit/range.pdf

    The above is an example of a scientific study, including controls and limitations.

    To be fair, I haven't seen a similar study done to show proof of your theories.

    Lee Charles Kelley:
    So to take only 5 dogs and 5 wolves and have them interact with 10 humans, and expect the results to be conclusive or even an indicator of much of anything is quite a stretch.

    By who's definition? Then define the number of canines required. Or will it not matter how large the statistical sample is, it will be garbage because it doesn't fit the theory? Your theories, while intriguing, are primarily a paradigm shift and the case studies you offer are anecdotal. Which doesn't mean you are incorrect but it doesn't stand as definitive proof, either. In other words, if the existing testing protocols are not up to your standard, then define the standard but it has to be one that is proven anywhere and any number of times and can be agreed upon.

    And there is a limit to the separateness(?) between observer and observed. Just as in other scientific disciplines, the observer affects the observed. So, whether or not humans are giving off subtle cues the fact is, regardless of controls or lack thereof, the dog is going to read it better than the wolf. And the jury is still out on whether reading humans is innate in all canids or just dogs. And someone else mentioned that a few generations of russian foxes is still a far cry from a dog.

    In other words, even if there is a lot of "hidden learning" with a dog pup, it's not going to change the observed fact that dogs read humans better than wolves or chimps.

    Lee Charles Kelley:
    I haven't read Miklosi's study, but I did glance through some of his book

    Lee Charles Kelley:
    It just means that dogs are more flexible, socially and emotionally, than wolves. We already knew that. And it has nothing to do with higher levels of intellect

    Too bad you didn't read a q & a chat with him. Social intelligence is the ability to navigate a social scene. Problem solving intelligence might be doing math to solve a problem. And he doesn't call one breed more intelligent than another, though the appearance of intelligence might be a dogs ability to interact socially or solve problems. That is, Miklosi doesn't necessarily call a dog intelligent in the same way we think of human intelligence. My dog didn't write "Lay on, MacDuff! And curse be he who first cries, Hold! Enough!" But he puts up with my singing.

    The way you treat your dog in this life determines your place in heaven. - chukchi proverb


    • Post Points: 0
  • 05-14-2008 11:21 PM In reply to ron2

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    ron2:
    http://www.univie.ac.at/mcogneu/lit/range.pdf The above is an example of a scientific study, including controls and limitations.
    You're kidding, right? It's amateur hour, high school science project stuff.
    ron2:
    if the existing testing protocols are not up to your standard, then define the standard but it has to be one that is proven anywhere and any number of times and can be agreed upon.
    Not my job. But I will say that in the Miklosi study, it's a very tiny sample and there are conceptual errors in how it was run. I've already described those so there's no need for further comment. (Ask someone like Sapolsky what he thinks of it.) As for the "Selective Imitation" study, well, I'm not the only one who finds their findings suspect, if not laughable. Many cognitive scientists were highly critical of it. The dogs were making "inferences" about why another dog chose a certain behavior? That's patently absurd.
    ron2:
    And there is a limit to the separateness(?) between observer and observed. Just as in other scientific disciplines, the observer affects the observed. So, whether or not humans are giving off subtle cues the fact is, regardless of controls or lack thereof, the dog is going to read it better than the wolf. And the jury is still out on whether reading humans is innate in all canids or just dogs. And someone else mentioned that a few generations of russian foxes is still a far cry from a dog.
    Yeah, I said that. And if I'm not mistaken I already made all of the points you made in this last paragraph.
    ron2:
    In other words, even if there is a lot of "hidden learning" with a dog pup, it's not going to change the observed fact that dogs read humans better than wolves or chimps [do].
    Now that's a good point. (But I think I either said or implied the same thing already.) The question is whether it's something inherent in the dog or something inherent in the human, or a combination of the two.
    ron2:
    Too bad you didn't read a q & a chat with [Miklosi].
    That is too bad. I didn't know there was one...

    LCK 

    "Clicker training has not taught me a whole bunch, other than that people can get wrapped up in fads and catch phrases." Bob Bailey

    "If a lion could talk we would not be able to understand him." Wittegenstein. "If a lion could talk we would understand him perfectly, but we would learn very little about ordinary lions from him."Daniel C. Dennett

    "Dogs don't care who's alpha and who's not. Only emotionally dysfunctional owners and trainers do." Jack Field
    • Post Points: 0
  • 05-15-2008 1:50 PM In reply to Lee Charles Kelley

    Re: Alpha rolls and the dominance myth

    Lee Charles Kelley:
    And whatever the kind of results have been "reached" so far that certainly doesn't mean that dogs are more intelligent than wolves or chimps, just that their adaptive emotional and social forms of intelligence are probably somehow tied to their interactions with human beings (probably through the process of EEC). It just means that dogs are more flexible, socially and emotionally, than wolves. We already knew that. And it has nothing to do with higher levels of intellect -- it's a huge mistake to think it does.
     

    I know you don't like responding to me (sorry I could not resist a snarky comment), but I do not think anyone claimed that there studies proved that dogs were more intelligent than wolves.  I know I did not and after reading alot of the work done by Miklosi and his colleagues, I know that they do not.  Indeed in his book he discusses the use (or misuse) of the term intelligence when discussing dogs and other animals.  They refer to cognitive abilities.

    Lee Charles Kelley:
    I haven't read Miklosi's study, but I did glance through some of his book. And it looks interesting. My main problem with the dog-pup/wolf-cub study is that if you ask me there weren't enough controls in place. Raising a puppy is a much more complicated process than can be scientifically evaluated properly. There are far too many hidden variables. You can raise three different pups from the same litter and each one will be paying attention to you in a different way at different times. And even if your response to each pup's behavior is always exactly the same (which it couldn't possibly be) the pup will extract different information from each interaction in any number of different ways that might not be apparent at the time, if at all, ever. So to take only 5 dogs and 5 wolves and have them interact with 10 humans, and expect the results to be conclusive or even an indicator of much of anything is quite a stretch. Then there's the fact that most humans have different unconscious, emotional responses to puppies than they would to a wolf cub, no matter how cute she is. These unconscious differences might be quite small, but over time they would be magnified, because each social interaction will set a template -- or will alter whatever template is already in place -- for the next experience, and the next, and the next.
     

    I would suggest you read the book.  A good portion of it deals with methodological issues, both in general and specifically in regards to this series of experiments.

    Lee Charles Kelley:
    You're missing my point almost entirely. Breeding for certain types of hunting skills automatically makes dogs more social. But breeding only for "social" characteristics can cause behavioral problems, aggression among them, that the breeder wasn't expecting.

    Do you have any proof of this? 

    Plus, sociability in Goldens and Labs was a trait that was selected for in addition to their hunting skills although a soft mouth and tractability are benefits to a social dog.  These factors were bred in due to the type of hunting retrievers were doing in Great Britain in the 19th century.  Frequently, a landowner (say Lord Tweedmouth) would have a kennel of retrievers and he would invite some of his friends to come and stay at his estate and hunt with him and his dogs.  Therefore, his dogs would need to be able to hunt under more than one hunter, thus human sociability was a trait selected for.  In addition, the guests would frequently bring their own retrievers which would be housed in the kennels with the hosts' dogs, taken to the hunting area together and finally hunted together.  Thus, it was imperative that the dogs were friendly with each other.

    However, that sociability with strangers and other dogs is not necessary to have a good retriever or even an element of the "retriever" hunting skill set.  Look at the Chessie.  Many people believe they are the best retriever around, but they are not sociable in the same way that Goldens, Labs and Flat-Coats are.  They were used singly or in pairs to hunt with their owner, but not necessarily with strangers.  Indeed, they were used to guard their owners boats.  Traditionally, they are not as friendly with strangers and can be dog aggressive, but (with the exception of the group aspect) they hunt the same way other retrievers do.  

    • Post Points: 0
Page 11 of 12 (166 items) « First ... < Previous 8 9 10 11 12 Next >
 
 
Contact Us | Help | Rules & Conduct | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | About Us
Copyright 2007, PetsUnited LLC