[lit-ideas] Re: Feral Dogs at the River
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:50:17 -0800
JL,
Actually, there is a way to “know” that a dog is “pure bred.” Various breeders
and some owners are obtaining genetic information about their dogs nowadays.
Quite a lot is known about the canine genome. One of the reasons for seeking
this information is to check on, and either avoid or prevent the passing on of
genetic disease. But I recall reference to one lady (on a Cesar Milan program)
obtaining genetic information of a mixed breed dog that had in its adulthood
become aggressive. One of the mixes was Akita, which wasn’t evident by looking
at the dog. I don’t recall the “markers” that distinguish the various breeds
but presumably the experts who are making money doing DNA tests for dog
fanciers do.
And no, I have no proof that the dog I saw at a distance was a purebred Boxer,
but if it were mixed-breed, why would someone go to the trouble of docking the
tail? This is a normal procedure for several breeds and they do it when the
pup is young; so while it is possible, I would be surprised if this dog I saw
wasn’t pure-bred; which doesn’t say a huge amount. “Back yard breeders”
produce pure-bred dogs.
And down at the river there aren’t any nearby houses to inquire at. North of
the river is a finger from of the San Jacinto Mountains. A couple of miles up
the river, to the North is the Soboba Indian Reservation. South of the River
are various enterprises: something that has squared off large areas for water.
I recall hearing this is some sort of “reclamation project.” At one time I saw
a worker with a couple of dogs, but usually no one is there. At another place
is a huge nursery enterprise. People who are probably migrant farm workers
from Mexico or further south work on it. None of them that I have seen has a
dog. East of the nursery a mile or so is an old property where the owner has
a couple of dogs, and years ago these dogs barked at us from a distance, but he
kept his dogs at his property.
The nearest housing community is perhaps a mile south of the river. It is a
gated upscale trailer park for retired people. Typically such people are
allowed only small dogs weighing 35 pounds or less. Beyond that is a tract of
houses, and while there is nothing to prevent a dog from making its way from
that community north to the River, I can’t imagine what its incentive would be.
In the past I have seen evidence that people who decide to abandon their dogs,
sometimes do that at the river. Our local animal shelter will destroy an
animal in a week or two if it looks as though it can’t be placed and there is
no evidence that anyone is looking for it. People who leave animals at the
river may be assuaging their consciences with the hope that someone came down
and rescued them, or that they learned to live happily with a pack of feral
dogs.
Others find a likely looking neighborhood and abandon their dogs there. We
have four such dogs since we’ve lived in San Jacinto. We didn’t keep any of
them, but we did find homes for them. It is difficult, but possible. I
suspect though that had the old dog I referred to followed me back to the Jeep,
I would not have been able to find a home for it.
As to my ambivalence about the use of the term “feral,” as you can see from the
above, I cannot be sure how long a given dog has been at the river. The dogs I
saw may have been there only a short time. My girls and I have been going to
the river quite a lot recently and have never seen those two dogs before. This
could mean that they came west from the Indian Reservation, or it could mean
that they came East or North from mountainous regions, but it could mean that
they were recently abandoned there.
I have seen dogs down there running in packs who were as skittish of us as a
pack of coyotes, but the dogs we saw yesterday, especially the older one,
didn’t behave in that way. I most often use the term “feral” to refer to dogs
we see down there, but I don’t know how feral anymore than I know how purebred.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:08 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Feral Dogs at the River
Lawrence Helm shares with the list an interesting story. Some running
comments:
>I expected Ginger to especially appreciate the coolness.
Exactly -- what is it with coolness. Whenever I'm out on a very cool day I
think of Orwell at St. Cyprian: Spartanity of it all. But then the Spartans
never suffered from too cool a weather did they?
>we saw two dogs, one of which was a Boxer. From its docked tail and
appearance I assumed it to be pure bred.
That's an interesting philosophical question -- for the epistemologist. I
wonder, and would ask R. Paul this, how can we _prove_ if a dog is purebred.
The
silly folks at the A. K. A. just ask for the 'papers' -- so, I assume there
is _no_ way to know, genetically or genomically, whether the thing is a
thoroughbred or not, right. Liza Minnelli used to proudly display: "Artist? I'm
a
thoroughbred".
>The feral dogs, if that�s what they were, seemed to be guarding something.
It's interesting to analyse a bit this interesting adjective, 'feral' cfr.
N. Smith and his book on 'savage sauvant'.
The online Latin Short/Lewis has it:
ferus. Cognate with Greek th�r, Aeolian dialect ph�r; also with Lat. ferox,
etc.; v. ferio]. So we have 'ferocity' as related. Oddly, Grice was sometimes
concerned about homophones, and in Latin it seems 'feralis' is _only_ used
for 'funerary rite'. A true homophone in Engilsh, now.
The she-wolf that suckled Romulus for example is described as "Romulea fera"
by Juvenal 11, 104. who belongs to the same ordo of dogs (?) and she was
found by the river, too -- and guarding none other than the memorable couple of
babies. But, well, some say it's metonymic for 'prostitute' (cfr. 'lupanare',
italian for brothel)
Under 'ferio', the Short Lewis gives:
"perhaps cognate with Sanscr. dhur-, injure, destroy. Cognate with Lat.
ferus, ferox; Gr. th�r; Aeol. ph�r; cf. Gr. thourios, impetuous, thorein, to
leap; and Lat. furere, furia, etc.].
I like the cognateness with 'fury', though.
Helm continues:
>The feral dogs ran a few steps toward us and barked threateningly.
"We kept moving forward. I yelled, �is anyone there? Are you okay?� No
one answered.
"What they had been guarding, or at least interested in, was a dead
animal.[coyote]"
"I probably won�t learn the solution to that feral-dog mystery."
Nor will your readers, I guess. :(
_Very strange_. I guess you could investigate if someone in the
neighbourhood had recently or not so recently lost his boxer. Such a good
breed.
Oddly, if you use 'feral' now you are using it in the second homophone
sense, too:
So it's like the feral of the feral:
feral:
From the Latin feralis: pertaining to the dead.]
The pun wouldn't do in Latin for the -al of 'feral' (qua wild) is later than
the -al of 'feral' (qua funerary).
Very good story. My other favourite of ferals guarding, if that's what it is
from Disney, "The Jungle Books" -- Mowgli. Although in both Lupa and Mowgli
they were guarding something 'alive', as it were. As for dogs guarding the
dead, my favourite has to go to Landseer's two paintings: the Sheperd's grave
and the shepherd's coffin -- not ferals at all, so should not count.
A good chapter I was recently reading about ferality is the "Fox" chapter in
Little Prince. It describes so well what it means to be a feral. It's
online, of course.
And it also echoes on the 'ferality', if that's what it is, of "Into the
Wild" the recent film directed by S. Penn _apres_ a bestseller (posthumous) by
a
would-be savage savant. I especially hated the ending: to be killed by a
poisonous mushroom. Very bitter in the ultimate message. But that's Sean Penn
for ya!
Cheers,
JL Speranza
Other related posts:
