The selective pressure of a .338 Winchester Magnum, is not to be underestimated.
Funny thing is something similar occurs in lab mice. Where a technician is selecting a mouse for cull the more aggressive mice are more likely to be the ones selected. Problem mice who kill their littermates can ruin experiments.
What portion of lab mice are from genetically stable inbred lines? I assumed most of them were from those lines due to their predictable characteristics. C57BL/6 being predictably kind of bitey for example
same with russian fox fur breeders. i don't remember the numbers, but after a surprisingly small number of generations the foxes turned into cat-like pets.
Yes, that's a quite famous experiment, and still ongoing. Similar effects of "domestication syndrome" have recently been reported in wild urban foxes and raccoons.
Not in the literal sense (which would semantically impossible), but we have domesticated ourselves with the advent of farming and the domestication of crop plants. We fundamentally changed our own lifestyle into an agricultural one, the same we changed lifestyle of several large mammal species to co-exist with us in that agricultural lifestyle. So perhaps in some sense, maybe we actually did literally domesticated ourselves.
Makes sense. The more aggressive bears would be more likely to get in fights with humans, which generally turns out badly for the bear, either immediately or from being subsequently hunted down. OTOH, more cooperative bears will more likely be tolerated and even fed, like this bear (different population) who started out as a nuisance to the beekeeper[0] and now is an 'official' taste tester.
I’m all for analysis of, and challenges to, research studies. If we don’t have that we can’t do science. But I don’t like sneering, knee jerk statements like ourmandave’s Yeah, this seems related to the "raccoons becoming domesticated" bullsht.*
I watched the video ourmandave pointed us to where NessieExplains points out what she says are flaws in the study suggesting raccoons are becoming domesticated:
Her criticisms and conclusions may well be correct, but her video is really just her saying her conclusions are correct. She downloaded the data and did her own analysis and points to results in her spreadsheets. It all flies by quite quickly. We have to take her word for it. She also made a snarky comment about this line in the R code:
# 57% Let’s see what we can do to change that!
But the next lines in the code are:
# what if we remove those pictures that we had issues measuring?
# that would be gbifIDs: 4855527033, 4096474261, 2311326414, 4528316516
# Vector of IDs to exclude - the image quality was too bad after all
ids_to_exclude <- c(4855527033, 4096474261, 4528316516, 2311326414)
So the authors tell us what weak data they’re removing, but the data is still available if other researchers want to put it back in. They are not hiding anything. We do not have to take their word about their conclusions. If NessieExplains does not publish her criticisms she is asking us to take her word for what she says.
She says in the video that she’s an actual raccoon biologist. According to her web site she is pursuing a master’s in biology (nessieexplains.com/about-nessie-explains/) although there is no date on the page, so she may have completed the degree already.
As I say, she may well be correct, but I have no way of knowing.
Funny thing is something similar occurs in lab mice. Where a technician is selecting a mouse for cull the more aggressive mice are more likely to be the ones selected. Problem mice who kill their littermates can ruin experiments.
[0] https://time.com/5664393/bear-beekeeper-video/
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qI-Dd4MqYEc
tldw; raccoon study was flawed.
I watched the video ourmandave pointed us to where NessieExplains points out what she says are flaws in the study suggesting raccoons are becoming domesticated:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12983-025-00583-1
The data set and the code used to analyze the data are at https://osf.io/56xcg/overview.
Her criticisms and conclusions may well be correct, but her video is really just her saying her conclusions are correct. She downloaded the data and did her own analysis and points to results in her spreadsheets. It all flies by quite quickly. We have to take her word for it. She also made a snarky comment about this line in the R code:
But the next lines in the code are: So the authors tell us what weak data they’re removing, but the data is still available if other researchers want to put it back in. They are not hiding anything. We do not have to take their word about their conclusions. If NessieExplains does not publish her criticisms she is asking us to take her word for what she says.She says in the video that she’s an actual raccoon biologist. According to her web site she is pursuing a master’s in biology (nessieexplains.com/about-nessie-explains/) although there is no date on the page, so she may have completed the degree already.
As I say, she may well be correct, but I have no way of knowing.
https://nhmu.utah.edu/articles/animals-who-have-adapted-live...