Why the bad rap? - Bad Owners
wo...@wolfdog.com
hack...@aol.com wrote:
>um...actually...the end part is wrong..."Treating them like dogs" refers
>not to teaching the animal to survive..but to make it do what you want it
>to...and that is not what nature structured there learning for...the
>original teachings as you stated were to hunt and survive on there
>own...not listen to human commands such as "sit" or "roll over"
>because the the end product is usually "you stupid thing!! you Don't
>listen!" and um..I would just like to add as my *opinion* that wolves
>probably learn alot about survival from self experience(trial and error,
>and experiencing for themselves)..hhmmm...then again that's probably a
>fact isn't it...
>anyways...I like the post other than the end :D
>Daren & alot of wolvesssoooFFF!!!! :::pounced again:::
>(HaCk...@aol.com)
>"And in lupine ways..." ---Type O Negative, Wolfmoon
>"I will Fight till I die and I wont die till the last wolf falls!...and
>none will fall while I live..."
>----a wanderer...all see him...but none will ever truely understand.....
Now my bucks worth!
No actually you are incorrect.
If you take a wolf that was raised outside it's pack without training
by other wolves or humans and release it into the wild, it will either
be killed or it will starve to death. Survival traits are a learned
behavior. Hunger only gives it the drive to eat, it does not give it
the skills to obtain that food and if you think it will learn that
skill, it won't. It will die long before it gains them. Even the
predatory response can and has been trained out and is being done
all the time.
It is a modification of their behavior that enables that to happen.
All carnivors are predators, including the cocker spanial.
A dog pack can make a formadable wolf pack if brought up and trained
that way and because they have lost the basic fear of humans, are far
more dangerous than a wolf pack. I have experienced both and do not
ever relish the encounter of another wild dog pack. We have come
accross two of them in my 50 yrs on earth and that was twice to many.
Wolves can become "dogs", companions and are quite happy doing so
with people that give them the care and understanding that any canid
deserves. As with any animal some are easy and some are more
difficult. But it CAN and is being done by many.
All of the rhetoric that a wolf is so much different than many of the
more "enthuastic" dog breeeds is and has been made by people that have
NOT raised them or have had no knowledge of how to raise anything
beyond the level of a hamster and have received their education on the
subject soley by heresay or books or illconceived attempts to raise
them based on the methods used to raise a stuffed animal !! Of this I
am certain.
A closely bonded and caring relationship is a prequisite to raising
any animal. It is not possible to keep an animal in a cage or chained
and acheive that relationship. They have to become part of your life
and you of theirs. This is true of any animal. The wolf is a loving,
energetic, and independant being that will adapt to living with humans
as well or better than many "dogs", when raised by a human that gives
of themself to make it happen. As with many "dogs" training does not
mean a "rollover fido". It means it has manners and has been taught to
live with respect for its current pack, which is the human and are
very happy to do so. Respect is needed by all concerned and acceptable
and unacceptable behavior differences is required learning as it is
with a human child. The only difference is the communication medium
and that is really not that far off either. Anyone who is not willing
to meet them halfway, so that they may do the same should not have an
animal of any kind. To those that do make the effort, the rewards are
worth more than anything that I can place a value on.
If people want to criticize and condemn the wolfdog, let them live
with and raise them over several years and then We might listen to
them. To those that have not and derive their information from someone
elses misconceived notions show their colors within the first few
words they project. Live with them learn them become part of them and
then come back and tell us. That does not mean put them in a cage or
compound and watch them, that means live with them alongside you and
with you on a daily basis. Give up the material goods and allow them
to live with you. A dozen pieces of furniture is well worth the
sacrifice to have them in your family. Anyone not willing to have that
close of a relationship, get a stuffed animal and forget the live
ones.
To dog people that condemn the wolfdog, educate yourself on them as
you do on the breed of dog that you love and you will learn to love
them too. The wolfdog is a wonderful animal and has traits that we
have been unable to find in Labs, German Shepherds, Great Danes,
Ridgebacks or other breeds that we have also raised, rescued and lived
with. Their intelligence is exceptional and they are a pleasure to be
around.
We support those who do not want their "favorite" dogs banned or
excessively regulated or bad mouthed. We only ask the same respect of
those same people for our choice of companion animal. They are our
family as ,your animals are your "family" and companions.. The
constant negativity that is thrown out by either wolf purists or Dog
people or just plain anti-animal people is a reason I seldom visit
this board anymore. It becomes too tedious to lead the blind and the
time is better spent with the animals.
Someday I truly pray that all this changes and all come to accept
others choices rather than force their narrowminded ideas and ways
upon others. It always seems that there are some that are never happy
unless they can dictate misery upon others. Be careful, because that
misery will come back to haunt you 10 fold. Learn to be accepting and
tolerant of those that do things differently than you may think is the
only way. It is not, and you will never change others, to your narrow
views. Some people like horses, some like cats, some like birds and
there are many varieties in all of them. Some like Danes, some like
poodles and some like, Affenpinschers, <G> We happen to like northern
breeds and wolfdogs. To each his own. Learn tolerance of others wishes
and likes and it will make for a far better world. No one will ever
tell me that wolves and wolfdogs are untrainable and don't make loving
safe companions.........Why, because I know firsthand that they can
and do.
As Lynn A says all animals are trainable. Ability and knowledge of
them is the only prerequisite along with desire to do so.
Commitment is the most important thing to give any animal in human
care. I have watched the thread about regulations and bans and the
long unending exchange between those on the rec. boards and here for
a while and have stayed out of the fray for the most part. Now I am
saying my piece and will go back to the animals where better things
happen and common sense prevails.
G & B
wo...@wolfdog.com
myst @wolfdog.com
OBVC
Wolf-dog breeders are ignoring one important fact. They are ignoring
50,000 years of domestication Canis lupus familiaris has that their
wolves do not have. A hell of a lot of temperment and behavior
selection has gone on in that time, which you can never get in a
lifetime of wolf-dog mixes. You are dealing with wild animals, and wild
animal behavior. "Socialization" does little to alter instinct and
survival behavior. Wild animals behave and respond to stimuli very
different than domesticated animals. Quit fooling yourselves to believe
differently.
nad...@erols.com
Where in the hell did you get 50,000 years from??? 12-14,000 maybe,
50,000. Have all the scientists been lying to me all these years?? ROTFL
HARD!!!
L.D.Andrade
Well, scientific accuracy is certainly not your strong point.
The earliest record of wolf with man is a burial site in the
Middle East dating back about 12,000 yrs. You are only 76%
incorrect. Even if you assume that for a wolf to be burried
with a human, there was a kinship for many years before, you
maybe could make a case for 18,000 yrs or so.
All dog behavior is merely selected out (less than the whole)
wolf behavior. You might want to study animal behavior
as your grasp is a strong as you knowledge of dates.
L.A.
nad...@erols.com
Lynn: I would put it this way instead: All adult dog behavior is merely
juvenile wolf behavior.
Cindy Tittle Moore
nad...@erols.com writes:
>Lynn: I would put it this way instead: All adult dog behavior is merely
>juvenile wolf behavior.
And you don't think that creates a significant difference between
wolves and dogs and leads to the unpredictability of WH's? That's
*exactly* the problem! People think that WH's and wolves behave like
dogs and can be treated like dogs and nothing's further from the
truth.
--Cindy
--
*********** tit...@netcom.com ** http://www.zmall.com/tittle.html ***********
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the
definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to
send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to
recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation.
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
WebbWeave
Quote:
I would put it this way instead: All adult dog behavior is merely
juvenile wolf behavior.
Now, *there's* a sweeping statement.
Jane Webb
Moon and Mudpie
L.D.Andrade
Somewhat over simplistic but a fair generalization - Behavior
Juvinle Wolf to dog.
There is nothing inherently unpredictable about WH
behavior. They do require owners who have enough mental
capacity to meet their needs.
We can all be glad, therefore, that Cindy won't be getting one.
L.A.
In a previous article, tit...@netcom.com. (Cindy Tittle Moore) says:
>nad...@erols.com writes:
>
>>Lynn: I would put it this way instead: All adult dog behavior is merely
>>juvenile wolf behavior.
>
Stormkloud
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
>People think that WH's and wolves behave like
> dogs and can be treated like dogs and nothing's further from the
> truth.
>
> --Cindy
>
Cindy, dont be so presumptous about "people". You have your opinion of
them, and I guess you enjoy putting them all into the same class for
amusement. Who are all the people you know, who have wolfhybrids because
they want dogs? If I would have wanted a "dog" I would have chose one. I
have many reasons for living in the same home as my hybrids, and I have
never turned them into "pets". They are my companions, and will be for the
next 14 or so years. No, I dont want an animal who has had 12, or whatever
thousand years of mans domestication fully in it. And by doing countless
hours of research into wolf pack behavior, and everything else one can do
without actually living in the same den with wolves, is what I did BEFORE
I even thought about getting my hybrids. Most of us DO NOT brag about our
animals, unless personally asked informations about them. My neighbors
love my animals, as well as the neighborhood children, the mailman...ect.
In fact I talked to my mailman many times about his dog encounters, and
how many countless times he has had to mace a dog, who came bounding out
after him, NOT on leash, or loose in an unfenced yard. He has high regards
for my animals, even my little one, who I showed him through the window,
as I didnt want to take her out in the cold to show him. He said, if she
grows up to be as well behaved an animal as my two year old, he commended
me for taking such good care of them. Now, I have nothing to prove to
you, but you are making it your business to come here and expect us to
prove "something" to you. You already have it in your mind to condem us
for what we have as our companions. I would say that most here have more
tact, as we have had bad experiences with domestic dogs, but we dont
catigorize all of them into the "bad" doggies. You and some others act
like we are all kids, with no intellect, who just walk up to a person
selling hybrids, with no education, and go "oky doky, you betcha, Ill take
2 of those, KEWL animals, and Ill learn as I go along". I THINK NOT. Maybe
you will earn some respect here, if you wish to play along with whatever
it is you are interested in learning, by showing some respect. I enjoy
teaching and educating, but only if the person I am trying to educate, is
really interested, in learning.
Stormy
> By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the
> definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to
> send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to
> recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation.
> See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
>
>
"Luna and Kodiak, my Children of the Night"
"What sweet music they make!"
Stormy.......In the Company of Wolves! Right KC!
Cindy Tittle Moore
hv...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (L.D.Andrade) writes:
>There is nothing inherently unpredictable about WH
>behavior. They do require owners who have enough mental
>capacity to meet their needs.
Sure there is. You don't know to what extent the WH will retain
juvenile characteristics or not. That's the gotcha. That's why you
can have some WH owners not have trouble and others have quite a bit.
It is this unpredictability that makes the breeding of WH's so
unethical. A good, ethical, breeder does everything they can to
ensure that their animals are predictably tempered.
No, I won't be getting one, and I continue to advise those who ask me
not to get one. And as long as I see this stuff here in rpd.breeds
I'll speak out. You don't want to listen to me, quit crossposting.
You know very well I don't normally appear in the alt. groups, a
dejanews check will bear that out.
I'd save your venom for people who hunt you out in your newsgroups
and provoke arguments there.
--Cindy
--
*********** tit...@netcom.com ** http://www.zmall.com/tittle.html ***********
Cindy Tittle Moore
Stormkloud <luna...@primenet.com> writes:
>they want dogs? If I would have wanted a "dog" I would have chose one. I
>have many reasons for living in the same home as my hybrids, and I have
>never turned them into "pets". They are my companions, and will be for the
>next 14 or so years. No, I dont want an animal who has had 12, or whatever
>thousand years of mans domestication fully in it. And by doing countless
So why do you have wolf hybrids then? Why not wolves? This isn't
logic. Not that I *expect* logic, but if you try to *present* it
logically, the above doesn't wash. The hybrid is 50% tainted by your
own reasoning, why don't you have wolves?
ANTINORO, FRANK JOSEPH
In article <tittleE4...@netcom.com>, tit...@netcom.com. (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes...
>nad...@erols.com writes:
>
>>Lynn: I would put it this way instead: All adult dog behavior is merely
>>juvenile wolf behavior.
>
>And you don't think that creates a significant difference between
>wolves and dogs and leads to the unpredictability of WH's? That's
>dogs and can be treated like dogs and nothing's further from the
>truth.
>
>--Cindy
The "unpredictability" of wolfdogs is a myth, spread by people with little or
no direct experience with them. If you study (really -study-, not just read a
few books) wolf behavior, you can always predict wolfdog behavior in any
situation. The problem, as pointed out by many in this newsgroup, is with
-people-, not the animals. A well-bonded, socialized, trained wolfdog is no
more dangerous than any dog. In fact, if you study wolf behavior, and train
your wolfdog accordingly, it will be safer and better-mannered than a dog.
I really don't believe that anyone with wolfdog experience has ever said that
wolfdogs and wolves behave like dogs. Wolfdogs and wolves are much more
intelligent than dogs, and, although training is much more intense and takes
longer, can be trained to a much higher level than a dog.
Bob
Right, and that is the beauty of it all...If I wanted a dog I would get
a dog. If I want a wolf (and know what that means) then I should be able
to have a wolf. Rules and laws that make it impossible for such a
freedom are wrong.
WBob
Jack Shollenberger
In <Pine.BSI.3.95.970122...@usr01.primenet.com>
>> dogs and can be treated like dogs and nothing's further from the
>> truth.
>>
>> --Cindy
>>
>them, and I guess you enjoy putting them all into the same class for
>amusement. Who are all the people you know, who have wolfhybrids
chose one. I>have many reasons for living in the same home as my
hybrids, and I have>never turned them into "pets".
"pets" keyword...This is something that wolf-dogs are NOT>..Thus
shouldn't be sold as such. Regardless of my feelings of breeding these
guys..this is the PROBLEM. They are NOT pets...they are
"companions"..Now if you can tell me that ALL prospective owners are
told this..then I wouldn't be so against this..however you know as well
as I that this doesn't ocurr..the wolf-dogs that I have met are indeed
beautiful...however they are not pets...And unfortunately they spend
their lives outside in solitude..the absolute worst for a wolf-dog, or
they end up getting euthanized. Prospective owners are NOT told that
these are not pets...
They are my companions, and will be for the
>next 14 or so years. No, I dont want an animal who has had 12, or
whatever.thousand years of mans domestication fully in it. And by doing
countless>hours of research into wolf pack behavior, and everything
else one can do>without actually living in the same den with wolves, is
what I did BEFORE>I even thought about getting my hybrids.
And that is you...however I can guarantee you that most wolf-hybrid
owners have no idea what they are getting into..and in the end the
wolf-hybrid is the one to suffer..
Most of us DO NOT brag about our>animals, unless personally asked
informations about them. My neighbors>love my animals, as well as the
neighborhood children, the mailman...ect.>In fact I talked to my
mailman many times about his dog encounters, and>how many countless
times he has had to mace a dog, who came bounding out>after him, NOT on
leash, or loose in an unfenced yard. He has high regards>for my
animals, even my little one, who I showed him through the window,>as I
didnt want to take her out in the cold to show him. He said, if
she>grows up to be as well behaved an animal as my two year old, he
commended>me for taking such good care of them.
I don't recall anybody claiming that you didn't love, or properly take
care of your wolf-hybrids...However you are not the norm..Take a look
in the paper..wolf-hybrids are becoming more and more popular...Soon
they will be the "tough guys" favorite choice.
Now, I have nothing to prove to>you, but you are making it your
business to come here and expect us to>prove "something" to you. You
already have it in your mind to condem us>for what we have as our
companions. I would say that most here have more
>tact, as we have had bad experiences with domestic dogs, but we dont
>catigorize all of them into the "bad" doggies. You and some others act
>like we are all kids, with no intellect, who just walk up to a person
>selling hybrids, with no education, and go "oky doky, you betcha, Ill
take>2 of those, KEWL animals, and Ill learn as I go along". I THINK
NOT. Maybe>you will earn some respect here, if you wish to play along
with whatever>it is you are interested in learning, by showing some
respect. I enjoy>teaching and educating, but only if the person I am
trying to educate, is>really interested, in learning.
Stormy...now you did state that these are not pets...so why not protect
what you love and insure the wolf-hybrids of the future the security
and proper handling they love..by requiring a special license for these
guys? To make sure that all new owners understood completely what
wolf-hybrids need as far as training, diet, exercise, etc...to prevent
the needless deaths of these guys when in the wrong hands?
Lorrie
>Stormy
>
>> By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the
>> definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
unlawful to
>> send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by
action to
>> recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for
each violation.
>> See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
OBVC
In article <22JAN199...@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>,
anti...@violet.ccit.arizona.edu says...
> A well-bonded, socialized, trained wolfdog is no
>more dangerous than any dog. In fact, if you study wolf behavior, and
train
>your wolfdog accordingly, it will be safer and better-mannered than a
dog.
>
>I really don't believe that anyone with wolfdog experience has ever
said that
>wolfdogs and wolves behave like dogs. Wolfdogs and wolves are much
more
>intelligent than dogs, and, although training is much more intense and
takes
>longer, can be trained to a much higher level than a dog.
>
chihuahua , cocker spaniel) for wolfdog and you get any owner praising
their own breed.... because of the traits they think it has.
*Insertyourbreedhere* are the best in the world because
*listofreasonslogicalornot*.
WebbWeave
Quote:
Wolfdogs and wolves are much more
intelligent than dogs
That's a pretty sweeping statement, too -- and not true. Any animal can be
dumb or smart.
What wolves have that dogs don't is caution. ANy wild animal is hard-wired
for survival, and domestic animals have lost this, to a great extent.
The consequences are that, unless they are *closely* watched, wild animals
can easily misinterpret the comings and going of human life as
threatening, and react accordingly.
Most people (and certainly the ones who think WHs are KEWL) do not have
the time/energy/knowledge to do this.
Catherine A. Potter
In article <5c6lm5$c...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
jsho...@ix.netcom.com(Jack Shollenberger) wrote:
(snips)
> Stormy...now you did state that these are not pets...so why not protect
> what you love and insure the wolf-hybrids of the future the security
> and proper handling they love..by requiring a special license for these
> guys? To make sure that all new owners understood completely what
> wolf-hybrids need as far as training, diet, exercise, etc...to prevent
> the needless deaths of these guys when in the wrong hands?
>
> Lorrie
>
The exact same thing can, and should be said about all breeds of dogs.
Many "regular" dog breeds require special handling, special knowledge,
have special needs as far as diet, training, exercise, etc. So how do you
justify not requiring *all* of those dog owners to get that special
license as well?
Walk into any local pound and you'll see dogs of any and every breed
waiting for the rare chance to be rescued, or the much greater chance
they'll be killed because some idiot couldn't take proper care of it, or
handle it, or train it and wound up with a problem dog. Look around any
neighborhood with open eyes and you'll see poor sad dogs, unsocialized,
untrained, ignored, "back-yard dogs" - candidates for "euthanasia", or, if
they're very lucky, rescue. Are there any popular dog breeds that *don't*
have rescues?
Yes, wolfdogs do require some special knowledge and need a great deal of
attention and time. Those who don't get this can become big problems.
Then again, that expensive, AKC registered German Shepherd that lives near
me is already a problem because she hasn't had the proper training and
socializing and doesn't get near enough exercise in her tiny yard. She's
extremely aggressive, a neurotic barker, and IMO, a bite waiting to
happen. The poor boxer across the street is a back yard dog, a constant
barker also, and I've yet to see his owners interact with him except to
throw food & water in his bowls. It's sad to see how hungry he is for a
little love and attention. The lap sharks next door ran loose because
their owner thought it would be cruel to confine them. They've already
met their deaths - run over by cars. One had bitten a man walking up the
street, also. What would you have to say to all of these clueless dog
owners that's different from what you'd say to a clueless wolfdog owner?
Shouldn't all these people be required to get special licenses also?
Cathy Potter
Bob
I think you have the formula correct. Those that think wolfdogs are just
dogs are as wrong as those that think wolfdogs are always untrainable
and wild animals.
WolfBob
OBVC wrote:
>
> In article <22JAN199...@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>,
> anti...@violet.ccit.arizona.edu says...
> > A well-bonded, socialized, trained wolfdog is no
> >more dangerous than any dog. In fact, if you study wolf behavior, and
> train
> >your wolfdog accordingly, it will be safer and better-mannered than a
> dog.
> >
> >I really don't believe that anyone with wolfdog experience has ever
> said that
> >wolfdogs and wolves behave like dogs. Wolfdogs and wolves are much
> more
Nancy E. Holmes
In <cpotter-2301...@purchase2.esb.utexas.edu>
cpo...@mail.utexas.edu (Catherine A. Potter) writes:
snip previous post
>>
>
>The exact same thing can, and should be said about all breeds of dogs.
>Many "regular" dog breeds require special handling, special knowledge,
>have special needs as far as diet, training, exercise, etc. So how do
you
>justify not requiring *all* of those dog owners to get that special
>license as well?
Cathy-
Few (if any) regular dog breeds require special handling, knowlege,
training,exercise or diets. SOME breeders require people to follow odd
diets, training methods, exercise programs etc.
What dogs require is training, socialization, exercise and feeding of
nutritious food to mature into companion animals. Hybrids require -
according to all theowners that have emailed me and who's posts I have
read here- MOREsocialization, training and exercise and abigger and
more secure yardarea than the average dog of any breed does. Some
owners have even stated that hybrids must be fed special diets not a
good dog food.
Currently the law does require certain standards of dog owners. Some of
us think that it would be in the interests of hybrids to have higher
requirements on their owners to match their greater needs. I do keep
wondering how people can claim a difference in hybrids on the one hand,
and then protest any need for prospective owners to show the ability to
cater to those different needs on the other.
Are the people who protest the loudest ones that think they have the
least qualification to meet any ownership criteria should a regulation
get passed?
nancy
Jack Shollenberger
>jsho...@ix.netcom.com(Jack Shollenberger) wrote:
>(snips)
>> Stormy...now you did state that these are not pets...so why not
protect>> what you love and insure the wolf-hybrids of the future the
security>> and proper handling they love..by requiring a special
license for these>> guys? To make sure that all new owners understood
completely what>> wolf-hybrids need as far as training, diet, exercise,
etc...to prevent>> the needless deaths of these guys when in the wrong
hands?
>>
>> Lorrie
>>
>
Wait a minute..wolf-hybrids..are NOT a breed of dog...They are not a
wolf and not a dog....big difference. As Stormy pointed out they are
not pets either..they are companions.
>Many "regular" dog breeds require special handling, special knowledge,
>have special needs as far as diet, training, exercise, etc. So how do
you>justify not requiring *all* of those dog owners to get that special
>license as well?
Again wolf-hybrids are NOT dogs..and many "regular" breeds of dog do
not require special handling..etc..all dogs do require socialization
and training..however you know as well as I that wolfFrom: jsho...@ix.netcom.com(Jack Shollenberger)
Newsgroups: alt.wolves,rec.pets.dogs.breeds,rec.pets.dogs,rec.pets.dogs.activities,rec.pets.dogs.behavior,rec.pets.dogs.health,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.dogs.rescue
Subject: Re: Why the bad rap? - Bad Owners
References: <5btt6j$q...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu> <19970120023...@ladder01.news.aol.com> <5c1rcs$5vp$1...@nadine.teleport.com> <5c2qro$jkk$1...@news.structured.net> <5c40vt$9...@madeline.INS.CWRU.Edu> <32E61C...@erols.com> <tittleE4...@netcom.com> <Pine.BSI.3.95.970122...@usr01.primenet.com> <5c6lm5$c...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> <cpotter-2301...@purchase2.esb.utexas.edu>
In <cpotter-2301...@purchase2.esb.utexas.edu>
cpo...@mail.utexas.edu (Catherine A. Potter) writes:
>
>In article <5c6lm5$c...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
>jsho...@ix.netcom.com(Jack Shollenberger) wrote:
>(snips)
>> Stormy...now you did state that these are not pets...so why not
protect>> what you love and insure the wolf-hybrids of the future the
security>> and proper handling they love..by requiring a special
license for these>> guys? To make sure that all new owners understood
completely what>> wolf-hybrids need as far as training, diet, exercise,
etc...to prevent>> the needless deaths of these guys when in the wrong
hands?
>>
>> Lorrie
>>
>
>The exact same thing can, and should be said about all breeds of dogs.
Wait a minute..wolf-hybrids..are NOT a breed of dog...They are not a
wolf and not a dog....big difference. As Stormy pointed out they are
not pets either..they are companions.
>Many "regular" dog breeds require special handling, special knowledge,
>have special needs as far as diet, training, exercise, etc. So how do
you>justify not requiring *all* of those dog owners to get that special
>license as well?
Again wolf-hybrids are NOT dogs..and many "regular" breeds of dog do
not require special handling..etc..all dogs do require socialization
and training..however you know as well as I that wolfis destined to live his life outside. Now when I go
to visit my parents in the spring..you know what? I am going to do
what I can for him..I am going to educate his owners..and attempt to
find him a better placement...My heart aches for this guy..and in my
mind breeders of these guys are causing it.
The poor boxer across the street is a back yard dog, a constant
>barker also, and I've yet to see his owners interact with him except
to>throw food & water in his bowls. It's sad to see how hungry he is
for a>little love and attention.
Again..what do you do about it?
The lap sharks next door ran loose because
>their owner thought it would be cruel to confine them. They've
already>met their deaths - run over by cars. One had bitten a man
walking up the>street, also. What would you have to say to all of
these clueless dog>owners that's different from what you'd say to a
clueless wolfdog owner?
The difference? Wolves belong in the wild..they do NOT belong on
somebody's back porch..or God forbid in a 10ft x 4 ft..enclosed kennel
for the rest of their lives. Stormy has already proclaimed as has many
other wolf-hybrid owners that they are not "pets" ...so why then do you
get upset when I suggest that they not be sold as "pets"? Again...to
say that you love the wolf..means unconditionally..that is true
love..and Unconditional love does not mean the desire to change. That
is exactly what you are doing to the wolf..you are robbing it of it's
true nature..Heck if you love the wolf..educate people on the
wolf..help with the efforts to reintroduce it to nature? Don't you get
it? The more wolf-dogs there are out there that are not in the right
homes..are indeed promoting the "big bad wolf"...thus hurting the REAL
wolf. I am not saying that you don't love your wolf-hybrid..what I am
saying is that it is a SELFISH love. You love the wolf..but yet you
wish to domesticate it..To me this is no different then owning a Cougar
for a pet...it's wrong.
Having just seen yet another program on The Animal Planet..regarding a
couple that "lived with wolves" for a year in order to video tape them
to understand pack behavior..as well as the "wolf" behavior..they took
in 3 cubs and raised them from a bottle as well as 2 adults..Well after
the year they "kindly" placed them on an Indian Reservation..in and
enclosed 25 acre area..The indians take care of them..but the people
that meant to help them actually hindered them..they will never know
the true meaning of being free...to me that is not love.
Lorrie
WebbWeave
Now, I ask you, how can an animal be 90% wolf? That would take ten
generations of breeding -- after the original dog/wolf cross -- to nothing
but wolves.
Hogwash.
ANTINORO, FRANK JOSEPH
In article <32E6F9...@csnsys.com>, wol...@csnsys.com writes...
Please, do a little research before making a fool of yourself. Many dog breeds
have traits that are "wilder" than those in wolves and wolfdogs. For example,
Border Collies have a much stronger prey instinct than wolves and wolfdogs.
Akitas are much more territorial in relation to humans. These are just two
examples of many.
nad...@erols.com
Cindy: The BIG problem with your marble theory is that both dishes are
filled with "wolf gene" marbles, only a few are mottled in the dog dish.
It takes very few genes to make a big difference in phenotype. So
actually you would be looking at less than 1% diff. Instead of 50%, you
would be looking at 0.5% of the 1% diff. You are right about the
possibility of high segregation, although it works the exact same way in
dogs too!
Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
>
> Steve Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> writes:
>
> >But I will say this. I know someone with two wolf/dog hybrids. They
> >appear to me to be mostly wolf and he *claims* that they're 90% wolf.
>
> I love this. How does he know they're 90%? You can't construct a
> pedigree that shows 90% even if you make the assumption that exactly
> half the genes get passed along each generation.
>
> That's one of my biggest gripes. Without a DNA test, it is impossible
> to tell how much wolf/dog a hybrid has unless it is a first generation
> cross (those are 50-50). If you mate two 50-50's together, while the
> *odds* are that the puppies will generally be 50-50 as well, this is
> NOT perfect, and you can wind up with ranges from (in theory) 100%
> wolf to 100% dog and (in practice) 40-60 either way. Subsequent
> generations make it even more variant until you simply have no way of
> knowing what the "percentage" is. WH breeders and owners so
> frequently stress their WH's percentages that it's obvious they know
> nothing about genetics.
>
> Don't believe me? Let me illustrate with a dish of black marbles and
> another dish of white marbles. One is "dog genes" and the other is
> "wolf genes". Make a puppy out of these marbles, you pick half the
> white and half the black. Thus the first generation cross has half
> white and half black marbles. OK, now let's breed two of these 1/2
> and 1/2 together. You are going to remove 1/2 the marbles at random
> from one dish and combine it with 1/2 the marbles from the other dish.
> You will NOT have half white and half black marbles in this second
> generation cross! Statistically, if you do this many times, you will
> find the values for these dishes *average* half-half. This means that
> there is a certain amount of variation for any individual dish -- one
> dish might have 20% white and 80% black, another 40% black and 60%
> white, etc.
>
> --Cindy
> --
> *********** tit...@netcom.com ** http://www.zmall.com/tittle.html ***********
Bill Thacker
In article <5c92a5$9...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
Nancy E. Holmes <fmka...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <cpotter-2301...@purchase2.esb.utexas.edu>
>cpo...@mail.utexas.edu (Catherine A. Potter) writes:
>>>
>>The exact same thing can, and should be said about all breeds of dogs.
>>have special needs as far as diet, training, exercise, etc.
>
>training,exercise or diets. ...
Huh? All dogs require special diets (you don't just slop 'em an extra
serving of whatever the family's having for dinner, after all),
knowledge, etc. You may take this knowledge for granted, but as
someone who was ignorant about raising dogs four years ago, I vouch
that there is plenty to it that not all humans grow up learning.
This, after all, is why so many dogs are raised so poorly that they
become aggressive or fear-biters or you-name-it.
Do wolf-hybrids require more knowledge? I'm sure of it. But if a
"regular" dog requires X amount of special knoweldge, how much more
does a wolf-hybrid need? 1.2X? 1.5X? (I'd guess the lower of the
two.) If we're going to require hybrid owners to "prove their merit"
for 1.2X, why not require everyone to do so for 1.0X?
(Now, convince me that wolf hybrids require 10X or 100X, and I'll
reconsider.)
>Hybrids require -
>according to all theowners that have emailed me and who's posts I have
>read here- MOREsocialization, training and exercise and abigger and
>more secure yardarea than the average dog of any breed does.
Ask any owner or breeder of German Shorthairs... they'll tell you that
GSP's need MORE exercise and a bigger yard than the "average breed of
dog". Dalmatian owners always seem to emphasize that their dogs need
more obedience training and socialization than average. Bassett
hounds (I hear) need more training on basics like house-breaking.
If "more than average" requirements are the basis for your proposed
laws, why won't these breeds be included? Or will they...
eventually?
>I do keep
>wondering how people can claim a difference in hybrids on the one hand,
>and then protest any need for prospective owners to show the ability to
>cater to those different needs on the other.
Speaking for myself, it's because I do not trust any authority to
fairly implement and enforce regulations on such matters. I feel the
government's job is to promote freedom, not to limit it arbitrarily.
Observe the mindless breed-specific bans being enacted around the
world... that alone should explain why many people are not anxious to
promote any law that gives more momentum to such nonsense.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker Lucent Technologies Network Wireless Systems
w...@cbemg.lucent.com (614) 860-5294 Columbus, Ohio
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, 24 Jan 1997 18:31:49 GMT,
w...@cbemg.cb.lucent.com (Bill Thacker) wrote:
[...]
>Speaking for myself, it's because I do not trust any authority to
>fairly implement and enforce regulations on such matters. I feel the
>government's job is to promote freedom, not to limit it arbitrarily.
>Observe the mindless breed-specific bans being enacted around the
>world... that alone should explain why many people are not anxious to
>promote any law that gives more momentum to such nonsense.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Bill Thacker Lucent Technologies Network Wireless Systems
>w...@cbemg.lucent.com (614) 860-5294 Columbus, Ohio
Hear! Hear!
--
Dogman
qbt...@v1.arg
E-mail address rot13 encoded to foil advertising spam
kitt...@netcom.ca
Dear L.A.:
It is not my wish here to argue about wolf hybrids and whether or not
they should be bred, although I don't think they should.
My complaint to you is your implication that Cindy lacks "mental
capacity". There is no need to insult the intelligence of someone whose
opinion differs from your own. Someone who is truly intelligent is
capable of discussing something without resorting to insults. Your
opinion is not the only one, and the exchange of ideas and opinions is
what these newsgroups are for. Learn some manners.
Kathy
Steve Barnard
Jane,
I never said I believed the hybrids were 90% wolf, whatever that means.
In fact, I doubt it as much as you do. That was merely the claim of the
breeder. My guess is that they are crosses between wolves and Malemutes
or Siberians.
I will say this. These dogs are *extremely* wolf-like in appearance.
The most notable feature is the coat, especially on the female (named
Russia), which is unlike the coat of any other dog I've ever seen.
Another feature is the cunning of these dogs in catching squirrels.
They are both gentle, well socialized, beautiful animals. They are not
what you would call obedience wizards, but they know and obey the very
liberal limits they are allowed. I refuse to take an ideological
position on this. I only know what I've seen, first hand.
Steve Barnard
Steve Barnard
Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
>
> Steve Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> writes:
>
> >But I will say this. I know someone with two wolf/dog hybrids. They
> >appear to me to be mostly wolf and he *claims* that they're 90% wolf.
>
> I love this. How does he know they're 90%? You can't construct a
> pedigree that shows 90% even if you make the assumption that exactly
> half the genes get passed along each generation.
>
Do you see the *claims* inside asterisks? That indicates that I don't
really believe it. Are you capable of understanding that? Do you know
what "irony" means?
First, it makes practically no sense to say that a dog is x% wolf, no
matter what x is, because dogs and wolves are already nearly
indistinguishable genetically.
Second, these dogs are probably crosses between wolves and Malemutes (or
Siberians), so they have a "leg up," so to speak, at being wolf-like.
And believe me, they are wolf-like.
Steve Barnard
nad...@erols.com
Lorrie: Their parents were more than likely captive born too. If they
bottle fed them and raised them in captivity, of course "they will never
know the true meaning of being free". They are socialized to humans. They
do not know even what freedom is..and don't care.
You wrote: "they took in 3 cubs and raised them from a bottle as well as
kitt...@netcom.ca
Bob wrote:
>
> Right, and that is the beauty of it all...If I wanted a dog I would get
> a dog. If I want a wolf (and know what that means) then I should be able
> to have a wolf. Rules and laws that make it impossible for such a
> freedom are wrong.
>
> WBob
>
the world is this simple? Wanting something does not give you the
right to own it, legally or morally. The majority of the people who
have posted here opposing wolf hybrids have expressed concern for the
animals freedom. A wild animal is meant to be free, and people who wish
to take that freedom away, are wrong.
And I would say the same thing to first men to domesticate canines how
ever many thousands of years ago this domestication transpired. Because
although the benfits of this act to us were great: ie. loyal companions,
seeing eye dogs, protection etc. the benfits to the animals have been
pretty shoddy. If it's a dog's life, who the hell would want it? Most
dogs are mistreated, poorly cared for, abused, improperly fed, dumped on
roadsides, stuck in cages in shelters etc.
I do own dogs, and always will. I love dogs, and always will. I am
well aware that there lies a paradox here. If dogs had not been
domesticated, I would have missed out on some of the best freinds I have
ever had, and I am glad for it. And now that dogs have been
domesticated, we are obliged to do our best to care for them and deal
with the mess man has caused for them. But goodness knows we don't need
to make it worse by taking wild animals out of their natural habitat and
bringing them into the hornets nest of the human world. Especially when
there is such a problem dealing with the already domesticated ones,
which are incapable of fending for themselves in the wild because of
human God complexes.
I don't wish to argue about whether or not WH's are unpredictable etc. I
have no first hand knowledge of their behavior. And I don't this that
is the point.
The point is man has to stop playing God, we have proved over and over
that we are no bloody good at it.
Kathy
MamaWoof
Cindy Tittle Moore, after removing her shoes and socks in order to count
on her toes, blathered:
>
> Steve Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> writes:
>
> >But I will say this. I know someone with two wolf/dog hybrids. They
> >appear to me to be mostly wolf and he *claims* that they're 90% wolf.
>
> I love this. How does he know they're 90%? You can't construct a
> pedigree that shows 90% even if you make the assumption that exactly
> half the genes get passed along each generation.
Yes, you can.
Cindy, sit down before you hurt yourself.
>
> That's one of my biggest gripes. Without a DNA test, it is impossible
> to tell how much wolf/dog a hybrid has unless it is a first generation
> cross (those are 50-50). If you mate two 50-50's together, while the
> *odds* are that the puppies will generally be 50-50 as well, this is
> NOT perfect, and you can wind up with ranges from (in theory) 100%
> wolf to 100% dog and (in practice) 40-60 either way. Subsequent
> generations make it even more variant until you simply have no way of
> knowing what the "percentage" is. WH breeders and owners so
> frequently stress their WH's percentages that it's obvious they know
> nothing about genetics.
Honey, you have again missed the point entirely, as well as attempting
to change the rules mid-game. Again.
When speaking of wolf/dog crosses, percentages are very useful in
predicting and describing both the appearance and temperament of an
animal.
However, even a wolfdog breeder without a background in genetics cannot
help but notice the variation, within any litter, of traits expressed.
In my experience, percentages are used as guidelines.
When talking with wolfdog owners, one will more often hear the terms
"low-percent", "mid-percent" or "high-percent" than actual numbers.
Now, why do you suppose that is?
Now, since you are jumping up and down and hollering that big bad
wolfdog people ought to be more responsible and educate prospective
owners as to what they can expect from a wolfdog...
Why are you attempting to undermine a valid and useful tool for doing
just that?
If my circumstance and desires make me well-suited to care for a
mid-percent wolfdog, whereas I could not adequately care for a high
percent...shouldn't I be informed as to the difference between the two?
Would you just as soon see me purchase a 96.5% as a 42.75%?
I mean, if you can momentarily put aside the fact that you would rather
they, and we, would all just go away.
>
> Don't believe me? Let me illustrate with a dish of black marbles and
> another dish of white marbles. One is "dog genes" and the other is
> "wolf genes". Make a puppy out of these marbles, you pick half the
> white and half the black. Thus the first generation cross has half
> white and half black marbles. OK, now let's breed two of these 1/2
> and 1/2 together. You are going to remove 1/2 the marbles at random
> from one dish and combine it with 1/2 the marbles from the other dish.
> You will NOT have half white and half black marbles in this second
> generation cross! Statistically, if you do this many times, you will
> find the values for these dishes *average* half-half. This means that
> there is a certain amount of variation for any individual dish -- one
> dish might have 20% white and 80% black, another 40% black and 60%
> white, etc.
All right.
Get your marbles back out, if you haven't lost them, and go with the
assumption that "exactly half the genes get passed along each
generation."
Note: you are doing this because your dishes above *did* AVERAGE
half/half. It is not perfect, but we are not claiming that it is.
What it IS, is a very good guess, and a useful guideline.
Now, play with your marbles, pretending that the dish of black marbles
is a wolf, and the dish of white marbles is a dog.
Do let us know when you get a dish with 90 black marbles and 10 white
ones.
>
> --Cindy
MamaWoof
--
----------------
Mama...@dtg.net
----------------
"It is absurd to divide people into good and bad.
People are either charming or tedious."
-Oscar Wilde
Nancy E. Holmes
In <32E825...@megafauna.com> Steve Barnard <st...@megafauna.com>
writes:
snip
> If I lived in a more rural setting I might be interested
>keeping them. I don't understand why some purebeed fanciers see them
as
>a threat.
>
> Steve Barnard
No Steve breed cockapoos instead - you'll meet a nicer bunch of buyers.
Nancy
Jack Shollenberger
In <32E968...@erols.com> nad...@erols.com writes:
>
>Lorrie: Their parents were more than likely captive born too. If they
never
They
>do not know even what freedom is..and don't care.
>
>
from cubs..then they abandoned them...that's not love.
Lorrie
>
>
>You wrote: "they took in 3 cubs and raised them from a bottle as well
nad...@erols.com
No, that's show biz and yes I agree with you, it is wrong!!!
Jack Shollenberger wrote:
>
> In <32E968...@erols.com> nad...@erols.com writes:
> >
> >Lorrie: Their parents were more than likely captive born too. If they
> >bottle fed them and raised them in captivity, of course "they will
> never
> >know the true meaning of being free". They are socialized to humans.
> They
> >do not know even what freedom is..and don't care.
> >
> >
> That's not the point..the point is that these people raised these guys
> from cubs..then they abandoned them...that's not love.
> Lorrie
>
> >
> >
> >You wrote: "they took in 3 cubs and raised them from a bottle as well
Nancy E. Holmes
In <5cav6l$f...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> w...@cbemg.cb.lucent.com (Bill
Thacker) writes:
snip
>
>Huh? All dogs require special diets (you don't just slop 'em an extra
>serving of whatever the family's having for dinner, after all),
>knowledge, etc. You may take this knowledge for granted, but as
>someone who was ignorant about raising dogs four years ago, I vouch
>that there is plenty to it that not all humans grow up learning.
>This, after all, is why so many dogs are raised so poorly that they
>become aggressive or fear-biters or you-name-it.
Ah but dog food is dog food and dogs will live on it - sure premium is
better and there are favorite brands and all but excepting ill dogs a
'special' diet (ie not dog food) is not necessary no matter HOW
preferred it is by breeders.
>
>Do wolf-hybrids require more knowledge? I'm sure of it. But if a
>"regular" dog requires X amount of special knoweldge, how much more
>does a wolf-hybrid need? 1.2X? 1.5X? (I'd guess the lower of the
>two.) If we're going to require hybrid owners to "prove their merit"
>for 1.2X, why not require everyone to do so for 1.0X?
>
>(Now, convince me that wolf hybrids require 10X or 100X, and I'll
>reconsider.)
Based on what the hybrid folks say I'd guess 100x is about right.
>
>Ask any owner or breeder of German Shorthairs... they'll tell you that
>GSP's need MORE exercise and a bigger yard than the "average breed of
>dog". Dalmatian owners always seem to emphasize that their dogs need
>more obedience training and socialization than average. Bassett
>hounds (I hear) need more training on basics like house-breaking.
>If "more than average" requirements are the basis for your proposed
>laws, why won't these breeds be included? Or will they...
>eventually?
Pick any breed that someone loves and they will tell you all of the
above and more because their pets are special to them. The facts are
folks who do not know this can ignorantly buy dogs of any breed and do
ok with them even as first time dog owners. I do not beleive the same
is true of hybrids.
Dogs are 'designed' to live with people - wolves are not.
>
>
>Speaking for myself, it's because I do not trust any authority to
>fairly implement and enforce regulations on such matters. I feel the
>government's job is to promote freedom, not to limit it arbitrarily.
>Observe the mindless breed-specific bans being enacted around the
>world... that alone should explain why many people are not anxious to
>promote any law that gives more momentum to such nonsense.
Sure must bother you then that there are drunk driving laws, licenses
required for electricians, physicians, dentists etc, and that federal
and state permits are required for the housing of exotic and endangered
species.
>
Nancy
nad...@erols.com
Cindy: You seem to have a biased view on how genetics really work. I've
never heard of the "unpredictability gene". Can you provide me a citation
on that?? Maybe it would read:
Moore, C.T. 1997. Genetics work the way I say they work.
Cyberspace Journal of Non-Scientific Opinion...
Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
>
> nad...@erols.com writes:
>
> >Cindy: The BIG problem with your marble theory is that both dishes are
> >filled with "wolf gene" marbles, only a few are mottled in the dog dish.
> >It takes very few genes to make a big difference in phenotype. So
> >actually you would be looking at less than 1% diff. Instead of 50%, you
> >would be looking at 0.5% of the 1% diff. You are right about the
> >possibility of high segregation, although it works the exact same way in
> >dogs too!
>
> If wolf genes and dog genes are identical then a malamute or a siberian
> huskie should be just fine for WH owners.
>
> Oh, but they're different?
>
> OK, then the dishes are filled with those genes that cause this difference.
> My point about the unpredictability of the composition of those dishes
> several generations down still holds.
nad...@erols.com
So what is your point, the same unpredictability happens when crossing 2
offspring fron 4 pure breed dogs (grandparents) together. YOUR breed
probably started out this same way!
Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
>
> nad...@erols.com writes:
>
> >Cindy: You seem to have a biased view on how genetics really work. I've
> >never heard of the "unpredictability gene".
>
> I said nothing about an unpredictability gene. I demonstrated the
> unpredictability of which genes (or marbles) wind up in WH (or dishes).
wo...@wolfdog.com
Wrong again Cindy,
Nothing is closer to the truth. It depends on the knowledge of the
owner and the ability to understand the animal they live with.
I know of several Wolves that are better mannered and gentler than
many dogs.
Those that can...Do,
and those that can't just tell others they can't because of their own
inadequacy. Sorry but truth sometimes hurts !
Gary
tit...@netcom.com. (Cindy Tittle Moore) wrote:
>nad...@erols.com writes:
>>Lynn: I would put it this way instead: All adult dog behavior is merely
>>juvenile wolf behavior.
>And you don't think that creates a significant difference between
>wolves and dogs and leads to the unpredictability of WH's? That's
>*exactly* the problem! People think that WH's and wolves behave like
>dogs and can be treated like dogs and nothing's further from the
>truth.
>--Cindy
wo...@wolfdog.com
Because the ESA does not allow it or we all would!
Some of us have had before the ESA ruling was passed.
Gary
tit...@netcom.com. (Cindy Tittle Moore) wrote:
>Stormkloud <luna...@primenet.com> writes:
>>they want dogs? If I would have wanted a "dog" I would have chose one. I
>>have many reasons for living in the same home as my hybrids, and I have
>>never turned them into "pets". They are my companions, and will be for the
>>next 14 or so years. No, I dont want an animal who has had 12, or whatever
>>thousand years of mans domestication fully in it. And by doing countless
>So why do you have wolf hybrids then? Why not wolves? This isn't
>logic. Not that I *expect* logic, but if you try to *present* it
>logically, the above doesn't wash. The hybrid is 50% tainted by your
>own reasoning, why don't you have wolves?
wo...@wolfdog.com
Most of the wolfdog owners We know take exceptional care of their
animals and treat them as well or better than they treat themselves.
Either you are getting your information from a book that the HSUS
wrote or are seeing only the bad side from a rescue standpoint.
There are approx 7 + or - Million dogs killed by shelters and HS every
year, not counting the rescues done, and they are not wolfdogs. Why
are you not taking care of that problem.
The Majority of Wolfdog people are extremely responsible
to their animals in comparison. They don't need any special
regulations beyond that of the normal dog.
If that is your philosophy, then every dog owner in the country needs
a special permit. :-\
Your logic doesn't hold up. :-; What there is will only backfire on
you, unless your purpose is to eliminate all companion animals and
pets ????? There isn't a large dog that hasn't had a ban attempt.
What do you think HSUS will do if they succeed in banning wolfdogs.
They will go after the next in line, and the next and the next, until
they are all gone. You better look at the ranks of that Organization
that you listen too and repeat their rhetoric. Peta has made their
home there. They sit on $48,000,000.00 and do nothing to help animals
at all other than collect from the HS affiliated shelters and dictate
policy to them. Do they pay for more rescue facilities...NO, do they
donate much if anything to existing shelters,...NO. What token
donations they have made to state or county shelters is token only so
they can say they gave <sickening>
They buy themselves big homes and cars according to the news papers
and dictate about their worst animal of the week. Don't worry, you are
all in that lineup somewhere.
How else will they accumulate another $48,000,000.00 :-\
Wake up people. Fighting wolfdog owners will only help you destroy
your right to own the companion animal of your choice someday. There
are HSUS people preaching to you every day on the dog boards, you just
don't realize that that's what they are. Take a cold shower and wake
up !!!
Gary
jsho...@ix.netcom.com(Jack Shollenberger) wrote:
>In <Pine.BSI.3.95.970122...@usr01.primenet.com>
>Stormkloud <luna...@primenet.com> writes:
>Stormy...now you did state that these are not pets...so why not protect
>what you love and insure the wolf-hybrids of the future the security
>and proper handling they love..by requiring a special license for these
>guys? To make sure that all new owners understood completely what
>wolf-hybrids need as far as training, diet, exercise, etc...to prevent
>the needless deaths of these guys when in the wrong hands?
>Lorrie
>>Stormy
>>
wo...@wolfdog.com
>juvenile characteristics or not. That's the gotcha. That's why you
>can have some WH owners not have trouble and others have quite a bit.
>It is this unpredictability that makes the breeding of WH's so
>unethical. A good, ethical, breeder does everything they can to
>ensure that their animals are predictably tempered.
>No, I won't be getting one, and I continue to advise those who ask me
>not to get one. And as long as I see this stuff here in rpd.breeds
>I'll speak out. You don't want to listen to me, quit crossposting.
>You know very well I don't normally appear in the alt. groups, a
>dejanews check will bear that out.
>I'd save your venom for people who hunt you out in your newsgroups
>and provoke arguments there.
>--Cindy
They are just as predictable if not more so than any dog.
In fact, yes fact, they are very predictable and even more so than
Many dogs. If you have never lived with them or sucessfully raised and
socialized them, you have NO basis to speak against them other than on
heresay or worse, the view from the worst side,...the rescue side.
I really don't know what experience you have had with them, but is is
obvious that it has been minimal if at all. What I have heard from you
throughout the thread is nearly word for word or paralell to what the
HSUS preaches and that leaves little or no creditability to your
cautions for anyone listening. You seem to have closed your already
made up mind before ever learning the truth about them. Anyone with
any reasoning power can see that and That is really sad. To dive in
and proclaim expertise and give advice to people on something you have
not taken the time to really learn about is even worse. I see you do
this to people on the dog boards all the time, but don't bother to say
anything to you. I just feel for the people that actually listen to
your condenmnations and follow blindly. Yes, very sad indeed. I know
many very good people on the dog boards that sure don't hold the views
you do. Thank god for that. They take the time to learn before
condenming on heresay.
Gary
Vera Casteel
> >wolves and dogs and leads to the unpredictability of WH's? That's
> >*exactly* the problem! People think that WH's and wolves behave like
> >dogs and can be treated like dogs and nothing's further from the
> >truth.
> Nothing is closer to the truth. It depends on the knowledge of the
> owner and the ability to understand the animal they live with.
> I know of several Wolves that are better mannered and gentler than
> many dogs.
>
> Those that can...Do,
> and those that can't just tell others they can't because of their own
> inadequacy. Sorry but truth sometimes hurts !
> Gary
So you're saying that a golden retriever and a WH will act the same way
and should be treated the same way by a novice owner who has never owned
dogs (or WH's) before?
I don't know anything about unpredictability in wolves or WH's because
I've never been around either, but I do know that there is a difference
between wild and domestic animals, hence the different classifications.
So I would tend to think that an animal that has been domesticated for
thousands of years would have different behavioural tendencies than an
animal who has only been living among humans for a few generations. How
can you treat them exactly the same? Don't wolves/WH's require a little
more work, knowledge, etc? I'm sure that some wolves would be better
mannered than some dogs, but you have to look at how each was raised. If
the wolf is raised by a person who has vast knowledge of wolf behaviour
and training techniques and the dog was raised by someone who has never
raised a dog before and didn't even bother to read up on the subject, of
course the wolf will be better mannered! I think wolves/WH's probably
need a higher degree of knowledge on the owner's part, which would set
them apart from dogs (I'm not talking about species here). Most people
can go pick up a golden retriever puppy and raise a really nice dog even
if they've never owned a dog before, even without reading up on them
much. My family raised 3 wonderful dogs without doing any extensive
reading about dog care. My dogs are well cared for though. Can the same
be said for wolves/WH's? Or does the owner need to do more research on
wolf behaviour, training, socialization, etc in order to have a
wonderful companion? If so, the wolf/WH can't be treated like just any
other domestic dog.
The people on these newsgroups who own wolves/WH's obviously took the
time to learn about how to properly take care of their companions. They
are good owners. But I think the problem is that the bad owners don't
educate prospective buyers on the responsibilities of WH ownership, thus
making more bad owners. There's the reason for the bad rap. It's just
like the way pit bulls got a bad reputation because stupid owners
trained their dogs irresponsibly, and now governments think they're
horrible dogs. Well, I know a couple pit bulls who are the sweetest
things in the world because they have good owners. The good owners are
now trying to educate non-pit bull owners so they won't do all the breed
stereotyping. Maybe the WH owners should do the same instead of
insulting those who don't know about the breed? Insults don't educate,
and if more people aren't educated, your companion could become illegal.
---
Vera Casteel Electrical Engineering
vcas...@supernet.ab.ca University of Alberta
vcas...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca http://www.supernet.ab.ca/~vcasteel
---
WebbWeave
Quote:
The Majority of Wolfdog people are extremely responsible
to their animals in comparison. They don't need any special
regulations beyond that of the normal dog.
At least around here, that's sadly not true.
Ace & Cat
Does 50,000 years of domestication mean a dog that is already 'potty
trained' when born?? If so, I want one! (also ROTFL!)
Cat in Alaska
nad...@erols.com wrote:
>
> Where in the hell did you get 50,000 years from??? 12-14,000 maybe,
> 50,000. Have all the scientists been lying to me all these years?? ROTFL
> HARD!!!
Mojo'sMom
me I have misinterpeted this statement?
Terri
nad...@erols.com
The difference is that one was born as a wild animal, lived as a wild
animal and died as a wild animal. A "domestic" dog can be born in
captivity and then revert and live as a wild animal. Its pups are born
and live as wild animals (in the wild). See:
Federoff, N.E., W.J. Jakob, and W.C. Bauer. 1994. Female feral dog and
two pups kill deer fawn... The Maryland Naturalist 38(1-2):1-2.
Vera wrote: "I do know that there is a difference
> between wild and domestic animals, hence the different classifications.
> So I would tend to think that an animal that has been domesticated for
> thousands of years would have different behavioural tendencies than an
> animal who has only been living among humans for a few generations.
Bill Thacker
In article <5cd1im$9...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
>Thacker) writes:
>
>>(Now, convince me that wolf hybrids require 10X or 100X, and I'll
>>reconsider.)
>
>Based on what the hybrid folks say I'd guess 100x is about right.
I must have erred... I guess I thought you were an authority on these
animals. From this statement I assume you haven't owned a hybrid or
worked closely with one. (That's OK, you're still entitled to your
opinion. It just makes me question more deeply the extent of your
expertise on the subject.)
>>Ask any owner or breeder of German Shorthairs... they'll tell you that
>>GSP's need MORE exercise and a bigger yard than the "average breed of
>>dog". ...
>
>Pick any breed that someone loves and they will tell you all of the
>above and more because their pets are special to them. The facts are
>folks who do not know this can ignorantly buy dogs of any breed and do
>ok with them even as first time dog owners.
Oh, come now. How many high-energy dogs like Dalmatians end up in
the pound because their owners could cope with their energy? How
many pit bulls are being euthanized because their owners
couldn't/didn't control them? The *facts* are that an awful lot of
people do *not* do OK with their dogs because they don't have the
"special knowledge" that particular breed needs.
>>Speaking for myself, it's because I do not trust any authority to
>>fairly implement and enforce regulations on such matters.
>
>Sure must bother you then that there are drunk driving laws, licenses
>required for electricians, physicians, dentists etc, and that federal
>and state permits are required for the housing of exotic and endangered
>species.
Laws that prohibit dangerous behavior (like drunk driving) are fine.
It's the next step, outlawing liquor because someone might get drunk
and then drive, that I object to.
It's good to have laws against letting your dog attack the neighbor's
kids. But I think it's bad to outlaw owning dogs because they *might*
attack a neighbor's kids. Nor am I eager to label some animals "good
dogs" and other animals "bad dogs" (or worse, to allow some career
bureaucrat to apply those labels), especially when those labels are
applied subjectively with no scientific basis.
If you can show data that demonstrates your contention that wolf
hybrids are inherently dangerous to own, I'd truly like to see it.
What proportion of hybrids end up attacking people, and how does that
compare, percentage-wise, to Cocker Spaniels, pit bulls, Dalmatians,
and golden retrievers? What cutoff point do you suggest as the limit
for what animals should be owned, and how do the numbers support
that?
In other words, if you can build your case on data rather than
hearsay, I can be persuaded. What I don't buy is the facile
argument, "Wolves were not bred to live with people." That argument
is no more sensible now than it was sixty years ago when the Army
claimed that blacks couldn't be expected to operate complex machinery
like tanks and planes, because "it wasn't in their nature."
Mojo'sMom
Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
>
> Mojo'sMom <" terri_mcauley"@hp.com> writes:
>
> >(Head doing a 360,) Nancy; you are breeding Cockapoos??????? Please tell
> >me I have misinterpeted this statement?
>
> be fixed.
>
> --Cindy
Yeah, Ive been told. :) It seems to bit a tad out of calibration, sorry
Nancy, my cynical side is running high lately due to varying factors.
Terri
Off the calibration lab as we *speak*!
ANTINORO, FRANK JOSEPH
In article <32EC85...@mosquitonet.com>, out...@mosquitonet.com writes...
Please, do a little research before spouting off. What is "wild animal
behavior" that cannot be modified? Behavior modification is an established
method of training. Wolves are very ritualistic, and modifying their rituals
is a very effective training tool. And no, "wild" animals do not behave and
respond to stimuli very different from domesticated animals.
You are aware, are you not, that many people have trained large "wild" cats as
good house animals? The large cats are condiderably more difficult to train
than wolves and wolfdogs.
Vera Casteel
Ok, since none of the wolfdog owners here seem to want to educate those
who don't know much about them, I'll start them out. :)
I did a little search on wolfdogs and found a few webpages (actually,
there's LOTS, but I don't have that much time, so I only went to a few).
It was quite interesting reading, and I encourage all those who don't
know much about wolfdogs (like me) to look at these and any other pages
you might find.
http://ww.total.net/~kimo1/paww_dt1.html - a few things you should know
before choosing to get a WH. One thing I found interesting was that they
recommend getting a wolfdog at age 2-3 weeks so you can bond with it,
because once they bond with someone, it is for life. It is more
difficult to bond with it later in its life.
http://www.inetdesign.com/wolfdunn/whate.html - differences between dogs
and wolves/WHs
http://www.mv.com/ipusers/loki-wolves/wolfhybr.htm - contains the
history of wolfdogs, an explanation of how wolfdogs are NOT dogs,
behaviour of wolfdogs, responsible ownership, and an explanation of
percentages
These are just a *few* of the many pages out there. These are not the
main homepages, but just pages I felt had alot to do with the topics
being discussed here. I believe all 3 pages had explanations on why
percentages are important. They also mentioned that one problem with the
percentages is that someone who's dog is supposedly 90% wolf but really
is much lower might tell all their friends about their wolfdog and how
much it acts like a normal domestic dog. The friends see this and go out
and get a wolfdog, thinking it will be the same. Well, they get a
wolfdog that really *is* 90% wolf and it acts different. The friend
can't handle the dog (because they expected it to be like a normal
domestic dog).
Another interesting point made on one (or more) of these pages is the
fact that the aggression some wolfdogs display is actually from the dog
side, not the wolf side. So a low percentage wolfdog has more of a
chance of being aggresive than the high percentage wolfdog.
So go out and read these and other pages. You'll learn alot! And
hopefully the wolfdog owners here will continue this education instead
of insulting every non-wolfdog owner that moves. Wolfdogs *are*
different from the normal domestic dog, and there are alot of extra
responsibilities involved when owning a wolfdog. I think that's one of
the reasons alot of domestic dog owners will steer newbies on the rpd
groups away from getting wolfdogs. It's bad enough that there are so
many people out there owning domestic dogs that they don't know how to
properly care for. Do you think these people could handle wolfdogs if
they can't even handle a golden retriever? I strongly doubt it.
Michael Butler
Bob jotted:
>
> Right, and that is the beauty of it all...If I wanted a dog I would get
> a dog. If I want a wolf (and know what that means) then I should be able
> to have a wolf. Rules and laws that make it impossible for such a
> freedom are wrong.
>
> WBob
>
And if every wolf was then in captivity and none left in the wild then
what?
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, Sun, 26 Jan 1997 11:06:38 GMT, wo...@wolfdog.com
wrote:
>Wrong again Cindy,
>Nothing is closer to the truth. It depends on the knowledge of the
>owner and the ability to understand the animal they live with.
>I know of several Wolves that are better mannered and gentler than
>many dogs.
>
>Those that can...Do,
>and those that can't just tell others they can't because of their own
>inadequacy. Sorry but truth sometimes hurts !
>Gary
[...]
Well, Gary, that's about the silliest thing I ever heard -- even in a
group known for it's silliness.
I'm beginning to think there's something actually wired wrong in the
heads of those of you who shamelessly continue to beat the drums
celebrating the joys and wonders of wolf or wolf-dog ownership. That
is, I think your neurons are not all wired together.
By NOT owning a wolf or a wolf-dog, it merely means than one probably
cares much more for the wild wolf than any of you wolf-worshippers.
It means an appreciation of the wild, and wild things, and a good
understanding of exactly what it means to be and remain in the wild.
That's all it really takes to never want to "own" a wolf. It's not
about being "adequate" to do it, it's simply about being thoughtful,
responsible, and appreciative of things that are wild. It's about
loving the wolf.
To even try to convince people like you that you're wrong-headed about
this, is basically to tilt at wind-mills, so I won't even try here.
Peter Steinhart says it all, and in ways that are much better than
anything I could ever hope to come up with here.
His recent book, The Company Of Wolves (Knopf Books), is a must-read
for ANYONE who has ever had the urge to "own" a wolf or a wolf-dog, or
who just wants to become better educated about wolves. If, after
reading this absolutely wonderful and informative book, any of you
newbies still have the urge to do it, you are arguably among the most
thoughtless, irresponsible, stupid, and ignorant of all human beings.
Here are just a few snippets:
"I think we have spent fifteen to twenty thousand years transforming
the wolf, through the process of domestication, into an animal that
for the most part can live safely, happily, and humanely in human
homes. In producing and proliferating wolf hybrids, we take a big
step backwards. We are undoing what we have worked twenty thousand
years to do."
"Geneticist John Paul Scott believes all the differences we see
between dogs and wolves could be accounted for by about twelve
mutations. Finding pieces of those twelve fragments of DNA in the
immense genome of the dog may be like finding a bottle drifting on the
Pacific Ocean." [Hence, it's almost impossible to tell whether an
animal is a wolf or a dog.]
"While we argue over the nature of individual animals, the hybrid
population continues to grow. Hybrids pose enormous challenges, but
few of us have the resources to cope with them. When we release them
into the wild, we confound the nature of wolves and challenge our own
understanding of nature. We threaten the integrity of ecosystems. We
even confound the nature of the dog."
"The great possibility that there are hybrids running loose in the
West bedevils plans to reintroduce wolves into places from which they
have been eradicated. Reintroduction hinges on the premise that there
are no wolves remaining in the wild. If people begin seeing hybrids
in the woods, reintroduction may be stalled until it is clear what
those animals are [and which may be impossible to determine]. If the
animals seen are truly wolves, they enjoy the protections of the
Endangered Species Act. But if they turn out to be hybrids, and they
mate with wild wolves, the resulting offspring are not protected, and
managers will be unable to tell which wolves are pure and which are
not. In southeastern Australia, all the wild dingoes appear to be
dog-dingo hybrids. Something similar could happen to wolves in North
America."
"There is a place for dogs, and there is a place for wolves. But
whether there's a place for wolf-dog hybrids is an unsettled question.
Wolf hybrids are neither house pets nor wild animals. They place
different demands on people from those placed by either wolves or
dogs.
"Where people adjust to those demands, the animals fill their lives.
Speaking to a California seminar on wolf hybrids ... Lockwood says,
'Owning hybrids becomes almost an addiction. I've frequently heard
people say, "Once you've owned a wolf or once you've had a hybrid,
there's no going back." It becomes a kind of codependency -- they've
altered their life-style to fit the wolf or hybrid. They have a
community of like-minded people. They have their own circle of
friends, and often their other friends get pushed aside, and it
becomes almost a substitute family for them.' But when a hybrid tears
up their yards, rends their society, divides their families, and
weighs them down with guilt and obligation, they want to get rid of
it. They look first for wildlife shelters and animal-rescue centers."
"And there are only a handful of refuges for unwanted hybrids."
"Most hybrid owners don't even try the shelters. Instead, they drop
the animals off in the woods ... but the odds against their survival
are enormous."
"According to Clevinger, there are almost a thousand people raising
wolves or wolf hybrids in Oregon. Signs posted on trees advertise
wolf-hybrid pups for sale. People sell them from the backs of pickup
trucks by the road. There are ... between one and three hundred
thousand wolf hybrids in the United States. And the number is
growing."
"It is not at all clear why people breed wolf hybrids, but it probably
has much to do with the symbolism of wolves."
It also do has a lot to do with some people's self-gratification, that
selfish "Me" generation thing. And I think it's shameful.
From the wolf, we got the dog. What more do we need from the wolf?
The best thing we can now do for the wolf, if we really and TRULY love
it, is to just LEAVE IT ALONE. Don't we owe it even that?
--
Dogman
qbt...@v1.arg
E-mail address rot13 encoded to foil advertising spam
Terry Gene Monroe
Dogman wrote:
>
> "Where people adjust to those demands, the animals fill their lives.
> Speaking to a California seminar on wolf hybrids ... Lockwood says,
> 'Owning hybrids becomes almost an addiction. I've frequently heard
> people say, "Once you've owned a wolf or once you've had a hybrid,
> there's no going back." It becomes a kind of codependency -- they've
> altered their life-style to fit the wolf or hybrid. They have a
> community of like-minded people. They have their own circle of
> friends, and often their other friends get pushed aside, and it
> becomes almost a substitute family for them.' But when a hybrid tears
> up their yards, rends their society, divides their families, and
> weighs them down with guilt and obligation, they want to get rid of
> it. They look first for wildlife shelters and animal-rescue centers."
>
> "And there are only a handful of refuges for unwanted hybrids."
>
> "Most hybrid owners don't even try the shelters. Instead, they drop
> the animals off in the woods ... but the odds against their survival
> are enormous."
"Where people adjustto those demands the animals fill thier lives."
Isn't that a big reason any of us own dogs? While I wouldn't own a wolf
because I like to cling to mental images of them running free in the
wild, why should I begrudge someone who will responsibly care for a wolf
or hybred from the joy he or she can share with the animal of thier
choice. The arguement that irresponsible people dump hybreds in the
wild to fend for themselves is equally true in many parts of the country
about irresponsible dog owners. Neither my Rott nor my Dalmation would
fare well if abandoned, that is why making the decision to share your
life with an animal is a committment for the lifetime of that animal.
If someone can make that committment to a wolf or hybred, power to
them. If they can not make such a committment get a house plant!
I apologize for my rant.
Steve Barnard
Dogman wrote:
>
> From the wolf, we got the dog. What more do we need from the wolf?
> The best thing we can now do for the wolf, if we really and TRULY love
> it, is to just LEAVE IT ALONE. Don't we owe it even that?
>
The keeping of wolf/dog hybrids is, to me, as matter of personal freedom
and responsibility. He can be done very, very badly, or it can be done
with respect and intelligence.
I find the notion that wolves should be just left alone to be hopelessly
romantic. They were a very wide-ranging animal, but we shot and trapped
and poisoned them to extinction in the lower 48. It is through human
intervention that wolves are being reintroduced to Yellowstone and to
Idaho. A few made it to Glacier on their own, but the habitat is too
fragmented for them to repopulate further on their own. We are hell
bent on making suburban shopping malls out of the prime wolf habitat
that's left.
Tens of thousands of years ago people made a partnership with the wolf,
and out of this came all the breeds of dogs we know today. It seems to
me like some of the wolf enthusiasts are trying to recapture that event,
more-or-less like some people try to become expert in knapping ancient
stone tools or in killing deer with bow and arrow.
You could call this narcissistic indulgence. I prefer to see it as a
principled curiousity about our origins and about the origins of the
dog/human relationship.
Steve Barnard
Bob
Well Dogboy, that's about the most eloquent, biased and missinformed
dissertation on wolf and wolfdog ownership yet. You quoted one book, I
know of at least six that have exactly the same views (for the same
reasons), but I also know of six that have exactly opposite views. Let
me recommend that potential wolf/wolfdog owners please read everything
they can find on the subject, including writings by both those that have
failed in attempts and those that have succeeded in having
wolves/wolfdogs as companions. I have posted a lengthy reading list on
alt.wolves and will gladly e-mail it to anyone interested.
I do not own a wolf or a wolfdog. I have studied wolves, wolf people and
by their close relationship, wolfdogs and wolfdog people. I seldom agree
with wolfdog people, but in no way would I ever think that THEY or their
animals are somehow denigrating the wolf, either captive or wild or that
they have somehow mistreated their animals. I have found them, as a
class, very knowledgeable, arguementitive, stubborn and really
appreciate and love their animals. In visiting many captive wolves and
innumerable wolfdogs, I have found them universally happy, well cared
and well adjusted to whatever environment they have. I must confess that
I do not participate in rescues and have not visited wolfdog abusers or
wolfdog breeders with bad or greedy motives, but, I really believe these
are in the minority.
Why are wolves or wolfdogs desirable as companions? Well, I know of
three reasons. One is that they are significantly more "adult" than
dogs. Dogs behave like wolf pups. No sense, and undying love and
affection. To have a thinking companion, one with ideas of its own about
what is right and what to be done next is often very desirable. The
second reason is in the higher intellegence of the animal. This alone is
often sufficient.
The third reason is in the "pack" mentality of the wolf. This is lost
rapidly as the wolf is diluted with dog, but in pures and highs, it
produces some very desirable relationships, such as subservance,
challenging, dependency, and the lack of aggression.
Of course wolves are not dogs for all of these reasons and these reasons
all have their downside. The adult-ness and intellegence make the animal
demanding of attention and easily bored. Being very intellegent, when
bored they tend to get out of anywhere or destroy the inside of your
house while they investigate whats in that sofa cushion or what's in the
refrigerator. The pack mentality often makes them a one person animal
and quite intollerant of outsiders or non pack members. They also tend
to have well honed instincts, as one might expect, being what they are,
but when these tendencies are known, they can be controlled and
contained without damage or discomfort to the animal. One thing wolves
and wolfdogs demand is a tremendous amount of time and interaction.
None of these reasons are sufficient to claim that wolves or wolfdogs
are not good for people, or that people are not good for wolves or
wolfdogs. There are a number of very vocal people that tried to raise
wolfdogs early in their careers and failed to produce a desireable
result. Lockwood, and Fox are two such people and they seem to be trying
to offset their failure by claiming that the other 300,000 wolfdog
owners are bad and wrong and the animal can't be trained, civilized,
housebroken or even handled without chairs and whips. Well they are
quite wrong.
Wolves are one of the most interesting animals on this planet. They have
developed a social structure that allows a bunch of very efficient
killers to work together. A wolf can quite easily kill another wolf, but
they don't. They need a pack to efficiently kill prey and therefore they
must work together as a team or their probability of survival rapidly
drops. They are especially well balanced with their prey, both having a
high probability of survival that they have worked out over several
hundred thousand years. Even more interesting, is the ease with which
the wolf adapts to man. If properly socialized immediately after birth,
they accept their owner as the alpha or leader of the pack and accept
this role with occasional challenging and posturing.
IMHO and observations, the animals seem happier in captivity than is the
wild, what with the easy food and companionship. A wolves life in the
wild is tough, what with lifetimes of 6 or 7 years. In captivity, they
live 10-15 years with some up to 15-20. Yes, life is good, when you
don't have to chase down your dinner.
WolfBob
nad...@erols.com
Lockwood! You cite Lockwood! ROTFL!!! Just more spew from an HSUS geek!
nad...@erols.com
Terry, thanks, that was a great post! That book they are citing is a
"popular" book, not a scientifically documented book...anyone can write a
book...
Terry Gene Monroe wrote:
>
> Dogman wrote:
> >
> > "Where people adjust to those demands, the animals fill their lives.
> > Speaking to a California seminar on wolf hybrids ... Lockwood says,
> > 'Owning hybrids becomes almost an addiction. I've frequently heard
> > people say, "Once you've owned a wolf or once you've had a hybrid,
> > there's no going back." It becomes a kind of codependency -- they've
> > altered their life-style to fit the wolf or hybrid. They have a
> > community of like-minded people. They have their own circle of
> > friends, and often their other friends get pushed aside, and it
> > becomes almost a substitute family for them.' But when a hybrid tears
> > up their yards, rends their society, divides their families, and
> > weighs them down with guilt and obligation, they want to get rid of
> > it. They look first for wildlife shelters and animal-rescue centers."
> >
> > "And there are only a handful of refuges for unwanted hybrids."
> >
> > "Most hybrid owners don't even try the shelters. Instead, they drop
> > the animals off in the woods ... but the odds against their survival
> > are enormous."
>
F.Drake
nad...@erols.com wrote:
> Yes this is true, and equally many people do write books in this subject and many others by merely rewriting already published material whether it is accurate or not. This is a common practice in the books written about training dogs. Makes life hard for the people who are trainers and DO know what they are doing.
Gale
> Terry, thanks, that was a great post! That book they are citing is a
> "popular" book, not a scientifically documented book...anyone can write a
> book...
>
> Terry Gene Monroe wrote:
> >
> > Dogman wrote:
> > >
> > > "Where people adjust to those demands, the animals fill their lives.
> > > Speaking to a California seminar on wolf hybrids ... Lockwood says,
> > > 'Owning hybrids becomes almost an addiction. I've frequently heard
> > > people say, "Once you've owned a wolf or once you've had a hybrid,
> > > there's no going back." It becomes a kind of codependency -- they've
> > > altered their life-style to fit the wolf or hybrid. They have a
> > > community of like-minded people. They have their own circle of
> > > friends, and often their other friends get pushed aside, and it
> > > becomes almost a substitute family for them.' But when a hybrid tears
> > > up their yards, rends their society, divides their families, and
> > > weighs them down with guilt and obligation, they want to get rid of
> > > it. They look first for wildlife shelters and animal-rescue centers."
> > >
> > > "And there are only a handful of refuges for unwanted hybrids."
> > >
> > > "Most hybrid owners don't even try the shelters. Instead, they drop
> > > the animals off in the woods ... but the odds against their survival
> > > are enormous."
> >
Jack Shollenberger
In <tittleE4...@netcom.com> tit...@netcom.com. (Cindy Tittle
Moore) writes:
>qbt...@v1.arg (Dogman) writes:
>
>>It also do has a lot to do with some people's self-gratification,
that
>>selfish "Me" generation thing. And I think it's shameful.
>
>>From the wolf, we got the dog. What more do we need from the wolf?
>>The best thing we can now do for the wolf, if we really and TRULY
love
>>it, is to just LEAVE IT ALONE. Don't we owe it even that?
>
>thus far.
>
>And thanks for the book reference. Duly noted & added...
>
>--Cindy
Agreed..excellent Joe..perhaps this will ring some bells..
Lorrie
Jack Shollenberger
In <32F037...@ihug.co.nz> Michael Butler <mbu...@ihug.co.nz>
writes:
they can have one sitting in their house..
F.Drake
Apparently you two are the ones who are'nt thinking, if you had been
paying attention you would have seen over and over again that no one is
going out and capturing wild wolves for pets. Besides being highly
illegal, it is not ness.as there are a large number of pures which have
been raised for years and generations in captivity.
Gale
Bill Thacker
In article <32F037...@ihug.co.nz>,
Michael Butler <mbu...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>Bob jotted:
>>
>> Right, and that is the beauty of it all...If I wanted a dog I would get
>> a dog. If I want a wolf (and know what that means) then I should be able
>> to have a wolf. Rules and laws that make it impossible for such a
>> freedom are wrong.
>
>what?
In the lower 48 states here in the USA, we call that "status quo."
Has been for decades.
Are you suggesting the only way to create a new wolf is to capture one
in the wild? That it's a zero-sum game?
Steve Barnard
Helen and Charles Goodwin wrote:
>
> When it comes to breeding animals I am always of the opinion that if
> someone has done the groundwork it is a futile exercise to try to repeat
> it. The wolf was tamed a long long time ago and today's dogs are the
> result: what is the point of trying to do it again?
>
> Helen
Simple answer: For the fun of it.
BTW, I admire those flint knappers and bow hunters. The world is
devolving into a freakish place. Anyone who tries to recapture
something primitive has my admiration.
Steve Barnard
John C. Seamans
Jack Shollenberger <jsho...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<5csqgb$i...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>...
> In <32F037...@ihug.co.nz> Michael Butler <mbu...@ihug.co.nz>
> writes:
> >
> >Bob jotted:
> >>
> >> Right, and that is the beauty of it all...If I wanted a dog I would
get
> >> a dog. If I want a wolf (and know what that means) then I should be
able
> >> to have a wolf. Rules and laws that make it impossible for such a
> >> freedom are wrong.
> >>
> >> WBob
> >>
> >
> >And if every wolf was then in captivity and none left in the wild then
> >what?
> >
> >
> They aren't thinking about that..heck why does that matter as long as
> they can have one sitting in their house..
At least they finally admitted that a wolf is not a dog and a dog is not a
wolf. ;-)
John S.
Bob
This line of thought is very shallow. If it were commercially viable to
own wolves, then a large number of people would be breeding and
puppy-milling wolves just like they do for anything that will sell. Just
like horses, (there are several orders of magnitude more wild horses
today than at any time in several thousand years), yet they are very
popular for domestic pet-purposes. I really dont think that private
ownership of wolves will significantly modify the wild population.
Another thought that is not based on fact, that I have seen here is the
threat that the wolfdog will "destroy" the gene pool of the wolf. First,
wild wolves dont like dogs much and in about 95% of the cases will kill
them on sight. Second, the wolf gene package is extrodinarily stable and
has not been changed in a very long time, by environment, dogs, or even
very low gene diversity (like with the wolves on Isle Royale). The
theory that red wolves are coyote/wolf crosses has recently been revoked
and replaced by the theory that the red wolf is a unique subspecies,
going back several hundredthousand years. these wolves spent a lot of
time being bordered by grey wolves on the north and Mexican wolves on
the west, without much alteration of their unique characteristics. It
would be very hard to alter the wild wolf by anything short of near
total extinction.
Wolf Bob
Helen and Charles Goodwin
Steve Barnard wrote:
>
> Dogman wrote:
> >
> > From the wolf, we got the dog. What more do we need from the wolf?
> > The best thing we can now do for the wolf, if we really and TRULY love
> > it, is to just LEAVE IT ALONE. Don't we owe it even that?
> >
>
> and responsibility. He can be done very, very badly, or it can be done
> with respect and intelligence.
>
> I find the notion that wolves should be just left alone to be hopelessly
> romantic. They were a very wide-ranging animal, but we shot and trapped
> and poisoned them to extinction in the lower 48. It is through human
> intervention that wolves are being reintroduced to Yellowstone and to
> Idaho. A few made it to Glacier on their own, but the habitat is too
> fragmented for them to repopulate further on their own. We are hell
> bent on making suburban shopping malls out of the prime wolf habitat
> that's left.
>
> Tens of thousands of years ago people made a partnership with the wolf,
> and out of this came all the breeds of dogs we know today. It seems to
> me like some of the wolf enthusiasts are trying to recapture that event,
> more-or-less like some people try to become expert in knapping ancient
> stone tools or in killing deer with bow and arrow.
>
> You could call this narcissistic indulgence. I prefer to see it as a
> principled curiousity about our origins and about the origins of the
> dog/human relationship.
>
> Steve Barnard
Terry Gene Monroe
Helen and Charles Goodwin wrote:
>
> >
> > Dogman wrote:
> > >
> > > The best thing we can now do for the wolf, if we really and TRULY love
> > > it, is to just LEAVE IT ALONE. Don't we owe it even that?
> > >
> >
For you, or even for me there may not be a point in it. So what. For
those who are willing to responsibly committ to caring for and raising
such an animal, how does it diminish you or I to support them in having
the freedom to do so. I have a rott that is as gentle and loving an
animal as I have ever seen, but I would rather face a "bad" wolf than a
"bad" rott. Responsibility in the owners is key more than
characterizing an animal as unsuitable or bad to have in your family.
These "wolves" have never roamed free, nor did thier parents, but were
raised in captivity which is the only life they know. A wolf would
never be my choice, yet it can be a principled choice for some and I
would never begrudge those that are responsible that choice.
nad...@erols.com
Well, Helen, then I guess you still drive an Edsel <G>!
Helen and Charles Goodwin wrote:
>
> Steve Barnard wrote:
> >
> > Dogman wrote:
> > >
> > > From the wolf, we got the dog. What more do we need from the wolf?
> > > The best thing we can now do for the wolf, if we really and TRULY love
> > > it, is to just LEAVE IT ALONE. Don't we owe it even that?
> > >
> >
nad...@erols.com
Dogs are wolves (same species). On the other hand are poodles malamutes?
It is all about classification levels..
John C. Seamans wrote:
>
> Jack Shollenberger <jsho...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> <5csqgb$i...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>...
> > In <32F037...@ihug.co.nz> Michael Butler <mbu...@ihug.co.nz>
> > writes:
> > >
> > >Bob jotted:
> > >>
> > >> Right, and that is the beauty of it all...If I wanted a dog I would
> get
> > >> a dog. If I want a wolf (and know what that means) then I should be
> able
> > >> to have a wolf. Rules and laws that make it impossible for such a
> > >> freedom are wrong.
> > >>
> > >> WBob
> > >>
> > >
> > >And if every wolf was then in captivity and none left in the wild then
> > >what?
> > >
> > >
> > They aren't thinking about that..heck why does that matter as long as
> > they can have one sitting in their house..
>
Vera Casteel
>John C. Seamans wrote:
> > At least they finally admitted that a wolf is not a dog and a dog is not a
> > wolf. ;-)
> >
> > John S.
nad...@erols.com wrote:
>
> Dogs are wolves (same species). On the other hand are poodles malamutes?
> It is all about classification levels..
I don't think John was referring to species. Everyone has seen evidence
that scientists now classify them as the same species. Does it matter?
Not really. Dogs are not wolves because wolves behave differently and
must be treated differently than dogs. The difference between wolves and
dogs is much greater than the difference between poodles and malamutes,
behaviourwise. If you treat a wolf like a dog, you're going to end up
with a problem on your hands. On the other hand, if you treat it like a
wolf, you could end up with a wonderful companion. This has nothing to
do with classification levels.
Jason
>> >Bob jotted:
>> >>
>> >> Right, and that is the beauty of it all...If I wanted a dog I would
>get
>> >> a dog. If I want a wolf (and know what that means) then I should be
>able
>> >> to have a wolf. Rules and laws that make it impossible for such a
>> >> freedom are wrong.
>> >>
>> >> WBob
And I suppose it should be ok for people to own Bald Eagles, White Rhinos,
Bengal Tigers, Sea Lions, Skunks, Cobras, and whatever other "wild" animals,
and keep them in their backyard. Or, like the Hybrid breeders in my area, let
them run loose all over the countryside harassing their neighbors. Your
freedom does not give you the right to endanger others. Causing others to be
in danger is wrong. Why keep wild animals captive? Domesticated animals can
be dangerous too... that is why laws exist such as leash laws on dogs, and
mandatory rabies vaccination of dogs and cats... for public health and
protection.
Jason
nad...@erols.com
Vera: Not genetically! Poodles and Mals are much further related than
dogs are to wolves (Vynra, 1993)!
nad...@erols.com
Jason: I can understand your angst, however in my neighborhood, I've had
to take free-ranging DOGS w/no collars bothering my animals through my
fence 3X this year alone. One tryed to bite me. It is an owner problem.
Quit blaming the animals..
F.Drake
Jason wrote:
>
> >> >Bob jotted:
> >> >>
> >> >> Right, and that is the beauty of it all...If I wanted a dog I would
> >get
> >> >> a dog. If I want a wolf (and know what that means) then I should be
> >able
> >> >> to have a wolf. Rules and laws that make it impossible for such a
> >> >> freedom are wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> WBob
>
> Bengal Tigers, Sea Lions, Skunks, Cobras, and whatever other "wild" animals,
> and keep them in their backyard. Or, like the Hybrid breeders in my area, let
> them run loose all over the countryside harassing their neighbors. Your
> freedom does not give you the right to endanger others. Causing others to be
> in danger is wrong. Why keep wild animals captive? Domesticated animals can
> be dangerous too... that is why laws exist such as leash laws on dogs, and
> mandatory rabies vaccination of dogs and cats... for public health and
> protection.
>
> Jason
Well Jason,
Here again we are addressing people who actually follow the laws and if
you try to tell me that all dog owners do I have a List of clients
SOOOOOOOOOOOO long that it would quickly dissolve that dream,if my area
is going to be used as an exception, there is a whole list of other
Professionals who work with dogs 6 to 7 days per week,and are spread out
over the U.S. that I am in constant contact with who will tell the same
basic story...
I know more dog owners who are very irresponsible in some ways
concerning their animals which is not to say that they do not care for
them but rather just do not see the reasoning for some laws and do not
follow them. I hardly think this makes the animals' at fault since they
don't know what the laws regarding these things are.
Example:
In the next town over I have a couple of clients who each have dogs.
One client has a GSP, and a Lab. The other client has a Golden.
Both clients know there is a leash law,both do not observe it,they
reasoned it was kinder to allow their dogs to get some exercise and
socialize with the neighbourhood dogs etc..(this is their own
explanation of what happened)suddenly neighbourhood cats started
disappearing.peculation ran high and most people decided one of two
things were happening.1)Cats were being stolen and sold to labs for
experimentation 2) Predatation on cats was being done by Coydog and/or
Fishers(sp?)
This went on for months. Finally one day a man in the neighbourhood was
in his garage messing with his car,Lots of noise went on outside so he
went out to see what the commotion was about. Right in front of him were
a GSP, Golden Lab and two smaller mixed dogs attacking and shredding his
cat right in his driveway. He tried to stop the dogs before they killed
the cat but they threatened him with teeth,growling and surge attacks
towards him and even when he attacked one of the dogs with a rake it
wouldn't stop ripping apart the cat. His wife who saw from inside the
house called the police and a couple of the dogs were captured and one
was tracked to it's home after the dog showed up bloody at home and the
owner thought someone had hurt their dog.
I deal with three of these dogs on a regular basis,they live in nice
homes,cats are part of the household and they had never been known to
be aggressive before this incident.
Dogs can and will pack up to hunt, if you interfere while they are in
bloodlust mode most likely you will be threatened or attacked. Are these
dogs horrible? No they are dogs and are just doing what comes naturally
to them. The people on the other hand knew the dogs were supposed to be
restrained by law at all times. Who is at fault? The owners or the dogs?
And should I then believe that because these type of dogs were involved
in a dangerous situation that all dogs of that type are equally guilty
and should therefore be outlawed? That would be faulty reasoning on my
part. I hold the PARTICULAR owners at fault. Not all ownwers of those
breeds, not all dogs of those breeds but the irresponsibility of the
individual owner.
Gale
Bob
I think a lot of people missed my point...there was one little
caveat..what it meant to say was; you should be able to own any animal
as long as you understand ALL of the ramifications of ownership. The
implication that "understanding" means following all of the rules was
not stated but meant. Why can't I have a bald eagle? Zoos can, some
scientists can, why can't I. Same with wolves. If I understand (and
follow all of the rules) what is required, then no arbitrary law should
prohibit my ownership. I have more money than most zoos, more land, more
concern and less commercial objectives, why not me? To make laws that
prohibit things are in the same class as book burning and thought
control, they just are easy ways for government to control the people,
not the other way around.
WolfBob
Colin Montoya-Lewis
Bob wrote:
>
> I think a lot of people missed my point...there was one little
> caveat..what it meant to say was; you should be able to own any animal
> as long as you understand ALL of the ramifications of ownership. The
> implication that "understanding" means following all of the rules was
> not stated but meant. Why can't I have a bald eagle? Zoos can, some
> scientists can, why can't I. Same with wolves. If I understand (and
> follow all of the rules) what is required, then no arbitrary law should
> prohibit my ownership. I have more money than most zoos, more land, more
> concern and less commercial objectives, why not me? To make laws that
> prohibit things are in the same class as book burning and thought
> control, they just are easy ways for government to control the people,
> not the other way around.
>
> WolfBob
I think you are confusing the word "freedom." The reason you can't own
a bald eagle and a zoo can is that a zoo is (rightly) subject
to the burden of regulation. Zoos don't have more "freedom" than you,
in this sense, even if they "get" to own bald eagles. If you want to
own a bald eagle, open a zoo. You've got the money, the land, the
concern, and you're not encumbered by "commercial objectives."
But then, I suppose you'd have to deal with all those nasty little
children who wanted to learn about bald eagles. (Damn, no freedom
anymore).
-Colin
Marilyn Karch
Is anyone else as SICK of this thread as I am? Does this really
belong in this group?
>==========nad...@erols.com, 2/1/97==========
>
>Jason: I can understand your angst, however in my neighborhood,
I've had
>to take free-ranging DOGS w/no collars bothering my animals through my
>fence 3X this year alone. One tryed to bite me. It is an owner
>problem.
>Quit blaming the animals..
>
>
>
>Jason wrote:
Jack Shollenberger
In <32F392...@supernet.ab.ca> Vera Casteel
<vcas...@supernet.ab.ca> writes:
>
>>John C. Seamans wrote:
>> > At least they finally admitted that a wolf is not a dog and a dog
is not a
>> > wolf. ;-)
>> >
>> > John S.
>
>nad...@erols.com wrote:
>>
>> Dogs are wolves (same species). On the other hand are poodles
malamutes?
>> It is all about classification levels..
>
evidence>that scientists now classify them as the same species. Does it
matter?
>Not really. Dogs are not wolves because wolves behave differently and
>must be treated differently than dogs.
EXACTLY! And thus should not be sold as "dogs"...As many are..the
ending result is the either the death or "release" of the wolf-hybrid..
Lorrie
Bill&Bonnie
nad...@erols.com wrote:
>
> Jason: I can understand your angst, however in my neighborhood, I've had
> to take free-ranging DOGS w/no collars bothering my animals through my
> fence 3X this year alone. One tryed to bite me. It is an owner problem.
> Quit blaming the animals..
I'll second that. I live in the country and have fence around all my
dogs and my horses. I also have fence around most of the outer
perimeter of my property. I have had to catch several roaming dogs that
of course didn't have even a collar or tags. I handed them over to the
dog warden. One of these dogs even jumped into the fenced area where I
keep my outside dogs. Luckily I was there and caught this very large
talented jumping dog before he could caused trouble. I even found out
who owned these dogs and they are coming from about 3/4 of a mile away.
If I catch another one from these same owners, who seem to get a new dog
every month or two, I will have a talk with them.
P A
Bob--I see what you mean, but unfortunately we responsible owners are
penalized for the behavior of irresposible persons who 'have a ---'
and don't understand what the concept of resposible ownership is and
what it means:
1) When you take on an animal, you are assuming responsibility for
it--from its manure to its teeth, its actions to its legal
obligations.
2) A responsible owner will acknowledge that the above relationship
exists, and honor it in full.
3) A responsible owner will take on the animal with the
understanding that they need to give it both the love and impeccable
care it must have to lead a happy and satisfied life.
Here we come to the rub with *most* wolf or hybrid owners--they feel
that the animal must be able to run free in order to be happy--so
they let it. These animals CAN be dangerous, not always, but it is
possible for ANY animal to become aggressive under some stimuli.
There is another consideration on the veterinary side--there IS no
approved rabies vaccine for wolves and hybrids, as well as skunks and
some other wild species (most of them, if you want to get technical).
There is little data on the response of the wolf and hybrid's immune
system to the commonly used vaccines for distemper, parvo, hepatitis
I and II, and corona viruses. (as far as I am aware..if you know of
some, let me know!)
Many people do not vaccinate these animals that they let run and come
in contact with possible rabies carriers and people who are not aware
of their vaccination status or lack thereof. This is one reason why
wolves and hybrids are disapproved of on a general basis.
The point is not rules, or laws, which restrict the honest or
responsible person. The point is that these rules or laws must exist
to protect the general public from irresponsible owners and their
misconceptions about what may and may not be done in today's society.
Email RN...@msn.com
nad...@erols.com
To quote you "No they're not"
Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
>
> nad...@erols.com writes:
>
> >Vera: Not genetically! Poodles and Mals are much further related than
> >dogs are to wolves (Vynra, 1993)!
>
> Assuming that you meant dogs are more closely related to wolves than
> mals are to poodles, this statement is not logically consistent.
>
> Mals and poodles are dogs.
>
> Threfore, if dogs are closely related to wolves, both mals and poodles
> are closely related to wolves.
>
> But this contradicts the premise that poodles and mals are not
> closely related.
>
> --Cindy
> --
> *********** tit...@netcom.com ** http://www.zmall.com/tittle.html ***********
> By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the
> definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to
> send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to
> recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation.
> See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
Steve Barnard
Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
>
> nad...@erols.com writes:
>
> >Vera: Not genetically! Poodles and Mals are much further related than
> >dogs are to wolves (Vynra, 1993)!
>
> Assuming that you meant dogs are more closely related to wolves than
> mals are to poodles, this statement is not logically consistent.
>
> Mals and poodles are dogs.
>
> Threfore, if dogs are closely related to wolves, both mals and poodles
> are closely related to wolves.
>
> But this contradicts the premise that poodles and mals are not
> closely related.
>
The "closeness" of relationship between two animals is determined by
their most recent common ancestor. I don't really know for sure, but I
suspect that Malemutes were bred from wolf stock in North America while
Poodles were bred from wolf stock in Europe and possibly Asia. If that
is in fact the case then Malemutes and Poodles are more closely related
to wolves than they are to each other.
Steve Barnard
Jack Shollenberger
In <32F406...@csnsys.com> Bob <wol...@csnsys.com> writes:
>
>I think a lot of people missed my point...there was one little
>caveat..what it meant to say was; you should be able to own any animal
>as long as you understand ALL of the ramifications of ownership. The
>implication that "understanding" means following all of the rules was
>not stated but meant.
This is where our thoughts differ..personally I respect and love the
"wild"...I don't wish to destroy it by "owning" something that doesn't
belong to me...
Why can't I have a bald eagle?
Zoos can, some
>scientists can, why can't I.
This is a sad way of thinking..I personally feel that all animals in
the wild do not belong to anybody...and I wish to keep it that way.
Same with wolves. If I understand (and
>follow all of the rules) what is required, then no arbitrary law
should>prohibit my ownership. I have more money than most zoos, more
land, more>concern and less commercial objectives.
To make laws that
>prohibit things are in the same class as book burning and thought
>control, they just are easy ways for government to control the people,
>not the other way around.
Well, I am not in the government..I do think that most against the
ownership of "wolves and wolf-dogs" are so because they truly love the
wolf..again you can't say I love the wolf..then change it..Now it has
been said that a wolf will naturally kill a dog on sight...so when then
I ask are you breeding a wolf and a dog? Wolves will not breed with
dogs in the wild..so why do it? Surely there must be a reason? What
makes breeders of these "wolf-dogs" think that they know more then
"mother nature?"...urggghh I just don't get it.
>
>WolfBob
>
>Jason wrote:
>>
>> >> >Bob jotted:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Right, and that is the beauty of it all...If I wanted a dog I
would
>> >get
>> >> >> a dog. If I want a wolf (and know what that means) then I
should be
>> >able
>> >> >> to have a wolf. Rules and laws that make it impossible for
such a
>> >> >> freedom are wrong.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> WBob
>>
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>> > From the wolf, we got the dog. What more do we need from the wolf?
>> > The best thing we can now do for the wolf, if we really and TRULY love
>> > it, is to just LEAVE IT ALONE. Don't we owe it even that?
Since wild wolves are apparently not trapped for these purposes I am
not sure I understand your point. What makes wolves special beyond
other breeds/subspecies/??? that you don't think they should be
crossbred? Or do you not beleive that new breeds should be pursued
and that crossbreeding in general is immoral? If so could you please
explain why?
>> I find the notion that wolves should be just left alone to be hopelessly
>> romantic. They were a very wide-ranging animal, but we shot and trapped
>> and poisoned them to extinction in the lower 48. It is through human
>> intervention that wolves are being reintroduced to Yellowstone and to
>> Idaho. A few made it to Glacier on their own, but the habitat is too
>> fragmented for them to repopulate further on their own.
To understand why Glacier and Idaho never repopulated naturally, consider
that every time the wolf sitings (by rangers/backpackers) made the newspaper
they almost immediately stopped. i.e. some good old boys went a huntin'.
[Steve' speculation on why people want hybreds deleted]
>When it comes to breeding animals I am always of the opinion that if
>someone has done the groundwork it is a futile exercise to try to repeat
>it. The wolf was tamed a long long time ago and today's dogs are the
>result: what is the point of trying to do it again?
New vigor. Botanists are always going back to "primative" seeds
to try new things. Unless some large %age of hybreds are being
destroyed I don't see your beef.
Robert
specify the e-mail address below, my reply-to: has anti-spam added to it
Mor...@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
tit...@netcom.com. (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes:
>Steve Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> writes:
>>Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
>>> nad...@erols.com writes:
>>> >Vera: Not genetically! Poodles and Mals are much further related than
>>> >dogs are to wolves (Vynra, 1993)!
What exactly is the basis for this statement?
>>> Assuming that you meant dogs are more closely related to wolves than
>>> mals are to poodles, this statement is not logically consistent.
>>> Mals and poodles are dogs.
>>> Threfore, if dogs are closely related to wolves, both mals and poodles
>>> are closely related to wolves.
>>> But this contradicts the premise that poodles and mals are not
>>> closely related.
>>The "closeness" of relationship between two animals is determined by
>>their most recent common ancestor. I don't really know for sure, but I
>>suspect that Malemutes were bred from wolf stock in North America while
>>Poodles were bred from wolf stock in Europe and possibly Asia. If that
>>is in fact the case then Malemutes and Poodles are more closely related
>>to wolves than they are to each other.
>I understood that; the contradiction then lies in adding "than
>dogs are to wolves".
>You can't have both parts of the statemetn no matter whether you take
>nadadogs position or mine.
ouch, this is a nasty semantics? problem.
One could restate it as ... the genetic difference between most
wolves and most dogs is less than that between poodles and Mals...
hmmmm, do we think that dogs are an example of convergent evolution?
Did various dog breeds evolve seperately from wolves? In which case
the statement that there is a single species canis fam. is ... um
interesting at the least :). at least to my non-biologist's mind.
Perhaps a bunch of sub-species of wolves that purely for convenience's
sake we lump into a single sub-species.
There is another way of looking at this, if Mals have evolved x amount
from being wolves and Poodles have evolved 4x , in the same direction
but farther,(and the two wolf populations they evolved from were 1/2 x
different from each other) then we could say that:
Malemutess are closer to wolves than they are to poodles.
and perhaps even:
Malemutes share less genetic material with poodles than does the wt.ed
average of all dogs.
But yes I must concede that it doesn't really make any sense to talk about
dogs as a group, so you are right "than dogs are to wolves" is bogus.
Hmmm, what was the point again? :)
It may be that the behavioural genes of dogs are dominant over those
of wolves. From examples given there are clearly some owners and breeders
of hybreds who should have their nose rubbed in it but as has been pointed
out many times those are the humans not the hybreds.
Unless you can show one or more of the following:
1)the vast majority (a significant %age?) of hybreds cause problems
2)a significant %age of hybreds are destroyed
3)there is a significantly greater possibility of harm when an ignoramus
buys a wolf/hybred than when an ignoramus buys a pitbull/rotty/
GSD/Dobie/<insert fad dog of the month>
and that the above problems can not be reasonably minimized, via
regulation if neccessary, then I don't think you have a case.
I will define a significant %age as triple the %age of any other
breed, (esp. during the original creation of the breed) or 20%
whichever is greater.
nad...@erols.com
Jack: You are right that "all animals in the wild do not belong to
anybody". Wolves born and raised in captivity are not "wild" animals.
Wild wolves WILL kill most any animal that enters its territory and that
it has not been socialized to. Wolves in captivity, if bonded to humans
and other dogs will NOT behave in this manner. "IF" a wild born wolf grew
up and bonded to a dog in the wild I have no doubt that breeding will
take place!
Jack Shollenberger wrote:
>
> This is a sad way of thinking..I personally feel that all animals in
> the wild do not belong to anybody...and I wish to keep it that way.
Jack Shollenberger
In <32F804...@erols.com> nad...@erols.com writes:
>
>Jack: You are right that "all animals in the wild do not belong to
>anybody". Wolves born and raised in captivity are not "wild" animals.
>Wild wolves WILL kill most any animal that enters its territory and
that >it has not been socialized to. Wolves in captivity, if bonded to
humans >and other dogs will NOT behave in this manner. "IF" a wild born
wolf grew >up and bonded to a dog in the wild I have no doubt that
breeding will >take place!
I doubt that would happen..re: the dog and the wolf..but regardless all
say that the wolves being bred have been raised in captivity...what do
you think that word means? Check it out. Secondly the wolves had to
have been "stolen" from the wild at one point or another..this is
obvious. To breed wolves and dogs makes about as much sense as
crossing a Great Dane with a teacup poodle...two completly different
animals..in behavior and appearance. I prefer to spend my time
protecting the natural wolf..and helping those that are taking the time
to reintroduce them into the wild...where they belong. I don't condone
the ownership of any exotic animal..plain and simple. It isn't our
right. I ran across a wonderful old Indian saying it basically boils
down to this "We rent the land from our children"...meaning we don't
really own anything.
I love nature...to see a wolf in the wild howling for it's companions
to me is beautiful..to see that same wolf crossed with a dog..and
sitting on somebody's back porch or on their sofa saddens me. What
saddens me more is this: These wolf-dogs are being sold as dogs..now
if breeders took some more responsiblity to make the public aware that
they are not dogs..they require a lot more training then most "dog"
owners are willing to do. I can't think of one normal dog owner out
there that would tolerate an animal not being housebroken for over a
year. As I mentioned I feel sorry for the wolf-dogs out there that are
in the wrong hands..and are now leading miserable lives..and this is
what I mean when I say that breeders of these animals have a "selfish"
love. Am I saying that there are not breeders out there that are
responsible? No..I am not. But generally from what I have seen in the
local paper they are few and far between. This weekend I plan on
visiting a local sanctuary for wolves..to donate my time to preserve
them...and I plan on questioning them regarding this thread..and speak
to some experts...
As I also mentioned before that a neighbor of my mother owns a wolf
dog..and because he couldn't train him..this guy lives his life in a
kennel constructed of heavy duty fencing material...aprox 4 feet wide
by 10 feet long..aprox 5.5 feet high..now keep in mind even the top and
bottom are all fenced in..to prevent him from digging...This guy became
frustrated with this dog...and his way of handling it was to lock this
guy up..something not to uncommon...While on my visit to my parents in
aprox. 2 months I plan on stepping in and trying to provide a better
life for this poor wolf-dog. To educate his owners..to attempt to
locate the breeder..to find a rescue group of some sort...However I
have noticed that rescue groups for wolf-dogs are few and far between.
I know that my heart is going to break for this animal..but I also know
that another part of me will become furious with the breeder for NOT
properly educating this man on what he was really getting into...
Off my soapbox.
Lorrie
ANTINORO, FRANK JOSEPH
In article <tittleE5...@netcom.com>, tit...@netcom.com. (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes...
>nad...@erols.com writes:
>
>>Vera: Not genetically! Poodles and Mals are much further related than
>>dogs are to wolves (Vynra, 1993)!
>
>mals are to poodles, this statement is not logically consistent.
>
>Mals and poodles are dogs.
>
>Threfore, if dogs are closely related to wolves, both mals and poodles
>are closely related to wolves.
>
>But this contradicts the premise that poodles and mals are not
>closely related.
>
>--
Cindy--
I am related to my father. My father's brother's son is related to my father.
By your reasoning, my relationship to my father is not closer than my
relationship to my cousin.
--Frank
Bill Thacker
Lorrie wrote:
>I don't condone
>the ownership of any exotic animal..plain and simple. It isn't our
>right. I ran across a wonderful old Indian saying it basically boils
>down to this "We rent the land from our children"...meaning we don't
>really own anything.
That's a noble sentiment, and apparently it worked OK for the native
Americans. But take a look at any rental property near your home...
are you sure that's what you want our wildlands to look like?
I'm not saying we should hunt wild animals to extinction and pave
Yellowstone into a parking lot. But it seems clear that we Americans
as a people aren't good at preserving something unless we own it or
have some other use for it. That's why wolves are endangered and
cattle and deer are doing fine.
I don't offer any conclusion that benefits wild wolves. It's just an
observation...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker Lucent Technologies Network Wireless Systems
w...@cbemg.lucent.com (614) 860-5294 Columbus, Ohio
Jack Shollenberger
In <5db19c$8...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com> w...@cbemg.cb.lucent.com (Bill
Thacker) writes:
>
>Lorrie wrote:
>
>>I don't condone
>>the ownership of any exotic animal..plain and simple. It isn't our
>>right. I ran across a wonderful old Indian saying it basically boils
>>down to this "We rent the land from our children"...meaning we don't
>>really own anything.
>
>That's a noble sentiment, and apparently it worked OK for the native
>Americans. But take a look at any rental property near your home...
>are you sure that's what you want our wildlands to look like?
>
>I'm not saying we should hunt wild animals to extinction and pave
>Yellowstone into a parking lot. But it seems clear that we Americans
>as a people aren't good at preserving something unless we own it or
>have some other use for it. That's why wolves are endangered and
>cattle and deer are doing fine.
I understand the point that you are getting at..however I would like to
think..that many Americans think just the opposite..mainly those
affiliated with preservation efforts..Green Peace..etc. And for the
flamers.. NO not Peta or ALF..Okay..in my opinion..the very reason that
certain animals are becoming extinct is because we, meaning americans,
feel that we own everything..Heck they now want to allow hunting for
sea lions...because the fishing industry is claiming that they are
eating too much fish! How dare they? Anyways I do believe that there
will come a time that man as a whole will take their head out of their
butts....and think about what they are really doing to this planet and
all animals on it. Perhaps that is a romantic thought.
Vera Casteel
nad...@erols.com wrote:
>
> Vera: Not genetically! Poodles and Mals are much further related than
> dogs are to wolves (Vynra, 1993)!
Did I say anything about genetic relation? No. I said BEHAVIOUR. I said
NOTHING about how closely they are related GENETICALLY. Please reread my
original post. I even added emphasis. My view still stands, based on
what I have learned reading wolfdog web pages.
> Vera Casteel wrote:
> >
> > I don't think John was referring to species. Everyone has seen evidence
> > that scientists now classify them as the same species. Does it matter?
> > Not really. Dogs are not wolves because wolves behave differently and
> > must be treated differently than dogs. The difference between wolves and
> > dogs is much greater than the difference between poodles and malamutes,
> > behaviourwise. If you treat a wolf like a dog, you're going to end up
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Steve Barnard
Vera Casteel wrote:
>
> nad...@erols.com wrote:
> >
> > Vera: Not genetically! Poodles and Mals are much further related than
> > dogs are to wolves (Vynra, 1993)!
>
> Did I say anything about genetic relation? No. I said BEHAVIOUR. I said
> NOTHING about how closely they are related GENETICALLY. Please reread my
> original post. I even added emphasis. My view still stands, based on
> what I have learned reading wolfdog web pages.
>
Vera,
A Malemute behaves *nothing* like a Poodle. They are about as different
in behavior as it is possible for two types of canine to be. My take on
Malemutes (and I once owned one) is that they are thinly disguised
wolves.
Steve Barnard
Brent L. Brock
Bill Thacker <w...@cbemg.cb.lucent.com> wrote in article
<5db19c$8...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com>...
[snip]
>
> I'm not saying we should hunt wild animals to extinction and pave
> Yellowstone into a parking lot. But it seems clear that we Americans
> as a people aren't good at preserving something unless we own it or
> have some other use for it. That's why wolves are endangered and
> cattle and deer are doing fine.
>
>
>
> I don't offer any conclusion that benefits wild wolves. It's just an
> observation...
>
You sell yourself short. It means that if we start thinking about wildlife
and wilderness as a commodity, we may be able to preserve much more of it.
Think of all the ways that wild wolves can make money for the communities
near their habitat. That's the key to conservation in this materialistic
society.
--
-----------------------------------------
Brent L. Brock
Kansas State University
Dept. of Agronomy, Range Science
blb...@ksu.edu
------------------------------------------
L.D.Andrade
BINGO! Steve, you have got it exactly! :)
Different dog breeds can be more closely related to their
wolf ancestors (biological distant fathers) than they are
to other dog breeds (biological distant cousins).
See - R. Nowak, L.David Mech, dingo evolution, et. al.
I can send you specific articles & citations if you are interested.
L.A.
In a previous article, st...@megafauna.com (Steve Barnard) says:
>Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
>>
>> nad...@erols.com writes:
>>
>> >Vera: Not genetically! Poodles and Mals are much further related than
>> >dogs are to wolves (Vynra, 1993)!
>>
>> Assuming that you meant dogs are more closely related to wolves than
>> mals are to poodles, this statement is not logically consistent.
>>
>> Mals and poodles are dogs.
>>
>> Threfore, if dogs are closely related to wolves, both mals and poodles
>> are closely related to wolves.
>>
>> But this contradicts the premise that poodles and mals are not
>> closely related.
>>
>
>The "closeness" of relationship between two animals is determined by
>their most recent common ancestor. I don't really know for sure, but I
>suspect that Malemutes were bred from wolf stock in North America while
>Poodles were bred from wolf stock in Europe and possibly Asia. If that
>is in fact the case then Malemutes and Poodles are more closely related
>to wolves than they are to each other.
>
> Steve Barnard
>
Zepp
OB...@no-bulkmail.please (OBVC) caused us all to grin by saying:
>Wolf-dog breeders are ignoring one important fact. They are ignoring
>50,000 years of domestication Canis lupus familiaris has that their
>wolves do not have. A hell of a lot of temperment and behavior
>selection has gone on in that time, which you can never get in a
>lifetime of wolf-dog mixes. You are dealing with wild animals, and wild
>animal behavior. "Socialization" does little to alter instinct and
>survival behavior. Wild animals behave and respond to stimuli very
>different than domesticated animals. Quit fooling yourselves to believe
>differently.
>
Ah, yes. *This* hoary old argument. This was an ancient ploy when *I* was a
cub.
Tell me, does this 50,000 years of domestication account for Chihuahuas? For
the occasional vicous Boxer <we had one once; lovely girl, but completely
untrustworthy as regards biting>? I presume, then, that when some child is
mauled and partly eaten by a neighbour's "attack" dogs <ie poorly socialized
abused dogs>, that this sort of behaviour is *desired* by the breeders of
Canis familiaris? Or at least, can you say that such behaviour is never a
surprise, or unwanted, or ever noted in any dog?
Of course you can't. Canids get a little over the top sometimes. That goes
for domestic *and* wild strains. But mindless hysteria will solve nothing.
Greywolf the Wanderer, borrowing zepp's account
(Looks innocent): "Of course I've had my rabies shot, officer --
see my dog tags?"
nad...@erols.com
You have every right to be pissed off at breeders like that, I've HATED
them for years! Most responsible owners/breeders WILL NOT advertize in
the local papers because they care who their pups will go to. Next time
you see an add, call them up and ask them if they are a member of USAWA
or IoWolfers, I bet 100% will say NO! They may be members of some other
dinky, scumsucking, misrepresenting, unverifiable, noneducating,
moneygrubbing, lowlife, so-called wolf hybrid organization. I would
advise people to run not walk away from breeders like those!!!
PS... The American Indians had their own breeds of woldog for many many
years before they had the horse. Their wolfdog breed was just as
important to them as the Malamute was to the Alaskan Inuit!
Jack Shollenberger wrote:
>
> In <32F804...@erols.com> nad...@erols.com writes:
> >
> >Jack: You are right that "all animals in the wild do not belong to
> >anybody". Wolves born and raised in captivity are not "wild" animals.
> >Wild wolves WILL kill most any animal that enters its territory and
> that >it has not been socialized to. Wolves in captivity, if bonded to
> humans >and other dogs will NOT behave in this manner. "IF" a wild born
> wolf grew >up and bonded to a dog in the wild I have no doubt that
> breeding will >take place!
>
> I doubt that would happen..re: the dog and the wolf..but regardless all
> say that the wolves being bred have been raised in captivity...what do
> you think that word means? Check it out. Secondly the wolves had to
> have been "stolen" from the wild at one point or another..this is
> obvious. To breed wolves and dogs makes about as much sense as
> crossing a Great Dane with a teacup poodle...two completly different
> animals..in behavior and appearance. I prefer to spend my time
> protecting the natural wolf..and helping those that are taking the time
> to reintroduce them into the wild...where they belong. I don't condone
> the ownership of any exotic animal..plain and simple. It isn't our
> right. I ran across a wonderful old Indian saying it basically boils
> down to this "We rent the land from our children"...meaning we don't
> really own anything.
>
nad...@erols.com
So you are trying to tell me that wolves and dogs, behaviorally, are
totally different??? Better read a couple of dog training books! The ones
I've seen say basic dog behavior IS wolf behavior!
Vera Casteel wrote:
>
> nad...@erols.com wrote:
> >
> > Vera: Not genetically! Poodles and Mals are much further related than
> > dogs are to wolves (Vynra, 1993)!
>
> Did I say anything about genetic relation? No. I said BEHAVIOUR. I said
> NOTHING about how closely they are related GENETICALLY. Please reread my
> original post. I even added emphasis. My view still stands, based on
> what I have learned reading wolfdog web pages.
>
F.Drake
they require a lot more training then most "dog"
> > owners are willing to do. I can't think of one normal dog owner out
> > there that would tolerate an animal not being housebroken for over a
> > year.
Well Lorrie,
I agree with you on some points and disagree with you on others. I am
however glad that you feel inclined to help a dog who sounds as if it
needs some help.
The one thing I felt needed to be responded to was the part of your
post which is above.
I can name hundreds of different acceptable AKC breeds belonging to the
"normal dog owner" whose dogs are not house trained for at least as long
as this and in many cases are NEVER house trained at all. In fact I know
just as many domestic dogs that fit the description of behaviours that
many call Wolf traits . That is really called OWNER PROBLEMS.
And just for the record here I want to say that I have fit in that
category on occasion myself.I had a particular Afghan Hound that was not
completely house trained until 2 years of age,which btw is not highly
unusual for the breed as they are not easy to train being stubborn and
independent. Since I used to raise and show them I know that this is a
common owner problem.
Gale
Carol Dunster
On 5 Feb 1997 13:21 MST, anti...@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (ANTINORO,
FRANK JOSEPH) wrote:
> In article <tittleE5...@netcom.com>, tit...@netcom.com. (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes...
> >nad...@erols.com writes:
> >
> >>Vera: Not genetically! Poodles and Mals are much further related than
> >>dogs are to wolves (Vynra, 1993)!
> >
> >Assuming that you meant dogs are more closely related to wolves than
> >mals are to poodles, this statement is not logically consistent.
> >
> >Mals and poodles are dogs.
> >
> >Threfore, if dogs are closely related to wolves, both mals and poodles
> >are closely related to wolves.
> >
> >But this contradicts the premise that poodles and mals are not
> >closely related.
> >
> >--Cindy
>>--
>
>Cindy--
>I am related to my father. My father's brother's son is related to my father.
>By your reasoning, my relationship to my father is not closer than my
>relationship to my cousin.
> --Frank
Frank,
Notice that she was talking about degrees of relationship. Your
father's brother's son is not as closely related to your father as you
are. Therefor the analogy does not hold up and you are more cloely
related to your father than your cousin is.
Carol
--
Carwyn Silky Terriers
http://www.prodogs.com/dbn/carwyn/index.htm
Steve Barnard
Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
>
> hv...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (L.D.Andrade) writes:
>
> >BINGO! Steve, you have got it exactly! :)
>
> >Different dog breeds can be more closely related to their
> >wolf ancestors (biological distant fathers) than they are
> >to other dog breeds (biological distant cousins).
>
>
> >>> >Vera: Not genetically! Poodles and Mals are much further related than
> >>> >dogs are to wolves (Vynra, 1993)!
> >>>
> >>> Assuming that you meant dogs are more closely related to wolves than
> >>> mals are to poodles, this statement is not logically consistent.
>
> Try using Venn diagrams if you don't get it.
>
Well, let's try a Venn diagram (which I'll have to explain in words).
Pick a poodle (call it p) and a Malemute (call it m). Construct the set
Sp1 which is the set of all animals ancestal to poodle p in one
generation. Similarly, construct the set Sm1 which is the set of all
animals ancestral to Malemute m in one generation.
Now expand these sets, so that Spk is the set of all animals ancestral
to any member of the set Sp(k-1), and similarly for Smk.
Eventually, for some k, Spk will include a wolf, and so will Smk (with
different values of k in general).
At this point the intersection of Spk and Smk is the null set.
Steve Barnard