NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/alt/wolves/12

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-27 | 7.9 KB

Xref: sparky alt.wolves:12 rec.pets.dogs:9034
Newsgroups: alt.wolves,rec.pets.dogs
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!lanl!beta.lanl.gov!srlee
From: [e-mail] (Stephen R Lee)
Subject: Re: response to rec.pets.dogs FAQ
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
References: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:39:30 GMT
Lines: 150

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry Hunter) writes:
>
>Cindy Moore has made some changes to the wolf-hybrid FAQ, mostly removing
>factually incorrect segments.  I think it's a lot better now, but I thought I
>would post my email comments anyway.  I address some of the misinformation
>about wolf-hybrids that are more widespread than just the FAQ and add some
>personal opinions.  Hope you find this interesting.
>
>The old FAQ entry is indented.  My comments are flush left.
>
>   **********************************************************************
>   Wolf-hybrids make extremely poor pets, and you *should* *not* consider
>   getting one.  What follows is for informational purposes only.
>   **********************************************************************
>
>I have owned 3 "high percentage" wolf hybrids (WHs), and two of them were
>excellent pets.  I have also known dozens of other WHs and their owners over
>more than a decade.  In my opinion, they possess a level of social intelligence
>the likes of which I have rarely witnessed in other breeds of dog.  There are
>certainly challenges in owning WHs, as there are in owning any animal that has
>the potential to be dangerous to people; however, WHs are by no means the only
>dog breed that has that potential.  Certainly judging by the number of reported
>attacks on humans, hybrids are not anywhere near as dangerous as shepards,
>rotwillers, dobermans, pit bulls, great danes, huskies or many other breeds of
>dog.

There are hundreds of thousands of these breeds around.  How many WH are there?
With such vastly different populations, you cannot judge from "raw numbers."

>
>I think it is much fairer to say
>
>"Wolf-hybrids are not for everybody.  Like other potentially dangerous breeds,
>they require a high level of training and careful supervision."

I disagree.  I think the warning is fine the way it is.  They are a bad idea.
Leave the wolves in the wild (or, to be more correct, *return* wolves to the
wild, don't place them in backyards).

[comments about genetics deleted]

>
>   Apparently, the only WH's that work out well are the ones that act very,
>   very dog-like.  Although there are exceptions, most WH's do NOT act like
>   domesticated dogs.  Dogs are the result of thousands of years of genetic
>   selection for those attributes that are desired by man.  The wolf, on the
>   other hand, has been selected to be intelligent, cunning and cool-headed.
>
>One implication of this statement is that dogs have been breed to be less
>intelligent than wolves (in some respects at least) and I think this is true.

As a *result* of domistication, dogs brains have gotten smaller, due to
the fact that they are no longer predators, no longer have a need to use
their wits for survival (at least in my opinion).

>That is one of the main attractions of WHs (as well as Australian shepards and
>lots of other "working" dogs).

What?  The larger brain in the wolf?  How is this larger brain and increased
intelligence challenged in someones backyard?  It is challenged in the wild.

>
>The WHs that work out well are the ones (A) with owners who are conscientious,
>knowledgable, and willing to put in the effort required train large animals
>successfully; (B) who are not very skittish around strangers, even as puppies;
>(C) who are not very aggressive around food.
>
>I belive the most important determinant of how well a WH will "work out" is its
>owner.  Large animals like WHs simply must be well trained.  This requires
>dilligence and effort, and usually the help of a professional.  I also agree
>with your statement that it is a good idea for WH owners to know about wolves
>and wolf packs.  (I don't think they need to be Ph.D.'s in ethology though!)

Good idea?  I think it is a necessity, by defninition.  It might be a "good idea"
for people that have dogs to read about wolves and wolf packs.

>
>   Most suffer from a fear, or at least a nervousness, of being around people
>   and are very timid until something happens to go against their instincts.
>
>There are two qualities of the animal that I feel are also important for how
>well the animal will fare in a domestic environment.  As you point out, some
>WHs are very skittish.  This is a sign of potential problems, since fearful
>animals are more likely to become aggressive.  However, my experience has been
>that most WHs are NOT nervous.  It is also relatively easy to determine this

But all wolves are, by necessity.  Even though I deleted your section on genetics, I
saw nothing in it that says which wolf traits you are getting and which you are not
when you breed.  How do you know?  I'm not a breeder, so I have no experience
in this area (hence the simple questions, and the deletion of the genetics section.
I have nothing to add there).

[stuff deleted]

>
>   You need to watch the dog around strangers because they will back bite.
>
>You need to watch any large animal around strangers.  Again, WH have attacked
>far fewer people than many other breeds of dog.  As I said before, a skittish

Again, raw numbers are meaningless.

>WH can be a problem, and should be isolated from contact with strangers.  I
>don't know what distinction is being drawn by "back bite" vs. just "bite," but
>all the evidence is that WHs are less dangerous than many other breeds of dog.

I see no such evidence.  I am not saying that I see a great deal of evidence
that they are significalntly more dangerous than other breeds, but I certainly
see no evidence that indicates they are *less* dangerous.

[stuff deleted]

>In summary, in appropriate contexts, with responsible owners, wolf-hybrids can
>make excellent pets.  The sensationalistic hype around them has more to do with
>the "big bad wolf" than with the reality of wolf hybrids.  (BTW, if you think
>US wolf stories are bad, ask an eastern european what they think of wolves!)
>
>Larry
>
>--
>Lawrence Hunter, PhD.
>National Library of Medicine
>Bldg. 38A, MS-54
>Bethesda. MD 20894
>[phone]
>[phone] (fax)
>[e-mail] (internet)

I maintain that wolf hybrids are a bad idea.  I'm not trying to be insulting,
it is just how I feel.  Dogs have been domesticated for a long, long time.
I fail to see the rationale behind trying to put a wild animal, or some
higher "proportion" of a wild animal in our backyards.  Does'nt this strike
anyone as just a little cruel?  Instead of this, why not help out the many
efforts around the country that are trying to re-introduce the wolf into
the wild?  There are several attempts underway right now, the mexican wolf
to Big Bend and the grey wolf to Yellowstone are just a couple efforts that
spring to mind.  The public has a very narrow minded view of wolves, and
*every time* a wolf-hybrid injures someone, it sets back wolf re-introduction
efforts, because it re-inforces the public's negative images of wolves.  In
addition, the public cannot tell the difference between a WH and an Alaskan
Malamute or a Siberian Husky or a few other dogs, and as incidents between
WH and humans rise (and I guarantee they will), they have a negative impact on
these breeds as well.  I think that it is far better to get the wolf back in
the wild where it belongs, and stop trying to get it in our backyards.

--
============================================================
Stephen R. Lee                 |
OooWoo Racing Kennel           | I'd rather be driving sled
E-Mail: [e-mail]    | dogs.