If I Hand-raised a Wolf Pup from Birth:

Factual Questions
61

[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
In short: how true this story might have been… not at all. The guy was an idiot. A later poster was correct in that chronic malnutrition may have kept it more docile. A “red nose” pit bull is no stronger or better a fighter than a brown pit bull, or a black nosed pit bull, or a white-eared pit bull, or any other random physical descriptor pit bull. Rhodies are not particularly good fighters and in the US are not particularly physically capable, in general. I could go on, but that should give you an idea of what kind of an idiot this guy was.
[/QUOTE]

Why did this person think it was agood idea to feed a wolf a vegetarian diet? :confused:

Didn’t he see those nature documentaries?

62

[QUOTE=Zoe]
As of ten years ago, there had not been a documented case of anyone being killed by a pure wolf in the United States. I haven’t heard of any incident since then, but I am open to unbiased documentation.
[/QUOTE]

That question is being discussed over in this thread.

63

[QUOTE=BluePitbull]
Why did this person think it was agood idea to feed a wolf a vegetarian diet? :confused:

Didn’t he see those nature documentaries?
[/QUOTE]

Because starving it into docility is easier than being smart enough to live with a wolf? Having a working relationship with a wild predator is constant hard work. I’m beginning to appreciate it more and more, as I’m taking baby steps into being an apprentice falconer. This guy was an idiot, it’s not as though he had any kind of insight whatsoever into the behavioral processes of either his dog or his wolf to the detriment of both canines as we see in the end of the story, or he would have seen the fight brewing from day one. The bone had very little to do with it other than as a potential catalyst. He heard feeding it the diet it’s evolved to eat makes it “nasty and wild” whereas in truth it’s the other way around–starvation will make anything docile. Good nutrition only brings out the true nature of the beast, it’s up to the handler to learn to live harmoniously with the animal in its true nature if you take on the task of doing so.
Done right it’s a beautiful thing, if a total, unrelenting pain in the ass as MadPansy64 can clearly attest, but the relationship brings out the best in both species. As a task taken on by some macho idiot who thinks the color of the nose makes a warrior out of a dog and starvation is a means of control, and you end up with a travesty on multiple levels.

64

[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
In short: how true this story might have been… not at all. The guy was an idiot. A later poster was correct in that chronic malnutrition may have kept it more docile. A “red nose” pit bull is no stronger or better a fighter than a brown pit bull, or a black nosed pit bull, or a white-eared pit bull, or any other random physical descriptor pit bull. Rhodies are not particularly good fighters and in the US are not particularly physically capable, in general. I could go on, but that should give you an idea of what kind of an idiot this guy was.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you. This is a good example of the idiocy that is typical among both pit bull and wolf fanciers.
[semi-hijack]As an 8-year owner of a purebred APBT I guess you could call me a recovering idiot. I used to believe a lot of it, like red nose=more game, red nose=stupid, but not the locking jaws BS. My long and varied association with this breed has taught me that there is a huge variance of temperment and intelligence in the pit bull breed. I suspect that the same is true of wolves & wolf/dog hybrids also.[/semi-hijack]

65

[QUOTE=Colibri]
John has this exactly right. Whether wolves and dogs are
the same species is a matter of definition. Since the definition of species according to the Biological Species Concept does not apply to domestic animals, it is impossible to settle the question by invoking the BSC. As with other cases where the BSC can’t be applied, one must use other criteria to decide species status. While in the past the convention was to class domestic animals as species separate from the ancestral species, the modern convention is to include them in the same species. The only thing to be “settled” is whether you accept that convention or not.
[/QUOTE]

Do we do this with all species? Cows, Sheep, Horses, Cats, Pigs, and so forth?
As far as the cat goes, it still seems to be a matter of debate (Wiki) "*The domestic cat was named Felis catus by Carolus Linnaeus in his Systema Naturae of 1758. Johann Christian Daniel von Schreber named the wild cat Felis silvestris in 1775. The domestic cat is now considered a subspecies of the wild cat: by the strict rule of priority of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature the name for the species thus ought to be F. catus since Linnaeus published first. However, in practice almost all biologists use F. silvestris for the wild species, using F. catus only for the domesticated form.

In opinion 2027 (published in Volume 60, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, March 31 2003[5]) the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature “conserved the usage of 17 specific names based on wild species, which are predated by or contemporary with those based on domestic forms”, thus confirming F. silvestris for the wild cat and F. silvestris catus for its domesticated subspecies. (F. catus is still valid if the domestic form is considered a separate species.)
*"

http://www.iczn.org/BZNMar2003opinions.htm#opinion2027
"OPINION 2027 (Case 3010)

Usage of 17 specific names based on wild species which are pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals (Lepidoptera, Osteichthyes, Mammalia): conserved

Abstract. The Commission has conserved the usage of 17 specific names based on wild species, which are pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic forms. The majority of wild progenitors and their domestic derivatives share the same name, but in the 17 cases considered (1 Lepidoptera, 1 Osteichthyes and 15 Mammalia) the wild and domestic forms have been separately named and this has created confusion.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Perissodactyla; Artiodactyla; Rodentia; Carnivora; Lepidoptera; Osteichthyes; names for wild species with domestic derivatives; Equus africanus; Equus ferus; Camelus ferus; Lama guanicoe; Vicugna vicugna; Bos primigenius; Bos gaurus; Bubalus arnee; Bos mutus; Capra aegagrus; Ovis orientalis; Cavia aperea; Canis lupus; Mustela putorius; Felis silvestris; Carassius gibelio; Bombyx mandarina; ass; tarpan; Bactrian camel; guanaco; vicuña; aurochs; gaur; water buffalo; yak; bezoar; Asian mouflon; guinea pig; wolf; polecat; wildcat; Prussian carp; gibel carp; mulberry silk moth."

And from what I can see, the Horse remains Equus caballus, and not Equus ferus.

Sheep remain O. aries, and not O. orientalis or several others (perhaps that’s the reason, they aren’t 100% sure of what ancestors the domestic sheep really does come from).

And of course, Humans remain Homo Sapiens, not Homo erectus or something else. We’re “domesticated” too, aren’t we? Or are we? :stuck_out_tongue:

So, it’s a new (2003) ruling by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, it goes against established rules of priority, and it’s applied unevenly. We’ll see if it sticks. They have changed their minds before (in fact this is them changing their mind).

But I’ll point out, this isn’t quite the same thing as the Commission and Zoologists agreeing that all Wild species and the domesticated species are the very same species- it’s a naming convention. There is no rock solid line between “species” and “sub-species”, and here the Commission has just thrown their hands up in the air and ruled that most domesticated species are the same as their wild forebears, without doing a lot of genetic material work, etc.

66

DrDeth: Per the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature:

67

Yep, which I just posted and cited. Thanks, but a tad late. :stuck_out_tongue:

68

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature does not itself make decisions on the species or non-species status of particular groups. Instead, it makes rulings on what names are valid to use based on the decisions of taxonomists.

The ICZN decision quoted does not establish the convention of naming domestic derivitives after their wild ancestors, it merely recognizes that this has become the convention. It allows the names of wild populations to have priority over those of domestic ones, even when this does not strictly follow the rules.

If one considers that wolves and dogs are the same species, then according to the ruling by the ICZN the proper name for both is Canis lupus, even though by the rule of priority Canis familiaris might be the correct name. If that ruling had not been made, then both wolves and dogs would be called Canis familiaris if considered to be the same species. If one considers that dogs are a separate species, then according to the ICZN it would still be OK to call them Canis familiaris.

However, I should point out that the mere use of Canis familiarus in a couple of the articles linked to by DrDeth does NOT indicate that the authors in question are formally recognizing the domestic dog as a separate species. Instead, in these cases they are using it as an informal shorthand to distinguish dogs from wild wolf populations.

There are very few people today who would consider dogs and wolves to be different species, based on overall genetic similarity. The fact that they were once considered separate was due to application of the Typological Species Concept, one that virtually no one would adhere to today.

69

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Yep, which I just posted and cited. Thanks, but a tad late. :stuck_out_tongue:
[/QUOTE]

No, you posted a link to a different article. The first sentence in the article I quoted is a statement about what biologists actually do. You are confusing a discussion about which species name takes precedence with a debate about whether or not the wild and domestic populations are considered one species. If we followed the convention of “first name takes precedence” we would call domestic cats and wild cats Felis catus. That would not change the fact that domestic cats and wild cats are considered to be the same species.

70

[QUOTE=MadPansy64]

he was also 135 pounds of bone and muscle, with 6 inch needle sharp fangs.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, jeez, make that “four 2-inch needle sharp fangs.” :smack:

71

Look at it this way:

a) You can try to coerce a wild animal to live by your rules and then establish dominance according to those rules.

b) You can try to adapt to a wild animal’s rules and then try to establish dominance according to those rules.

Most humans are too weak to do either and too dumb to do b). Most large dogs can kill you. They don’t because generations of humans put effort into selectively breeding generations of dogs. Wolves are much stronger, bigger and have no reason not to bite your face off. You have to be able to physically and psychologically assert your dominance over the wolf without use of tools or weapons – a feat I do not consider feasible for most humans. I know I can’t do it – I could barely handle playfighting with my 50lbs airedale and I’m certain that in any true challenge of dominance I’d be dead in minutes. A huge timber wolf? Might as well be a grizzly bear or a locomotive.

72

Yes, but establishing dominance over a dog, or a wolf, isn’t or shouldn’t be about physical superiority. If it reaches the point where the wolf or dog is physically attacking you because he thinks he’s got a shot at the alpha dog position, you’re probably going to have to euthanize him.

It’s about psychological tricks, and being smarter than the dog and beating him at his own game. An alpha wolf isn’t always the biggest and strongest wolf. And the big advantage humans have is that they can make food appear by magic. That puts you in a very powerful position over the dog/wolf. You control access to the warm den. You are able to magically attach and detach leashes. And so on. You have all sorts of tricks that the wolf/dog isn’t able to do. Now, the wolf or dog can do things you can’t do, but the trick is that they don’t know that! And of course, it isn’t all power struggles, dogs feel love and affection just like humans do. That isn’t to say that that they won’t engage in power struggles because they love you, humans engage in power struggles with other humans that they love…the wife nags you to take out the garbage, and if you don’t do it she has a headache that night. Brothers get into fistfights. And so on.

73

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
And the big advantage humans have is that they can make food appear by magic. That puts you in a very powerful position over the dog/wolf.
[/QUOTE]

Most dogs, maybe. A wolf? I’ll believe it when I see it. I don’t think he’s going to think “Oh, wow, this guy is pretty neat with his fridge full of goodies”, I think what’s going to happen is that you’re going to be spotted with food and made to share. The first time my dog saw a chicken she broke the leash and killed it in a matter of seconds, and she wasn’t even hungry, just saw a funny looking bird. You’re not going to be winning any brownie points with a wolf by trying to assert dominance by restricting food. The wolf will either starve to death or find something to eat (like you or your neighbor’s goat, for example).

74

OK, wolves and dogs are the same species. And dogs CAN be fed a vegetarian diet for their whole lives without being starved or malnourished. I had my dog on one at a veterinarian’s recommendation for a while. In fact, there are several brands of commercial dog food available at your local PetSmart that are vegetarian. So how can it be true that the wolf who allegedly killed the pit bull did so because he was starved into docility? I think that whole story is BS, but claiming in a GQ thread that vegetarian dog = insufficiently nourished dog is not factually correct either.

75

I don’t think anyone made the claim that one was a direct result of the other–all I was saying was that the guy was an idiot for believing that feeding a biologically incorrect diet is a legitimate means of behavioral control or that eating the biologically correct diet will cause it to behave in an aberrant manner.

76

[QUOTE=mlees]
Just like raising a Lion would not grant you an animal that behaves like a siamese cat.
[/QUOTE]

You mean, a lion raised by humans from a cub would not randomly go berserk and attack anything and everything without warning?

77

[QUOTE=Sublight]
You mean, a lion raised by humans from a cub would not randomly go berserk and attack anything and everything without warning?
[/QUOTE]
Don’t see why not.
My siamese cat does so on a regular basis – usually about 2am at night!

78

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
So how can it be true that the wolf who allegedly killed the pit bull did so because he was starved into docility? I think that whole story is BS, but claiming in a GQ thread that vegetarian dog = insufficiently nourished dog is not factually correct either.
[/QUOTE]

I think you need to acknowledge two points:

  1. It is reasonably hard to formulate a vegetarian diet that is adequate for a dog. Hell it’s hard to do it for a human. You need to have the brains to ensure that all the correct nutrients are available without the toxins usually present in legumes. You can buy custom made vegetarian dog formula, but to do that you have to have sufficient smarts to relaise that dogs can’t just eat vegetables.

  2. The person in this anecdote was a fricken’ moron with no idea about animals.

When you add those two points together it was almost certain that the animal was on a nutritionally inadequate diet and suffering malnutrition. While it may not be factually correct to say that vegetarian dog automatically = insufficiently nourished dog, in the case in question it almost certainly was true.

79

Re. handling an aggresive dog. We were walking with our two yo in her buggy when a border collie lab cross ran over, barking like hell and circling us. It ran away then came back. It must have lasted about a minute or so and I did not know how to react. I just kep smiling and talking to my daughter about the noisy dog in a calm manner. SHe did not seem bothered at all.

I was tempted to rush the dog and aim a kick in the hope it would turn and flee but I guess I modified my behaviour because I did not want to alarm my kid.

What was the best way to deal with this?

Sorry for the hijack.

80

[QUOTE=hackysack]
I was tempted to rush the dog and aim a kick in the hope it would turn and flee but I guess I modified my behaviour because I did not want to alarm my kid.
[/QUOTE]

I would advise against that. It’s a border collie and as such would be unlikely to be scared of you, would see your feeble attempts at aggression as an invitation to play and stick around. Regardless of the size difference you probably cannot handle a border collie in an unarmed physical confrontation, so just ignore it is about as good advice as it’s going to get.