Get Rid of the Wolves

He's that way. Loves everyone and everything, a very gentle soul. He was in the dumps for the past few weeks though since his friend, my older 2 daughters' collie dog died at age 15. He doesn't even want to spend time outdoors anymore without Dusty by his side. We've been thinking of getting him another sheltie as a friend, but the one I wanted was in control of some overbearing rescue center with privacy invasive rules and retained ownership clause, etc, so we bypassed it. I don't really want to do the puppy thing again, prefer one about half to a full year old. Our sheltie will be two in February. He loves the cats and will "groom" them when they let him. One of the younger ones likes to lie down in his fur, especially his tail. Oddly he doesn't smell like a dog normally does, not sure if that's due to the breed or him being a blue merle hybrid. Here's some pics I put up to use for sheltie adoption centers to feel more at ease placing their dog with us. Some of the adoption and rescue centers around here, in fact too many of them, are more like "rent a pet" in my opinion, so we may just go the puppy route again so there's no issues with some group who believe they retain ownership rights to any degree.

In keeping with the subject though, I know how devastated my family would feel if either or both of these dogs had been attacked by a wolf, gutted and killed. I really sympathize with those who find themselves in that situation in the areas where they live. Wolves will not always have adequate game, wolves will not always be filled, and wolves like any other animal can and do "habituate" themselves to mankind even where there is no encouragement to do so. Raccoons do it, opossums do it, deer do it, so it's not surprising wolves do it too. So, I find it disingenious to then claim only "habituated" wolves attack humans, as if humans always and deliberately habituate them to mankind. There may be some actually doing that, but I suspect it's NOT those who are opposed to having the wolves in their areas.

Dogs can be dinner for many animals including bear, coyote, and lions. Wolves are but one of the predators who find dogs to be tasty. The best protection for dogs is to keep them from roaming on their own. No one blames animals for doing what comes naturally.

Not completely true because quite obviously James and some few others of similar ilk do (even when they themselves harbor 'wolves' within their own home).

and all others should be killed off because after all, YOU claim that the only good wolf is a dead wolf.

Your Sheltie is a decendant of Canis lupus and DNA testing clarifies the matter.

Ready to shoot him or let others "hunt" him?

Your mention of his being "in the dumps" since the death of your daughter's collie demonstrates one of the base characteristics of wolves (including those you keep in your home) and that is that they are pack animals.

Kind of hypocritical to harbor a sub species of the wolf and claim that "the only good wolf is a dead wolf". Ready to shoot that Sheltie or let others "hunt" him?

Interesting also to note in view of your demonstrated hypocracy is that FAR MORE recorded instances of attacks on humans by both injured AND healthy Shelties have happened than by wolves. Ready to shoot that Sheltie that is a dangerous animal or let others "hunt" him?

James, because of their association with humans, domestic dogs are not preyed upon by wild predators. Feral domestic dogs may be preyed upon by any large predator. Often they are killed by other canids, such as wolves, coyotes, cougars and bears. A domestic dog running loose in a wolve's territory (or any of the other predators territory) and away from the control of their owners simply INVITES ATTACK (much as you likely would not approve of some stranger making free with your posessions within your own home (territory).

I don't believe all men are rapists, I don't believe all women are prostitutes, I don't believe all canines are wolves, nor all dogs as violent as wolves although some are. That's just an ignorant approach to the matter. For holding yourself forth as having some experience in the matter you should be ashamed of yourself to engage in such disingenious assertions. I'm giving you the advantage of assuming you should know and recognize the difference between wolves, coyotes, dogs and foxes. If not, there are some children books at your local library which might aid you. One even has the story of Little Red Riding Hood in it.

think your observations trump science and facts.

It is a rather simple FACT that all dogs (with the exception of the Wild dog of Africa and another from Asia) are subspecies of wolves.

It was suggested that you avoid allegories and similes (only the allegories were mentioned but ths simile was implied) because you seem to have a tendency to go overboard and cite ignorant assumptions.

Whether you believe it or not all canines are wolves and their appearance differences is only a matter of selective breeding by man. Feral packs tend to regress back to form with each new generation losing more of the breed characteristics and accentuating more of the wolf heritage - even to the point of avoiding humans if at all possible after a very few generations.

Rather than educating yourself with children's story books James you should try some adult material available at universities and the adult section of libraries. If you simply must stick with children's reading materials, I suggest you try real hard to graduate to something on the order of "Encyclopaedia Britannica 2006 Children's Encyclopaedia". Not as entertaining (something your selections indicate you prefer to actual fact and knowledge) but citing it as a source will avoid many hearty laughs at your expense by others.

Apparently knowing you are on anyone's "Iggie list" (your terminology) doesn't do what you claim it would as you keep it up.

For you to dispense information without insults?

For that which is not simply vocabulary, James opened the door and attempted to dish it out. Why direct your remark to only one side of the debate?

in a manner similar to that as addressed and in language appropriate to the observed intellectual level as I do want the person to feel comfortable in the environment that they initiated.

Now, is it possible for you to quit seeing that which is not there?

From past experience, I strongly doubt that it is possible but one can always hope.

But you do it first

Someone (James) makes some statements and the first words out of your mouth (from your fingers) are

you forgot Little Red Riding Hood and the tale of the three pigs.

PS - I got your thinly veiled reference to me an my wolves

YOUR wolves? They are not silent hunters.

Wolves are paranoid?

of Canis lupus and DNA testing clarifies the matter...

true, but as modern dog breeds are distinct genetic units i would say that you're stretching a little there


.,

Page 2

The results revealed that an unexpected and geographically diverse cluster of breeds?including the Siberian husky, the Afghan hound, Africa's basenji, China's chow chow, Japan's akita, and Egypt's saluki?are most closely related to dog's ancient wolflike ancestors. "Dogs from these breeds may be the best living representatives of the ancestral dog gene pool," the researchers wrote.

The finding may back up claims by some experts that dogs originated in Asia and migrated with nomadic humans both south to Africa and north to the Arctic.

Email to a Friend

RELATED
Scientists Start Deciphering Dog Genome
Human, Dog Genomes Similar, Study Finds
How Did Dogs Become Adept at Playing to Humans?
What's a Labradoodle?Designer Dog or Just Another Mutt?

The ability to link these diverse African and Asian breeds to a common ancestor reveals an interesting correlation with patterns of human movement, commented Melinda Zeder. Zeder is curator of Old World archaeology at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., and expert on animal domestication. "In this way, these modern breeds provide a map of human migration," she said.

The data also confirm the idea that dogs moved with humans from Asia into the New World and were not domesticated from scratch with wolves in North America, said Zeder. Zeder is also a member of the National Geographic Society's Committee for Research and Exploration.

Another surprise for dog lovers is that some purportedly ancient breeds?such as the Ibizan hound, the pharaoh hound, and the Norwegian elkhound?are not included in this ancestral group. "Breeds like the pharaoh hound have long been thought to be quite ancient, descended from ancient breeds pictured in wall art in [5,000-year-old] Egyptian tombs," Zeder said.

These dogs may in fact have been recreated in modern times from European stock to resemble these ancient breeds, Kruglyak said. Or they might have undergone so much mixing with other breeds that it has masked their ancient origins.

The large majority of breeds, however, likely have recent, European origins, according to the authors. A second cluster of dogs consists of mastiff-like breeds, including the bulldog, rottweiler, and boxer. A third group includes ancestors and descendents of herding-type dogs, such as the Irish wolfhound, the collie, the greyhound, and the Saint Bernard. The final cluster includes scent hounds, terriers, spaniels, and retrievers.


http://forums.cnet.com/5224-6130_102-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=259757&messageID=2561382

You see, I'm willing to accept that foxes, wolves, coyotes, and shelties are all considerably different in their makeup. I would no more consider a fox to be a wolf, than I would a sheltie to be either. Ed however seems to think since they all are members of Canidae that means they are all wolves. Anyone else can take that approach and claim everything is a fox or a coyote, even if one is called a wolf. Simply because they may be in the same family doesn't mean they are the same and the differences between them are far greater than the similarities. Ed can push his argument that all dogs, foxes, coyotes are really wolves based on some genetic similarities that are less than the differences, but most people will never accept they are all the same, only that they have some distant genetic shared material. Due to genetic drift, and other reasons, a sheltie according to a genetic chart I've seen shares about 5% of similar genetic material with a wolf.

Even when you restrict yourself to the various "dog" breeds, sometimes the genetic differences in appearances are obvious. There's also a movment again to concentrate on differences in temperment, especially in areas where it's become popular to ban certain dog breeds such as pit bulls. There are some counties here in Maryland where you can not legally own such a breed. A pit bull is certainly closer to the less aggressive breeds such as collies than it is to the wolf, yet society increasingly is seeing fit to exclude it from their presence or area. When that's taken in consideration, it shouldn't be too surprising society targets wolves as undesirables for the similar reasons as they do the pit bull.

I think the current situation could be defused if better control on wolf population was instituted and there were no restrictions on ranchers and homesteaders from culling out those wolves who have decided to stray from the federally approved areas for them. If or when such steps are taken, then perhaps through such culling there will be proper population control and the resultant genetic drift which will help the wolf population increase the numbers which fear and avoid mankind over those who seem more willing to adapt or habituate themselves to mankind's presence.

on where wolves have killed domestic stock? In other words are these cattle and sheep being grazed on forest lands or on private land? If it is forest then the cattle are the interlopers. Also, It looks as if man has learned nothing, Just kill anything that goes against what we want. A very sad situation. Also The DNA shows that dogs all have a common denominator with wolves.

By now we can realize Ed has argued himself into a corner. He always does this. He's so insistent on being right he will take foolish extensions of what he views as logic and then end up tripping over them, or the equivalent of floor painting himself into the wrong corner of the room. Ed believes wolves were properly introduced into the US park area and claims to know what a wolf is, when it suits him. When it doesn't suit him, he turns around and then claims all canids are wolves, which immediately defeats his first argument because if all canids are wolves due to some still common shared genetic material
then the park already has wolves in it more often refered to as fox
and coyote. Poor Ed wants to have it both ways to make himself right in all situations, but in attempting to do so he trips over his own "logic". He must accept that wolves are distinct from dogs, foxes, coyotes in order to justify them as something separate enough to qualify for "reintroduction" or he must accept his diametrically opposed argument that all canids are actually wolves, he's even called them all "wolves", including shelties, and that means we already have 3 representatives of the wolf living around us in many places and no clear distinction that would qualify a "need" for a fourth.

Either a wolf is a wolf, a fox a fox, a dog is a dog, and a coyote is a coyote and each has it's place in the environment or they are all the same basic animal and having one and certainly 3 of the wolf forms is more than enough for not necessitating or justifying the introduction of a fourth.

Ed's like the little boy who cried wolf, except Ed thinks he sees them everywhere now. Even my little sheltie it seems would have Ed yelling "Wolf!". So, until Ed gets it straight in his mind what really constitutes a wolf and quits tripping over his two diametrically opposing arguments, there's not much sense continuing this with someone so doubleminded on the issue. Here's an in depth genetic discussion on the matter if anyone wishes to consult it. There's also a color chart of genetic commonalities between various dog breeds and several diverse populations of wolves from around the world. Clk on picture to get a bigger one. Clk again and get an even bigger one. One thing that quickly becomes apparent is how little common genetic commonalities remain between some dog breeds and the wolf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canids
Plainly states the following; "Wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackals and eventually dogs all evolved from the Canidae family"

That being so, and since Ed is so insistent that even my sheltie is a "wolf" living at my house, then it's obvious there is no need for what some call a wolf since we already have foxes, coyotes, and dogs living all around us. Therefore by Ed's concept we already have all the wolves we need, and that's something we can both agree on.

Is this a personal vendetta? Or just because you can't prove the point?

his point of view

And certainly not to the extent I've ignored his attempts to do so.
Just pointing out to Ed that he's arguing from two different directions that cancel each other out. He tries to make a genetic argument that everyone's dog is a wolf in their home but trips over the actual record of the small genetic similarities between wolves and most dog breeds, whereas the genetic differences due to drift and deliberate breeding are far greater. But, if you accept his argument, then you have to also accept that any member of the Canids are part wolf and therefore the wolf is represented already both in the domestic dog and the wild fox and coyote populations, and therefore no need to "reintroduce" what is already here. Now, if showing him the error of his arguments is insulting, then so be it.

If you think the point that wolves have harmed people, placed children at danger, killed livestock, killed dogs, maimed and even killed some people and some of those recently, hasn't been proven by the evidence presented, then there is no proving it to you. A closed mind will not receive evidence no matter how clear, how overwhelming. Yes, the point is proved and Ed is still trying to decide what all he wants to label as a wolf.

As far as I'm concerned the evidence presented throughout this thread is entirely sufficient to make a strong point and good case that introducing wolves back into Yellowstone and other areas has been a much worse idea than any perceived good that might come from it. What have I seen from the other viewpoint? That game animals are disappearing, that hunters should be content to see their dogs mauled and killed, that ranchers should be happy to see their cattle killed as long as they are compensated monetarily, and that some pastures might become aspen forested areas but with no reason as to why that is better than pasture. I've overlooked a lot of the sniping and I'll overlook yours this time too.

Since he has pointed out the specific misquote, and you repeat it here again without a link to support it, you appear to be deliberately misquoting him. That does not speak well of your ethics or integrity.

Repeating undocumented charges again and again does not constitute proof of your assertions.

To which quote do you refer? Perhaps this one? "James and some few others of similar ilk do (even when they themselves harbor 'wolves' within their own home)."

Was it this one where Ed tossed cougars and bears into the Canids? "Often they are killed by other canids, such as wolves, coyotes, cougars and bears."

Maybe it was this one, which seems to be a clear statement on the face of it. Perhaps you missed it. Selective reading on your part?
"Whether you believe it or not all canines are wolves "

There's probably some others back there, those are just from the previous page to this one. So, next time you wish to erroneously accuse me of misquoting someone, please double check first to make sure you aren't the one who missed it. I won't comment or attack your ethics in this matter as you are so wont to do with others. I prefer to assume you just missed it.

The [color=#000000]canidae family[/color] includes many species but it is the hierarchy that you seem to be missing. Wolves are of the genus canis, species canis lupus. Dogs are a subspecies, canis lupus familiaris. Jackals are in the same genus but a different species from canis lupus. Foxes are actually in a different genus but still under the family canidae.

Dogs, unlike foxes, jackals, etc.., are a subspecies of wolf. Unlike the other canidae members you keep wanting to bring up, dogs and wolves can breed because they are the same species. Dogs are direct descendants of wolves and both belong to the species canus lupus.

You should really get a better understanding of taxonomy and speciation if you are going to attempt to use them to support your argument. Your repeated attempts to ignore the divisions of genus and species show a poor understanding of taxonomy and scientific classification.

color should have been url, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid taxonomy.

I can only assume from your argument you must believe there's a strong relationship between wolves and dogs, even after centuries of divergent breeding in dogs. Does this mean you are willing now to support laws regulating wolves so they can't run wild in packs the same way we have laws that forbid wild dog packs from roaming our countryside? Ok, I can accept that. Let's apply the same laws to wolves as we do to dogs and I think many of the problems causing those living around Yellowstone to demand removal of the wolves will disappear. Once that's done and this mess over the wolves is cleaned up and better regulated, fairly, along the same laws we apply to dogs, then you may find better support for wolves being allowed some place in this country again, under control and behind fences.

Whenever you can provide the requested scientific evidence that the ecology will be fine without them. When you can show proof that you are right and all of the other scientists are wrong. Then again, you've been asked for this repeatedly and you've still not provided one miniscule shred of evidence to support your claim. Why should anyone believe that you're right and all of the scientists that weren't to lazy to do the work that supports their conclusion are wrong? Now, can you actually support your argument or not?

you can verify through the Smithsonian that dogs are a subspecies of wolves (in other words are DECENDED from the wolf).

As was pointed out to you feral dog packs after a few generations REVERT back to form and that form is the wolf (some of which are short haired and others long haired and some are small while others large).

You misquote but that is to be expected with your having shown us via your choice of links the grade level of the reading materials you apparently prefer.

As one of MANY possible examples of your misquoting and misrepresentations YOU stated "According to Ed wherever we have coyotes we already have wolves, so why bring more in?". Never said it, never implied it. In short your statement is a bald LIE!

As anopther YOU make the statement "Ed however seems to think since they all are members of Canidae that means they are all wolves." Again a total misrepresentation because I very carefully made clear that while dogs, foxes, wolves, coyotes, etc. are all members of Canidae ONLY dogs are SUBSPECIES of the wolf. In short dogs INCLUDING YOUR SHELTIE are decended from the wolf with the exceptions I already stated which are the African wild dog (a member of the Lycaon genus, NOT the Canis genus) and the Dingo (a member of the Cuon genus, NOT Canis)

Your humor about "laws" to forbit packs is beyond ludacrous and beneath mention.

Do at least TRY to cease your dishonest misrepresentations of what others have said as the actual words are mostly still present to refute your dishonesty.