Get Rid of the Wolves

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. dingo

or:
member of the canine family, Canidae. Authorities regard them as either the emphasis is mine their own species (Canis dingo), a subspecies of the domestic dog (C. familiaris dingo), or a subspecies of the wolf (C. lupus dingo).


cut 'n dried it ain't...

.,

The main proof of this is that wolves and dogs can and do interbreed freely and the offspring are fertile. In fact, in certain areas of the world, wolves are hunted and any pups are brought home and raised as dogs.

What Ed is saying and you are ignoring is the fact that dogs kill and maim a lot more people and animals than wolves do. Yet you don't advocate destroying all dogs just in case they might be bad.

I had an Alaskan Malamute one time whose parents were ultimately put down for killing sheep (the father before she was born) and killing pet rabbits in cages (the mother). I got her ate 5 1/2 weeks and started her training immediately. She never did like other dogs but she never hurt anything in her entire life. I currently hava a dog that is dobie, rott and pit bull and she is the sweetest thing on four legs. I've seen little dogs that I wouldn't trust - ankle biters. One of them bit my dog and she was horrified.

What I'm saying is that wolves, like dogs, are individuals and have to be judged as individuals (kinda like people). Some wolves would never go near humans and others kill livestock. Each type must be dealt with with appropriate action. They can't all be painted with a broad brush. In short, all generalities are false.

It sounds like you would eliminate all predators except man because some might do something you disapprove of.

Diana

because while the dog is directly decended from wolves the fox and coyote are not. Although YOU keep saying that I have indicated that all Canids are decendants of wolves i DEFY YOU to link to anywhere I have done any such thing. All are indeed members of Canidae but ONLY Canis familiaris (the dog) is a subspecies of the wolf.

Do try your best to find that "chart" you mentioned because no scientist seems to be aware of its existence. Making things like that up does not help your already low credibility on the subject of wolves.

More humor from you - "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." I strongly recommend that you do a bit of research and you will discover that thare is a far greater number of attacks on humans by Collies than by "pit bulls" (especially when one considers that Pit Bulls are not a breed but a general grouping of several diverse and distinct breeds).

You might well want to use this link as a STARTING POINT to educate yourself James. http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/breedissue.asp
also http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/dangerous_dogs.html

You should note that because of a large percentage of home insurers denying coverage because of specific breeds many states and municipalities are not allowing them to do business with such restrictions because studies and hospital records across the country have demonstrated that breed was not an indicator of risk. "Dogs from pomeranians to pit bulls, shelties to shepards were responsible. In most cases, they were either provoked, or the result of negligence on the part of the owners including allowing small children to tease the animal or because some owners mistakenly teach their canines that biting is an acceptable form of play. .

But you can no more paint a particular breed of dog with a broad brush than you can any other species. Would you automatically consider all people of a particular ethnic background to be racist based on the actions of a few ignorant bigots? How about labeling an entire culture as terrorists based on one group of extremists?
http://www.sheltienation.com/welcome_to_sheltie_nation/2007/07/kid-proof-your-.html

The New York Supreme Court even weighed in (among other courts in other locations) -

Supreme Court of New York, Apellate Division, First Department, 255 AD 2d 251; 680 NYS 2d 239; 1998 NY App.Div.; 11/24/98

"Furthermore scientific evidence more definitive than articles discussing the dogs breeding history is necessary before it is established that pit bulls, merely by virtue of their genetic inheritance are inherently vicious or unsuited for domestic living...No statistical analysis is offered to demonstrate that a high percentage of the total number of pit bulls has engaged in violent incidents."



You ran out of feet quite a while back James but you do keep bumping along (lind of like a certain character in an old Monte Python flick).

Ready for that hunting season on Shelties?

The link to the study and the link to the chart. You only have to click on them.

Humility is a better quality than is arrogance...be it in victory or defeat....correctness or erroneousness.

to where I said that all Canids are decendants of wolves?

Ignoring that does NOTHING for your already miniscule credibility. It does point up your deplorable dishonesty with your misrepresentations and fabricated "Ed said ..." statements.

Integrity not one of your strong suits?

You're arguing a different point and missing the one I was making. It doesn't seem deliberate misdirection so I'll try and make it more plain. My point is that society sees fit at times and in certain places to ban certain animals, (in the case I mentioned it was pit bulls), from it's presence or surroundings. Your point is to argue not with me, but with those segments of society who do so. I'm so not a part of the pit bull banning in Maryland I couldn't even tell you if the county I live in is one of those which does. I do remember Prince George county was/is one of them.

My other point is you aren't going to score any points with others if you try to compare wolves to collies/shelties/chihuahuas etc. and expect them to accept them being close enough to wolves to be considered almost the same. When not having convinced them of that, to go further and say since we have dogs living around and with us, wolves should be OK too, just isn't going to convince them. Obviously it's a specious (pun) argument at best.

It completely ignores societal rules/laws we have in place even for the dogs. We don't allow dogs to run free in packs, to bring down wild game, to take down cattle. Those opposed to wolves doing the same in Yellowstone, it's surrounding areas or elsewhere in this country, even if they have dogs of their own, wouldn't support wild dog packs roaming the countryside anymore than they support wolves doing the same. If you or someone else wants to keep wolves safely the same way others keep dogs, I don't personally see a problem with that. Some areas in the country do have laws against such, just as they have laws against specific dog breeds. I'm trying to make you understand the comparison to dogs as an argument to justify wolves running wild just goes nowhere in doing so. If anything it does the opposite and demands stronger control of wolves in the wild, or their removal from areas where they were reintroduced.

As for the two newbies who have showed up here and in Feedback to attack me, claiming I'm insulting you due to fairy tale comparisons, I was not the one who brought fairy tales into the discussion, that was you Ed with Little Red Riding Hood and The Three Little Pigs. I'm surprised you missed tossing in The Fox and the Hound too.

You made NO POINT with your claim that "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." because that was not a "point" but an ignorant claim. I did point you to some places you could educate yourself so you could avoid doing so in the future but it is obvious you didn't take advantage of them.

The "bans" you think "society" comes up with are simply feel-good legislation based on emotional IGNORANCE and in most every instance the bans are not upheld in courts when a test case comes before it.

"Society" has, over the years, determined that German Shepherds are "dangerous animals" and when that went out of vogue it was variously Collies, Rotweilers, Labradors, Dobermans, and a host of others -- ALL based on ignorance and knee jerk reactions to that which certain people just can't seem to assimilate or come to grips with.

Do you have ANY IDEA of the breed actually responsible for MOST dog bites on humans? Highly doubtful based on your inane commentary but it certainly isn't any "pit bull" (but you might want to walk and talk softly around toy poodles and cocker spaniels).

I am not worried about "scoring points" James, I am concerned more with your ignorance of facts - YOU brought up feral dogs so you tell me what makes a feral dog pack potentially so dangerous. It is quite simple actually. They are ALL predators and when they have to care for themselves they revert to predation and UNLIKE the wolf they are not shy and have no fear of man. Is it possible for you to grasp that simple concept?

As for the fairy tales, it is YOU who seems to believe their content and that is why they are mentioned. It is YOU who seems to believe that their content is factual. It is YOU who failed to verify anything before posting links. It is YOU who, even when the background of those you cite as somehow being legitimate sources of information is actually shown to you, ignore the facts and blindly cherish the fairy tales.

As for the laws you seem to want to bring up, the wolves are wild animals and we do have laws regarding wild animals. You are among those who want to subvert those laws.

What it boils down to is that quite simply you prefer to avoid facts (such as all dogs being descended from wolves with the stated exceptions), believe corrupt sources with an ulterior motive (your initial story as well as others even after being shown that those telling the stories had ulterior motives), and disbelieve anything regardless of authority that doesn't go along with your preconceived but based on utter ignorance ideas.

I responded DIRECTLY to what you had to say James and it is YOU who keeps trying to diverge from the central issue and yes, I will respond as I have done with facts to correct your diversions.

Regarding your parting shot about "The Fox and the Hound" why would I have mentioned it, ESPECIALLY after taking the time to attempt to educate you to the fact that although the Fox and the Wolf are in the same family ONLY the wolf and the dog are in the same SPECIES.

I looked up the law mentioned - Prince George's County Code, Section 3-185.01. Note for search purposes: It's "Prince George's County (with the possessive "'s".
It says:(76) Vicious animal shall mean any animal which attacks, bites, or injures human beings or domesticated animals or livestock without adequate provocation, or which, because of temperament, conditioning, or training, has a known propensity to attack, bite, or injure human beings or domesticated animals. An animal which has on one or more occasions caused [significant] serious injury to person or domesticated animals shall be deemed to be a vicious animal. No animal shall be found to be a vicious animal solely because it is of a particular breed.
I couldn't help bu notice the use of "domesticated" more than once, as well as the words " No animal shall be found to be a vicious animal solely because it is of a particular breed.". I guess that something like a bear killing a deer wouldn't make the definition of vicious unless the deer were a domestic animal. Just a wild animal acting like a wild animal looking for something to eat.
But then it later goes on to mention Pit bulls specifically and says:[Sec. 3-185.01. Pit Bull Terriers.]

[(a) Except as provided below, no person shall own, keep, or harbor a Pit Bull Terrier within the County.

(b) Any person owning a Pit Bull Terrier prior to November 1, 1996, may continue to harbor the animal on his premises under the following conditions:

(1) The animal shall be registered by the Administrator of Animal Control, and must at all times wear a tag provided by the Administrator which will readily identify it as a registered Pit Bull Terrier.

(2) The owner shall pay an annual fee of $50.00 to the Administrator of Animal Control to maintain such animals and support enforcement.

(3) The owner shall maintain the dog within a building or a secure kennel at all times. Whenever the dog is removed from the building or kennel it shall be secured by an unbreakable or unseverable leash and maintained under the control of an adult.

(c) A person may temporarily hold a Pit Bull Terrier in the County for the purpose of showing the dog in a place of public exhibition, contest, or show sponsored by a dog club, association, or similar organization. The sponsor of the exhibition or show must obtain written permission from the Director and must provide protective measures adequate to prevent the dog from escaping or injuring the public. The dog shall at all times during the transportation to and from the show or exhibition be confined in a secure temporary enclosure.

(d) Any dog employed or owned by the County or licensed security services and trained to perform official police, correctional, security, fire and/or search and rescue service shall be exempt from the provisions of this Act.]

A fairly balanced article about the pit bull ban in Prince George's County and those fighting against it. This article also claims breed specific bans by towns and counties have more court support than not. The safety of society will always come first and it won't be long before such laws are out West too. I think some such laws may be in California after the lesbian neighbor of a pair of lawyers was killed by their dog and that in an apartment hallways.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/30/AR2005093001401.html

I agree with this statement; "This is ultimately a case of human rights versus pit bull rights, and my money is on the humans."

I attacked you? Where? Please let me know what part of a discussion newbies are allowed to post in, Thank you
Pat

What's a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?

but the lamb won't get much sleep.

Dan

A common misquote, except that you had the correct one in front of you at the time!

You need to study the bible.

They don't run either. They just put a foot down now and then to steer themselves! (And the same applies to a big mulie.)

If I'm lie'n I'm Die'n!