From: srlee@beta.lanl.gov (Stephen R Lee)
Subject: Re: response to rec.pets.dogs FAQ
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:45:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.235600.11732@odin.corp.sgi.com> amazon@sgi.com (Stormwind) writes:
>>(Stephen R Lee) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>>I agree.  I am not objecting because I think wolf hybrids
>>are vicious killers.  I think they are a bad idea for *other* reasons.
>
>would you care to elucidate on these reasons?

I have, in all previous posts.  Just re-read them.  You don't have to agree
with me, or even think they are valid concerns.

>
>>No, I don't think I have missed the point.  You deleted the section in which
>>I mention the brain size of dogs v.s. wolves.  I will repeat it again.  The
>>brains in our domesticated dogs are smaller as a result of domestication.  
>
>i am not an expert on the ratio of brain size
>as it affects the ability of an animal to survive,
>so i am not in any situation to address brain
>size.  tyrannasaurous rex springs to mind as
>a contradiction, however.

Tyrannasaurous Rex is not related to wolves or dogs, and to the best of
my knowledge, was never domesticated.

>
>>I
>>felt, and feel, that this is due to the fact that our domesticated dogs do
>>not have to rely on their wits to survive.  
>
>i DO know that i have had experience with
>feral dogs who survived quite well, thank you,
>and i don't believe that their brain size increased
>any due to the experience.

Sorry.  I did not mean to imply that dogs could *not* survive in the wild.  They
just do not *need* to anymore.  I submit that a domesticated dog turned feral
will not be as "efficient" as surviving in the wild as a wolf, on the average.

>
>>Does that mean that they are "dumber"
>>than wolves?  I don't know.  How do you define "smart" and "dumb" in another
>>species?  The point I am trying to make is that the WH might not get to use
>>this "higher intelligence" in someones backyard.  How can it?  
>
>easily.  ours figured out how to communiate with
>us on a reliable basis.  there is one particular incident
>involving an empty water bucket that left absolutely
>zero doubt in our mind that not only did triss know
>perfectly well who provided the water, but how to 
>summon us to the window, and how to demonstrate
>to us that her water bucket was empty and she wanted
>it filled.  then there were the many times that we caught
>her trying to do the same things she watched her owners
>do...specifically, standing on her hind legs and wrapping
>both paws around the doorknob in an effort to open the 
>door and explore the inside of the house.

Good.  But what does this prove?  I'm sure there are many dogs out there in
net land with similar intelligence stories.  Your original premise was that
you are breeding superior intellect.  Implicit in your remarks were that
WH are much smarter than dogs.  I responded by questioning how one determines
intellect in a nother species, and countered by siting examples as to what
types of things WH might be smarter at, as opposed to other breeds of dogs.

>
>humans are expert at using their intelligence to 
>create things to play with, things to do, and figuring
>out how to get from point a to point b.  hybrids have
>the exact same capability.

So do dogs.  And cats.  And mice.  And birds.  And ...

>
>>We have domesticated the dog and aquired a
>>variety of breeds that are remarkably good at different things.  Pulling
>>sleds, retreiving game, and so on.  They certainly cannot survive as well
>>(some not at all) in the wild without our help, and a WH probably could.
>
>i beg to differ.  there are hundreds, if not 
>hundreds of thousands, of examples of dogs
>gone feral who survive perfectly fine in the 
>wild.  a significant factor for surviving in the
>wild is the *physical* attributes of the animal
>rather than cranial capacity.  a dachshund,
>for example, would probably have a tougher 
>time surviving than would a german shepard.
>short legs and short coat aren't well suited for
>survival.  a pekingese would probably have
>an *extremely* tough time surviving due to 
>the nature of its coat.  a basenji wouldn't have
>much trouble at all, provided it didn't get too 
>cold.
>

Yes, note I said "some not at all", meaning that some dogs could probably not
survive in the wild without help.  Some can.  I maintain that a Mal/Wolf mix 
is probably better equiped to survive in the wild, mentally and physically
that many breeds of dogs.  Again, it was an example of what a WH might be
"smarter" at than other dogs.

[stuff deleted]

>
>>>one reason for this is that the general public
>>>has this very nasty habit of, again, fixating
>>>on the mistaken impression that the animal
>>>is "bad" because it has "bad blood", in this case,
>>>because it is "a wolf".  
>>
>>My point *exactly*.
>
>that impression is incorrect. 

No kidding.  But Joe public is Joe voter and Joe public opinion.

>
>>Breeding more stupidity?  I can't take an engine apart and put one back together
>>again.  Does that make me less intelligent than my mechanic?  My mechanic does
>>not understand quantum mechanics.  Does that make me smarter than my mechanic?
>>No, in both cases, or a yes, when phrased "my mechanic is smarter than I am 
>>when it comes to engines."  
>
>no no no.  if you protect humans from themselves,
>you cause them to lose the concept of responsibility
>and you train them to be stupid and irresponsible.
>that's part of the reason we have problems with
>idiots who think pit bulls are macho, and raise
>them to be vicious animals.

You were the one that said we are breeding more stupidity in our current breeds
of dogs, not me.  Again, I am talking about differences in specific skills, not
differences in intellect as you had.  I believe there is a difference.  That
was the point of my "auto mechanic/quantum mechanics" example.

[stuff deleted]

>
>> Therefore, I suppose if you want an animal that would be very good
>>at fending for itself and surviving in the wild, then a WH is for you.  If you
>>want an animal that is very intelligent when "calculating" exactly where the
>>ball will touch down so he/she can run under it and catch it, then get a retriever.
>
>i completely and totally disagree.  you seem
>to think that hybrids come "pre-programmed"
>to survive in the wild.  unless they have been
>raised in the wild, they are no more prepared 
>to survive in the wild than any other dog.  somewhat
>better equipped in terms of fur and claws, perhaps,
>but certainly not trained.

No, not pre-programmed.  I am assuming, perhaps erroneously, that when you breed
a wolf to a dog you are getting something from the wolf besides physical 
characteristics.  And, again, this is an example of an area where I think a WH
might be "smarter" than your average dog.  Perhaps.  Naturally I don't mean to
imply that a WH could not *also* catch a ball.

>>I
>>still think it is a matter of personal choice.  My remarks imply that
>>       1. They hurt the public's perception of wild wolves
>
>they CAN hurt the public's perception IF
>the public is utterly misinformed as to the
>differences vis a vis a hybrid and a wolf
>and IF the hybrid in question has gotten into
>some kind of trouble.

Yes.  But we have to live in the real world, don't we?   The general public
does not understand the difference between a wolf and a WH.  When a WH bites
someone, to John Q. Public, a wolf has bitten someone.  When he subsequently
hears talk about the re-introduction to wolves in a place like Yellowstone,
he says "Hey, I don't want *that* there!  They attack humans!"  Yes, this is
moronic.  It also happens to be reality.  I tend to err in the favor of
wild wolves, not diluted versions to be used as pets.  In an ideal world,
we would not be having this discussion.

>
>>       2. The can tarnish the reputation of some very fine working dogs
>
>i believe this to be utter nonsense.  does the 
>pit bull tarnish the name of the bulldog, whom
>it vaguely resembles?  huskies and hybrids
>for the most part don't look anything alike.

Of course it is silly.  But it is reality.  I know that, you know that, the
majority of the people reading the net know that.  Again, the general public
does not understand this.  One of the articles within the last year in the
AKC Gazzete mention that WH are starting to impact Mals in a couple of
different areas in the country.  THe Malamute Quarterley has had similar
stories.  This is reality.

>
>the whole problem with idiotic ignoramuses 
>having problems with hybrids could well be
>addressed by a certified training program 
>required for ownership of hybrids.  this takes
>a significant step towards eliminating the lazy,
>the stupid, and the irresponsible people.  i would
>back such a program being put into place in
>order to ensure that hybrids aren't outlawed
>across the board, as they already are in many
>states.
>
>				stormwind
>
>				hell's amazon

I think we can agree to disagree in several areas.  My goal here was to simply
put in my 0.02 on why I think people should shy away from WH, as a matter
of personal choice, not law.  I am glad that you enjoy your WH and
that they are well taken care of and happy.  This will probably be my last response
to the net on this matter (unless *really* prodded :-) ), as I think we have arrived 
at an impass.  Again, I think we can agree to disagree and move on.

-- 
============================================================
Stephen R. Lee                 | 
OooWoo Racing Kennel           | I'd rather be driving sled
E-Mail: srlee@beta.lanl.gov    | dogs.
Newsgroups: alt.wolves