From: amazon@sgi.com (Stormwind)
Subject: Re: response to rec.pets.dogs FAQ
Organization: X Industries, Heavy Weapons R&D
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:48:42 GMT

(Stephen R Lee) writes:
>(Larry Hunter) writes:
>>Cindy Moore has made some changes to the wolf-hybrid FAQ, mostly removing
>>factually incorrect segments.  

many thanks to cindy for taking the time
to discuss the issues with me via email
and putting into place some of the changes we
discussed.

>>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."

likewise, one cannot make such wide
sweeping and unsubstantiated generalities
such as, "hybrids are dangerous".  

>>I think it is much fairer to say 
>>
>>"Wolf-hybrids are not for everybody.  Like other potentially dangerous breeds,

..i prefer the word "animal" to "breed".  this
way it encompasses everything including large
animals like horses.

>>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).

you miss the point.  the idea here is not to
"put the wolf in the backyard".  hybrids, like
a wide number of other dog breeds, are a cross
between animals.  many people have the misconception
that crossbreeds will always pick up the worst
attributes of the more vicious of the two being
crossbred.  for instance, a pit bull cross bred
with a golden retriever will be looked askance
at because it might contain "pit bull temperment".
this is a common public misconception stemming
entirely from ignorance.

far more "incidents" happen because the OWNER
has screwed up while raising the animal than 
due to the animal's breed.  hysteria about breeds
runs rampant through the years: when i was a 
kid, people thought that dobermans were "man killers"
and they would turn on their own owners.  several
years after that, rottweilers were the maligned breed.
then it was pit bulls, and now we are seeing hybrid
bashing.  it's public hysteria....irresponsible owners
stir up the ignorant masses, who then react wildly
against things that they haven't bothered to find out
about.

>>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.

again, you miss the point.  hybrid owners 
are interested in more intelligent animals 
because they are interested in a companion
rather than bric-a-brac dumb pets.  why 
choose a dog over a hamster?  dogs are more
intelligent than hamsters.  why choose a hybrid
over a dog?  hybrids are more intelligent than
many dogs.  and from personal experience, 
hybrids are MORE than capable of thinking up
stuff to challenge them in the average backyard.

>>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.

it certainly helps, and a responsible owner would
read up before buying the animal anyways.  it
is possible, if the owner is intelligent and again 
responsible, to get a hybrid and learn as you go.
this, however, can present some problems depending
on how intelligent the owner is.

remember, however, that a hybrid is NOT fully
socialized as a wolf, and many hybrid owners have
found that hybrids do not have the full behaviour
set that wild wolves have.

>>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.  

all wolves are what?  nervous?  hardly.
i use the word "exciteable" rather than "nervous",
and found that my own hybrid could never
be firmly classified in any single behavioural
class for all given sets of circumstances.

>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?  

you never know what *behavioural* traits you're
going to get when you breed.  it varies.  many of
them turn out to be learned behaviour.

>>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.

point taken.  my personal feelings are that
given a responsible owner, hybrids are no
more nor no less dangerous than any other
large animal.

>>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!)
>
>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?  

this depends on what's going on.  first off, most
hybrid owners have no intention of attempting
to put a "wild" (read: born and raised in the wild)
animal into their backyards.  most hybrid owners
are interested in a more intelligent animal than
one can get with the average dog.  

as far as "cruelty" goes, there's a whole world
out there.  those who hold that no animal should
be kept as a pet would consider keeping a hamster
to be "cruel".  others would consider a neglected
pet to be "cruel".  the thing to remember is that
a hybrid is NOT a wolf.  it is a *hybrid*, a mix,
and has traits of *both* species.

>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.  

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".  

>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.  

so, which breeds shall we now outlaw?  i
suggest instead that rather than breeding
MORE stupidity by restricting or outlawing
types of animals, that the public be EDUCATED.

myself, having owned a hybrid for ten years,
i have no intention of getting any other canine-
type animal that is NOT a hybrid.  this means
i have to wait until i have the space and money
to afford caring for one.  

				stormwind

				hell's amazon
Newsgroups: alt.wolves,rec.pets.dogs