Talk:Wolf-dog hybrid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Genetic testing?
My parents adopted a puppy about a year ago... the previous owners claimed that the dog had wolf blood, but we're not entirely convinced of this. Is it possible to verify the dog's lineage with genetic testing, or are dogs and wolves too close genetically to make such a determination? --M.Neko 07:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Wolf and dog ancestry within the last ten generations does not mean a 10% proportion. Each generation doubles the number of ancestors; so at the tenth generation an animal's ancestors could be one wolf to 1023 dogs (wolf and dog within the last ten generations) but be only 0.097% wolf. If I knew what you were trying to say, I'd fix it. eritain 23:37, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it's an issue of percentage, but one of generations. Dogs and wolves are the same species, so technically any wolf is 100% dog and vice versa. 10 generations must simply be the only concrete limit on what seperates a wolf dog from a plain old dog at all. {{uunsigned|68.70.40.161} 01:36, 8 March 2006
The statement "technically any wolf is 100% dog and vice versa" is not true unless you look ONLY as deep as the level of species. That is obviously not a useful limitation in this context. Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are different subspecies of the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus, which in turn includes various subspecies of 'wolf', i.e. Canis lupis arctos and Canis lupis lupis). So I guess maybe you could say a dog is a wolf, but not necessarily the other way around. Yes, I'm nitpicking here. Bigdoglover 06:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I think, that's correct, to say that a dog is a wolf and not vice versa. But only as long as you keep in mind, that wolf means the whole species, which consists of many subspecies and variations. So as long as you don't confuse the word wolf with e.g. grey wolf than it's ok to say so.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
This article, besides contradicting itself, contains no information specifically verified. A complete reqwrite may be necessary, but the article is small enough that existing information (after verification) just needs reworking.Daemon8666 15:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Can we remove the cleanup tags now? I've not personally edited the article, but there are lots of citations and everything seems high quality. It seems a shame to have the cleanup tags when the article doesn't seem to deserve them :) DE 13:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why is the Controversy section at the top? Seems that it is not the most important factual part of the article. I'll go ahead and change this if I don't get any feedback. Phasmatisnox 03:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
maby there could be a famous wolf dog section which includes diefenabker from due south —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.241.187 (talk • contribs)
i believe that all species of dogs (coyotes, foxes, dingos, wolves, domestic dogs etc.) are dogs. To be specific enough to explain their species should be determined with extensive research. though different dog species can be related i'm not sure that all dogs are 100% wolf, only that wolves are 100% dog. and because i own a full blooded artic wolf and she is as sweet as sweet can be i strongly believe that behavior is a product of the DOG'S environment. Wolf2me (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Wolf2meWolf2me (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
To a great part it is, that's true. E.g. a dog, who is not socialized to humans early in its life, can become just as shy as a wolf. And that's no theory, it's proven.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wolfdogs harmful to REAL wolves
Wolfdogs are not wolves and they do far more harm than good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 (talk • contribs)
Bah, that's YOUR opinion. Members of my extended family have had tremendous success with wolfdogs. For instance, my aunt and uncle had a wolfdog which was the ideal pet; loyal, loving, and gentle with their young children.
In addition to this, there have been far fewer documented examples of wolfdog attacks than attacks by domesticated breeds such as rottweilers, doberman pinschers, and pit bulls. I would personally be more comfortable around a wolfdog than any of those animals. --M.Neko 07:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, because there are far less wolfdogs than those breeds. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Don't be so biased. 76.177.56.8 02:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Wolfdogs are not horrible beasts. I once had one which we found as a pup. And he was the most gentle dog you could ever have. Even when his terrible arthristis started acting up in his old age and all the children crawling on him and playing with him he still never did anything to harm anything. I dont recall him ever biting or being agressive. The most nicest and caring creature you could ever have. So please, think before you talk because they are not terrible at all. --VT?! 23:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Citing a higher incidence of attacks by the rottweiler or GSD (German Shepherd Dog) is a fundamentally flawed argument. Rottweilers and GSDs are EXTREMELY popular dogs (go to the AKC website -- http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats_2006.cfm?SEARCH_BUTTON.X=0\&SEARCH_BUTTON.Y=0 -- and take a look at the sheer number of these dogs registered every year), and wolf hybrids are relatively quite rare, so it's a no-brainer that the former have a higher incidence of violence. If you take a look at the *percentage* of each breed involved in dog attacks, you will get a much more accurate picture -- and, for what it's worth, the percentage of wolf hybrids which attack is much higher than truly domesticated breeds.
http://www.leerburg.com/wolfexpert.htm
http://www.leerburg.com/wolfcross.htm
http://www.leerburg.com/wolf2.htm
http://www.leerburg.com/wolf3.htm
LochNessDonkey 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
And the reason for that is? But another topic: Does anybody know about a study or research about the effects of interbreeding of dogs and wolfs in the wild? And I mean real observations, not all the theories or the whole exterminate the hybrids by sight argument. Are their any data, that can prove that the interbreeding is harmfull to wolf-populations?--168.224.32.15 (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Numerous Changes
This entry was not neutral. I've attempted to make it more so, but believe more work than I can do right now is needed. I hope this at least starts the process. I made a lot of changes - if you are a previous contrtibutor to this article please help move it forward, rather than getting irked - my goal is simply to improve and all entries are works-in-progress that evolve, my changes as much as any. Since I made large changes I've included notes on some:
Added some section headers.
Wolfdogs need not be fertile - not part of the definition. However, they usually are (or always? I found no references to infertility in wolfdogs in a search). This is implied by the following mention of multiple generations of hybrids and since I think most people would assume fertility I believe this is not needed.
Removed single sentence paragraph about frequent crossing proving same species... not a contested fact & circular logic: can have fertile offspring therefore same species (which means can have fertile offspring).
I've also tried to add sources for information on each side of the issue, though I think a bit more is needed on the underlying issues surrounding wolves (not hybrids) that have contributed to the debate - maybe just a link to the wolf or wolf hunting controversy.
Removed paragraph on claims they are less stable and predictable than dogs: These claims are commonly made, and probably deserve mention, but not in this manner since the reasons given are not supported by references or explanation, and at least the second one is obviously lacking: the issues with behavior stem from "the treatment the animals receive, since pure wolves and pure dogs are generally bred in more strictly regulated conditions than wolfdogs, and are logically subjected to more standard correct treatment"... Dogs are in NO way bred in "regulated conditions," not even "controlled" conditions unless you include those bred intentionally by fanciers like pure-bred breeders - by far the largest amount are accidental breedings of the offspring of accidental breedings and so on. According to what I leared in order to edit this the wolves used to create wolfdogs have been bred for numerous generations by people and are very very rarely taken from the wild. However, prior to those generations, leading back 10-100 years (a guess based on what I read, not a stated fact), they were wild and had no controls on breeding at all. Once in captivity they are likely bred according to convenience and availability, not intentional manipulation of desirable traits (I could be wrong about that part as I don't know any wolf breeders). Secondly, the "treatment [wolfdogs] receive" is a totally different issue than breeding. Similarly the 'standardness' and/or 'correctness' wolfdogs are subjected to is not "logically" based on how strictly regulated their breeding conditions are (even if the first half were valid). Ok, that was confusing, but just refer to the original - not that it is that clear.
History: Removed contentious part about subspecies (wolf or dog) of mother - what does it matter? May be of interest to some but far outside the scope of this article at present or anytime soon. Changed unjustified claim that accidental crossings of wild wolves and domestic dogs were a "routine hazard" into statement that it appears to have happened multiple times early in the history of domestic dogs and may have continued to some degree since, but that modern wolfdogs are almost exclusively the result of intentional crossings with captive wolves. Removed "not to trust a wolf that is half a dog" because it is an unsourced quote, doesn't fit here, and is stated as fact when it is one side of the debate above.
The Volkosob: Does this belong here? As there are not recognized different subspecies of wolf-dog hybrids this is most likely predominantly a regional differencece. It does not fit with the rest of the article, which focuses on the creature in a broad sense. More importantly, there is no source for the information and I have been unable to find any through any searches. Did not remove it yet - any consensus? Not sure if the need for more information in general justifies including this.
The "External Links" section: Wolfdog Breeder link just linked to a breeder's site, which only had a few pictures and no information. "The Wolfdog" online book link is dead. Czecho-Slovak Wolfdog site is another breeder's site, and includes significant information that is completely at odds from ALL the other sites I've looked at while starting to clean this up (much more is needed). For example, it states that wolfdogs are not demanding and do just fine in apartments. Every other site I looked at, both those for and against owning them as pets, state that wolfdogs are extremely demanding and not for everyone and that they need a LOT of space. A number of the pro-pet sites warned against false claims by people trying to make a quick buck by making false claims in order to sell more. Therefore I don't feel that this commercial site contributes to a NPOV. Bigdoglover 12:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- The Volkosob is a valid subject because it is notable, and not just of regional interest. I have seen published and television reports about them, although they were a few years ago and are hard to find right now. Wikipedia articles can be specific as well as general, in the context of the title subject. If there are other specific breeds of wolfdog, they can be included as well. The Volkosob just happened to be one breed that was memorable enough for someone to think of and include.
Coyoty 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Broken reference
Both sides of the controversy agree, however, that wolfdogs require care and an environment different from either wolves or dogs.
from the article was cited with this
Wild Spirit Wolf Sanctuary Wolfdog FAQ
which is a broken link. Now, it is uncited. Keesiewonder 01:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unclear Statement
I was reading the article, and found this line:
"The Shikoku (dog) is an example of a wolfdog breed that has ever been subject to these rules."
Maybe I'm just stupide (good chance), but it doesn't make sense. Is "ever" a typo, and it should say never? Or is it just giving an example of a dog breed effected by rules regarding wolfdogs?
I know this is probably a very stupid question. It just looks odd to me.
[edit] The dewclaw argument
Wolves with an extra toe on their hind legs are the products of cross-mating between wolves and domestic dogs, scientists in Italy have confirmed.
They found grey wolves (Canis lupus) with dewclaws had unique dog alleles - variant forms of a gene - suggesting the extra toes did not arise through spontaneous mutations but through hybridisation with dogs.
"I've done wolf tracking in North America, Italy and elsewhere and until now I never found an animal with a dewclaw. We are taught in school that wolves have only four claws on the back leg," co-author Dr Paolo Ciucci, of the Universita di Roma "La Spaienza", told BBC News Online. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3602741.stm
I fail to see how any of this contradicts the statement. 83.187.226.145 11:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"However, it is unlikely that all hybrids have dewclaws. There may be other signs of hybridisation not currently known." - from the article.
Obviously it's not an absolute indicator of hybrids. The article means that the presence of a dewclaw indicates that it is not a pure wolf. But hybrids may or may not have them. VanTucky (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well then, let's make that clear then. I think it is an important point. 83.187.226.145 13:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "hebridean wolfdogs" cite
The passage isn't about whether you can buy hybrid breeds in the U.K. or anywhere else. It's about recognizing that those notable organizations support legislation. It doesn't mean that the legislation banning all wolfdog breeds exists. In other words, it's topically irrelevant. But more importantly, do not add external links to your personal website as a reference. This is clearly a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines governing conflict of interest editing. If you cannot refrain from spamming this article with links to your personal website, it is best to not edit this article at all. VanTucky Talk 22:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "An Overview of a Controversial Animal"
Twelve of the Thirty seven references comes from an eightteen year old article that has since been disproven. Any time some adds an updated reference it is removed. This is a very biased and untrue article. http://exoticpets.about.com/cs/wolfdogs/a/wolfdogs.htm http://www.inetdesign.com/coalition/ http://www.inetdesign.com/wolfdunn/whate/whate1.html http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/17038/is_a_wolf_hybrid_right_for_you.html
- Disproven by what reliable published opinion? That article is from a very reliable source, and most of the books out there that could alternatively be used are written by wolf-dog advocates and owners. None of the links you provided meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability of source material. VanTucky 05:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.saveclyde.com/images/Wolf%20Hybrid%20Report8-23-99doc.pdf, the department of agriculture
http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wolfdog.htm, which has a number of cited (and more recent) sources, this article (An Overview of a Controversial Animal) has sources as far back as 1972. This is a reliable source according to wikipedia? Articles over 30 years old. We knew little of wolves and almost nothing of the very rare wolfdogs at that time.
Robert A. Willems works for the usda, those in agriculture have long disliked the wolf and wolfdogs, most in the acrigulture business view them as threat. Mr. Willems is a biased man who put together every anti wolf article he could find (even if it meant going back 30 years) notice he had no positive articles about wolves. this is a man with an agenda. you say "most of the books out there that could alternatively be used are written by wolf-dog advocates and owners". you dont accept work from advocates yet accept work done by opponents? Also is there a more reliable source than owners of these animals? I wouldnt let someone without kids teach me how to raise mine. Would you get relationship advice from someone not married? lets be realistic take down all biased sources or allow both biased sides on this article.
- You seem to be missing a huge point: all of those pro-wolfdog sources are how-to guides, not scientifically accurate and peer-reviewed works. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or a provider of advice. It's a reference work. If you want advice on keeping wolfdogs, this isn't the place for you, and using sources that are advice guides is equally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. VanTucky 21:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be missing a huge point: THIS IS A BIASED ARTICLE. written by a biased man. like i said, take down all biased sources or allow both biased sides on this article. I dont know why you attempted to change the subject. The last two links listed over 25 doctors and scientist, yet these scientists statements are not not scientifically accurate? THIS IS A BIASED ARTICLE.
