Darwin famously observed in the first chapter of On the Origin of Species that not one of our domestic animals can be named which has not in some country drooping ears.
Darwin himself attributed it to "muscle misuse", the rationale being that domestic animals are not frequently enough on high alert, but genetic causes are more likely.
The bizarre (and still running) experiment of Dmitry Belyaev who has been raising wild silver foxes for over 60 years to turn them into a domestic species by selecting the friendliest individuals at each generation seems to show that domestic characteristics, including droopy ears, appear "naturally" during this process, hinting at a genetic cause.
Which genes is a tough question, but there are several programs looking for them.
Neither cats nor horses have drooping ears, except for ones that have serious birth defects or mutations.
And there has never really been any kind of long-term eugenics project for cats; they mostly domesticated themselves, which had different results. There are no "work cats" that we've selectively bred with other "work cats" to improve their demeanour; there are purebred cats, but they're basically assholes and we basically don't care. (Why this is, I'll never know.)
This episode of radiolab goes into some theories about the process of fox domestication and hypothesizes that something similar might have occurred in humans.
I don't remember it in enough detail to summarize, but it's a fascinating listen.
I suggest that - if humans associate e.g. droopy ears with being more friendly, this creates a positive feedback loop whereby those animals with droopy ears receive more positive interactions, show less fear and are modestly more likely to be selected by Belyaev's research for breeding, all other things being equal. Human bias has become a "selection pressure".
This has no implication within genetics, neither genetics of the foxes nor genetics of the humans: it could simply be (increasingly) customary in society including Belyaev's. So, I strongly doubt any genetic cause.
In addition to the ears drooping, others morphological differences manifested - the friendliest animals had distinct coat patterns, curlier tails, and then later generations additionally showed shortened legs, tail, snout, upper jaw, and widened skull.
That is, with a small enough sample, if it just so happened the nicest cubs had (some traits) in common, you can easily end up exaggerating those traits in later generations.
The Russian study is heavily inbred. They only ever had a maximum of 2000 foxes - now bred for a few dozen generations.
Do people see droopy ears as more friendly? I guess it indicates that the animal is not particularly alert, and so unlikely to be on the verge of aggression.
What do you find bizarre about it?
So only get a wolf if you can stomach putting a bullet in its head after it brutalizes your kids.
Also, if their pack leader looks sick or injured, the wolf will take that a signal to make a move for top spot. I've heard of owners twisting an ankle and hobbling around and the wolf starts looking at them very differently.
Finally, they have a very strong prey instinct. Stories about the wolf being exposed to children and not taking an eye off them. Practically waiting for an opportunity to pounce.
That's not to say wolves can't be pets, but it take a ton of time and constant vigilance to keep their instincts in check.
Is it just me, because everything you've just said seems to suggest that wolves can't be pets.
This makes sense, and it makes me wonder if an even more 'subservient' human creature should be, or is being (unintentionally) created. Individually, the wolf is greater than the dog. However, a pack of dogs could easily take down a wolf. Wolves are to dogs as the Heroes[0] are to us. Collectivization is not a strategy for 100 years but for 10,000 years. Are we today just going through the painful process of a genetic local anesthesia towards domestication?
So, basically, if I'm sick instead of my dogs taking it as an opportunity to spend all day in bed with me sleeping, my wolf is going to look at as an opportunity to take me out? Great.
If your parents did that, you would do the same thing.
You see this kind of prejudice against pitbulls too. They're some of the sweetest dogs.
How do you figure that? The entire article basically talked about how you can never domesticate a wolf.
Pitbulls, golden retrievers, wolves--all technically the same species. The prejudice against certain breeds of "dog," or against "wolves," is no different from racism.
Sometime during the second year his independent nature became more and more pronounced. He also began to be more assertive around other dogs, sometimes even treating them as prey (it attacked one of my parents smaller dogs on a couple of occasions). Dog parks were a no-go and late-night walks became routine.
No amount of professional training could curb his instincts. I went as far as taking him to a trainer who specialized in working with aggressive breeds. No change.
Then one day he bit my dad out of the blue. My dad was petting him and suddenly stopped and the dog wheeled around and bit my dad on the wrist – I guess indignant that my dad had stopped showing him attention. It was bad enough that my dad had to go to the hospital.
By chance, I was able to find a home for the dog, a retired man who had worked with both Malamutes and wolves. He took him to his ranch and we kept in contact for about a year after. The man a couple of times said that the dog was one of the most feral-minded Malamutes he had ever come across and exhibited traits of a dog that had been raised for fighting.
It was a terrible experience. I really cared for the dog in spite of his tendencies. I learned a lot from him about the importance of breed selection and the perils of living with an un-vetted animal. Many years later, I now own a mixed-breed Newfounland / Golden Retriever rescued from a high-kill shelter. He is the polar opposite of the Malamute behavior-wise (still very handsome, though). I couldn't be happier.
It was actually odd, in that my parents, being from India, saw big dogs as "security" animals, so didn't spare the rod with the golden initially, and had to unlearn the tough love quickly through the obedience classes with him because he thrived on affection. But with the mal... that girl brought back the mantra, "a dog is a dog. people are people".
Oddly once we made that shift, it was a breeze. Giving her medicine or brushing her teeth were still a chore, but less scary. The only thing was this -- make a decision and commit. You want to take her food? You damn well better walk over it and, despite any teeth or growling, take it. No half-efforts. And dominance wasn't yelling or hitting or screaming. Everything was presence.
We've had many dogs since, none arctic breeds, but it's changed my view on dogs. Every one is calm, well behaved and trained. But we stopped "obedience" training since the mal. Dog, be dog. Walk on the leash. Know sit and down. Try and master "come" but don't stray far in general. Enjoy your safe-space in the yard/crate/bed. Come for affection when you want it. Leave when you don't and that's OK.
I can't imagine a wolf...
At the time they lived in the country and had a hiking area directly behind the house. My father would just put a leash on the dog and then let him lead the way around the mountain. He mentioned that it felt like a good experience for both of them, since he managed to see new parts of the mountain, due to the dog guiding him off the trail every now and then, and the dog was happy to lead. However, things went a bit south after my father had to leave for several months and it was my mother's turn to look after the dog. He would just pull her behind him like a sled and she had no control whatsoever over the dog.
Eventually, she went to a dog trainer with him, which improved things significantly, so that she was at least able to walk the dog without being dragged behind him. However, everything went out the window as soon as he smelled some kind of dead animal, or when he saw a deer or porcupine. Nevertheless, there were no major incidents with the dog, apart from some growling when you were trying to get him off an animal carcass.
It was definitely a much more difficult dog to handle compared to other domesticated breeds I've had or met so far, but at the same time he provided some of the most unique experiences I've had with a dog whenever you would hike with him through the mountains.
I used to own a beautiful GS, the first year he was like any other dog, he was really intelligent, playful, obedient.
I used to train him every day, so I was shocked when he started to misbehave, he wouldn't listen to other family members other than me, he would even growl at them. When I arrived home he would get exited, but instead of coming near for me to pet him, he would go around the yard, over and over. It came to a point where it was dangerous to have him around the family, so I had to took him to a shelter, that was really sad. I used to think a well trained dog will never be a problem, maybe he needed a more specialized training program.
Aggressive does not work well with herding - they're surrounded by prey all day.
Looks like you just had bad luck.
The two were OK up to a point but at a certain age the wolf dramatically changed compared to the puppy; it was uncontrollable.
That's a good way to put it.
>When They Grow Up >And what are socialized wolves like when they grow up, once the mysterious genetic machinery of the dog and wolf direct them on their separate ways?
This is the title of the last section, after some suspense from stating the answers were seen as a "long shot."
Left without anything to say, the author departed the title of the last section and talked about the play pens, the interns, how much the author likes wolves, and the ethical considerations of raising animals in captivity, etc.
I'm not annoyed with, or trying to pick on, this article in particular, or saying it is bad. But I would be interested in higher info/topic and info/words ratios on interesting topics.
In other words, what did I learn about the 'call of the wild?' Well apparently, the answers are a long shot away. And it was a let-down to read through, because the question is so interesting.
Or maybe I'm not reading the right publications?
that being said, I feel like the NYTimes in general is a strong news institution. perhaps this piece was more of a feature article given so many images were included and the video. and people love dogs so much maybe the editor(s) decided it was worth the cost to publish the story even though the researchers' answers are inconclusive so far.
so I agree with your critique of the article going off topic and so making the headline feel a bit misleading in the end. but I still strongly support the journalism that the NYTimes does (based on other articles read) and the need for strong investigative journalism in the news in general.
The question was the motivation for visiting that farm, and the author does recount his interactions with the wolves there. They just weren't terribly exciting.
A complete account of what the scientific literature or other second-hand sources have to say on the question wouldn't fit with the personal style of the article. That's why we only get the bottom line in the last graph:
Then he said what all wolf specialists say: That even though wolf pups look like dogs, they are not, that keeping a wolf or a wolf-dog hybrid as a pet is a terrible idea.
Regarding your quest for higher info/word ratios, I'll start by saying that the term information is somewhat ill-defined. In an article such as this, it may appear at first that the information content is low.
See this example:
The humans were still groggy from a night with little sleep. Pups at that age wake up every few hours to whine and paw any warm body within reach.
The first sentence adds nothing to your understanding of wolves that isn't also included in the second. As a wildlife enthusiast scanning the article for "wolf facts", you wouldn't highlight the first sentence, and you'll probably regard it as useless human-interest fluff.
But what that's missing is that this article isn't (just) about wolves. It's about human/wolf relations as well, and specifically about the group of people working with wolves.
And regarding those, we learn, for example, that these university researchers don't hesitate to get their hands dirty, and are willing to spend sleepless night for their research.
Journalism such as it's practiced at the New York Times isn't intended to prepare you for a face-to-snout with a wild wolf. They aim broad rather than deep. And all the extra information in this essay touches on any number of topics that are much more likely to be relevant to real-world decisions (including votes), such as the morality of zoos, research funding, or genetics.
Actually, what I said was maybe it should have stayed more focused, or, maybe I'm reading the wrong publications.
I didn't say I wanted to read scholarly articles, either.
I think there is maybe a little bit of a void in journalism here? I find sometimes bloggers fill this space with the ability to chime in efficiently.
And if you've lived in places where dog packs roam then you know that even in regular dog breeds the wild animal is just under the surface, all it takes is the right (or wrong) environment to bring that out.
I was a bit incredulous. He explained that he bred dogs for security. After losing a few of his dogs to coyotes, he wanted tougher animals. He managed to acquire a couple wolf pups, raised them and bred them with with mastiffs to make them bigger and more controllable.
The wolves were impossible to keep entirely under control, and even the wolf dogs were hard. They're big, strong and wild. Under normal circumstances, they weren't too bad but when excited, they could not be stopped. Like, if you took a group of them on a walk down to the river, it would not be possible to keep them from running to the water once it was in sight. The "big husky" he was bringing on the bus was apparently one of those, though he assured me that she was manageable alone.
It was a rather incredible story. Coming from anybody else I wouldn't have believed it, but the man was covered in scars and was missing a bite out of his nose. The bus was the north crosstown, which would have taken him around the edge of the city.
There was nothing 'cute' about what he looked like when he got back, it looked like he had been turned into hamburger, nearly lost an eye. Do not underestimate cats in attack mode.
The ability to look at a wild animal and see it as more than a threat or food surely had some role in our development. Wolves may have been our firat step towards the domestication of livestock or possibly farming.
This just in, wolves != dogs
"Wolf," "dog," and "coyote" are just social constructs.
Given the immense body of data saying otherwise, it is my hope that your post is the most ignorant thing I’ll read today.
I was a ‘cat person’ before that. The brother and sister we kept (and fixed asap) are super intelligent, friendly adorable and yes, a little wild. Im fortunate enough to live in the mtns where I hike them 2 miles every day, rain snow or shine. Our couch looks like it was attacked by wolves...
I’ve met a lot of people with hybrids now and everyone more or less reports the same thing. Caring for them requires something in between caring for dog and caring for human child... They need strong boundaries and lots of love.
You really have to be a competent animal trainer to keep one of those.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5590168-the-philosopher-...
It also became hard to control and somewhat erratic. After a couple biting instances, the last being pretty severe it was decided to put the dog down as it was dangerous to children and the other dogs in the house.
Several generations of selective breeding was enough to produce tame foxes.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2017-2018/pit-bulls-unleash...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/science/skin-color-race.h...
