When wolves got reintroduced to Idaho, a few hillbillies went up into the primitive area and stole some pups, and they circulated around as pets. My buddy had one, and it scared the shit out of me. It was 130lbs of killing machine. They could tell it to kill anything, and it would do it. Their neighbor's dog had been biting them, so it was the first to go. Then they'd set it on foxes, which is could run down with ease. But the only person that wolf had respect for was the father, who was 6'4" and would pick it up and slam it whenever it misbehaved. Eventually, it started trying to beat up on the kids to move up the pecking order, and it had to be shot.
So only get a wolf if you can stomach putting a bullet in its head after it brutalizes your kids.
You can do some google searches about wolves as pets and it's fascinating. Domesticated dogs adjust quite readily to a pack pecking order. Wolves will with a lot of training, but they never stop trying for the top spot. It's a constant battle.
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.
It got shot rather than alternatives because the humans in charge were hillbillies, per the beginning of the story? Sucks all around, though, regardless.
Your story clearly indicates this has nothing to do with it being a wolf. It happened to have a body that was capable of killing, yes. But the owner picked it up and slammed it whenever it misbehaved, and the owner actively encouraged it to kill things.
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.
> something is deeply different in dog genes, or in how and when those genes become active, and scientists are trying to determine exactly what it is
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.
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.
It seems more likely to me that this has a human psychological cause, not a genetic cause.
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.
My first thought was, for sure, the foxes you mentioned. But on the note of no domestic animals avoid some examples of drooping ears, while I'm sure you could find supporting cases, that does not seem to be the norm for horses nor cats. And opposite that, elephants seem to have drooping ears. While the claim might be valid, it feels weak.
Alaskan Malamutes are apparently more closely related to wolves than domesticated dogs. I used to breed them, and while they're beautiful animals, I wouldn't recommend them as a pet. Unless you have a sled that needs pulling, that is. I've since moved on to Rottweilers and have a new found appreciation for domesticated dogs. A malamute, especially in the presence of other malamutes, will always see you as an "other". Training a malamute is a battle of wills. Whereas a domesticated dog extends it's pack to include you. It may not accept you as it's leader at first, but the potential is there with training. I never got the impression that any malamute I've owned ever saw me as their leader, even after extensive training. Just my experience, though.
I made the mistake of getting a Malamute puppy, sight-unseen, from a breeder who dropped him off one December day. The first year was fine. It was an incredibly handsome dog and a good companion on hikes.
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.
Do you know if German Shepherd share this closeness to wolves? I've met some really well behaved GS, but then I've met others with more wild like behaviors.
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.
If you like the look of Wolves, there is a breed you can look into - Československý Ovčák. It was created by then Czechoslovakia last century by breeding Carpathian Wolves with German Shephard. I think the original intent was to use it in the military. From what I’ve seen they’re surprisingly timid, but a bit stubborn. My friend just got one(below) and it is adorable. 4 months old or so and she’s already tearing around with my 2 year old Vizsla, who is pretty rowdy. I think they can be quite pricey though.
just a note: as with all wolf-looking dogs, the biggest risk
is unscrupulous breeders who will sell you something much more ... shall we say "authentic" than just a big friendly dog with some wolf phenotypes. buyer beware.
Really interesting question, but to tread on constructive criticism in the age of struggling journalism: it started off great with a focused thesis, but maybe should have ended there.
>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.
I agree. skimming down the article again, I feel about half way through the article starts to go down tangents (which are interesting points but maybe better covered in a book). it seemed like the premise was given that dogs are evolved from wolves so why do they behave so differently. at the end of the article I felt like the content did stray a bit from the reason the title got my attention.
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.
This is an essay, and as such it has the freedom of using some literary flourish, including rhetorical questions.
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.
This reminds me of some program I watched. They took wolves raised by people and dogs, and then, separately, placed the animal in near reach of food that was in a cage. The dogs eventually realized they could not get to the food and looked at people for help. The wolves never sought human intervention and continued trying to get at the food on their own.
Dogs are better than humans because they can obviously see past the fact that humans look nothing like dogs and still accept humans in their "pack". Even cats seem to have the control when playing with humans to not scratch too deep by which I assume they accept humans in their group as well.
In Northern Ontario there are quite a few people that have half or three quarter wolves, usually crossed with German shephards. I absolutely love them but I would not want one of these unless I lived by myself and in the bush somewhere, these are not your average dog. Super nice animals though.
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've always remembered this imgur post regarding hybrids whenever the topic is brought up. https://imgur.com/gallery/TqaTE Seems to be a volatile mixture to deal with.
A few years back, I was waiting for the bus at the Calgary airport and saw a guy with what I thought was a big husky. He was waiting for the same bus, and it was going to be a while so we started talking. I lead with, "Nice dog" and he responded, "That's not a dog. That's a wolf."
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.
Interesting, but they are missing half the genetic story. Being around us changed wolf genes to turn them into dogs. But being around wolves also changed our genes. The humans that could best interact with wolves/dogs had an evolutionary advantage. We dont think wolf pups are cute because they look like our own babies. We protect them becausd at a primal level we know them a valuable survival tool.
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.
Don't most humans find most baby mammals cute? We could speculate maybe there's some evolutionary reason that mammal babies are cute to other mammals (for which they are not prey animals).
My neighbor, when I was young, had a half Siberian Husky half Timber Wolf. While a very independent animal, he was very good around people. He was free to roam our neighborhood and our canyon and he let strangers pet him (though with an air of indifference). He was surprisingly large. One late and dark night, I got dropped off at my house by a friend. As soon as the car left, I saw a large shadowed creature near me. I thought I was about to have an unpleasant bear encounter. Then "Wolfie" sauntered passed me on his way home. He ignored my verbal chastising him for scaring me :)
I helped rescue 13 wolf husky pups (genetically confirmed) from a situation where the owner was getting evicted and animal control was coming the next day. Because the rabbies vaccine isn’t proven to work on wolves, I was told they’d be euthanized.
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.
A friend of mine went into a barn to pick up a streetcat that had lodged there to bring it into the house for the Canadian winter (-40 C forecast that night).
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.
California no longer allows keeping half-wolves as domestic pets. I have a friend who had a half-wolf, half-husky when that was still allowed. She's
an endurance rider and runner, and wanted an animal that could keep up.
She says she never allowed the animal alone with her daughter until the daughter was bigger than the animal.
You really have to be a competent animal trainer to keep one of those.
The Philosopher and The Wolf [1]is a good story about raising a wolf. The author ends up having to take the wolf everywhere with him, and running several miles a day with it to tire it out.
I knew someone with a what they claimed was a half coyote half dog mix. It was energetic then it grew up and quite the backyard hunter (which added some credence to the half coyote claim.)
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.
There's a theory (I don't know to what extent, if any, it has corroborated or discredited) that dogs and humans share a common history of being infantilized versions of wolves and apes, respectively. Thus we place less emphasis on social hierarchy and are more open to new things (which is true of young wolves and chimps, but stops after adolescence.)
I find dog genetics fascinating. Wolves are fairly uniform in appearance, but dogs comes in fantastically different shapes and sizes. Yet they can still interbreed.
I wonder if wolves have been raised in tandem with dogs, which some zoos do with their tour animals have had any success. Or if the natural inclination of the wolf is to prove alpha status, though perhaps it would be less so if they were the opposite sex and you let the dog initiate human contact.
[+] [-] nthompson|8 years ago|reply
So only get a wolf if you can stomach putting a bullet in its head after it brutalizes your kids.
[+] [-] refurb|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jtmcmc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dogruck|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjtheblunt|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sillysaurus3|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bambax|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Animats|8 years ago|reply
Neither cats nor horses have drooping ears, except for ones that have serious birth defects or mutations.
[+] [-] kharms|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] learnstats2|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] sethammons|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzs|8 years ago|reply
What do you find bizarre about it?
[+] [-] smnrchrds|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Smaug123|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kolanos|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acdanger|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] elboru|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bluedino|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smcl|8 years ago|reply
https://imgur.com/gallery/gHbaN
[+] [-] rbanffy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andreapaiola|8 years ago|reply
http://canelupoitaliano.it/
[+] [-] StavrosK|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flachsechs|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wallace_f|8 years ago|reply
>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?
[+] [-] lizardwalk5|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] matt4077|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] sethammons|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcny|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dghughes|8 years ago|reply
The two were OK up to a point but at a certain age the wolf dramatically changed compared to the puppy; it was uncontrollable.
[+] [-] jacquesm|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] seanalltogether|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slavik81|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] sandworm101|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] stevenwoo|8 years ago|reply
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zc8bgk7
[+] [-] sethammons|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcmaffey|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] huffmsa|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dreamcompiler|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|8 years ago|reply
You really have to be a competent animal trainer to keep one of those.
[+] [-] gadders|8 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5590168-the-philosopher-...
[+] [-] acomjean|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] tbihl|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] majestik|8 years ago|reply
This just in, wolves != dogs
[+] [-] millettjon|8 years ago|reply
Several generations of selective breeding was enough to produce tame foxes.
[+] [-] coldcode|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] partiallypro|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wstrange|8 years ago|reply
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2017-2018/pit-bulls-unleash...