Animation Source Forums

Wikipedia is the best known lie on the internet, but even if that list was real, the number of wolf attacks on people still don't come close to the amount of dog attacks on people.

Now, I'm not saying dogs are evil or anything (I've had dogs all my life), my point is Wolves are no more dangerous then dogs. Dogs are just as dangerous, yet they are openly accepted, no matter how many people are attacked by them.

Why can't we accept wolves like we do dogs? Just because they live outside, they have to be treated like they're unpredictable monsters that'll turn on you at the blink of an eye?

EXAMPLE: You have a Mustang and a Quarter horse. The mustang is trained, but because of it's wild heritage, everyone is afraid to go near it because they think it might suddenly attack out of self-defense; a trait from being wild. The QH is not trained, yet everyone is petting it and loving on it because, unlike it's outdoor cousin, QH are supposed to be calm and gentle. It's not fair to stereotype the poor mustang because it was captured in the wild and THEN trained. But [for the sake of my example: I know it's not true], there has been more QH attacks then mustang attacks; and despite this, the lonely little 'stang still remains untrusted and taboo. [EXAMPLE OVER]

Is any of this getting through to anyone? Or am I the only one who sees this? It's almost racism against wolves to tell you the truth...

I understand what you're saying even though I'd have to disagree.

Yes the first canid to be tamed by humans was the wolf but of course as we evolved so did our use of the wolf, the entire cycle has ended up in the hundreds of different dogs we have today but they are no longer the same.

Wolf = Lupine
Dog = Canine

Although there are still similarities, e.g. Huskies and such still look quite like wolves apart from slight anatomical differences like the curly tail, shorter legs etc. Dogs and wolves are no longer "the same". A wolf is a wild animal and yes they are dangerous to humans but no more so than an elephant or tiger. Just like domestic dogs are dangerous, if you get bitten you're definately going to know about it.

I strongly disagree about the dogs and wolves being the same thing, I have "studied" wolves for a while, not properly of course like in college but I have talked to to many wolf experts, my favourite being Shaun Ellis and even he who loves wolves still says how dangerous a wolf can be and how unpredictable a wolf-dog can be.

Yes German shepherds and rottweilers are dangerous and unpredictable sometimes too but not as much as a wolf-dog. No wolf-dogs are not hybrids, a hybrid is like a Liger, a mixture of 2 species that is infertile, wolf-dogs are not.

Oh HERE WE GO.

No, Wolves ARE NOT Dogs.

Dogs have wolf ancestory true but they are not actually wolves. They're both entirely different species.
Talk to any animal expert.. or scientist whichever you prefer.

Obviously you do not know a great deal about dogs or wolves not to recognize the obvious differences between them.

First of all, Maugrim, I've owned dogs all my life, I've raised 3 wolfdogs, AND my mom is a vet assistant. So DON'T call out my intelligence when it comes to this (it's very rude to make a call like that anyway).

Secondly, I don't really care what scientists say (because we all know that they've been VERY wrong before). I judge these animals by how they ACT. If you own and train a wolf like you would a dog, that wolf is going to act like a dog. If you treat it like a wild animal, it will act as such; the same principal applies for DOGS.

If you raise a dog like it's a wild animal; keep it in a confined space with little or no human contact; it's gonna attack any human who enters it's domain.

Now, if you raise a wolf in a loving home with rules/bounderies/limitations and you train said animal like you would a dog...guess what? It's going to act like a dog. I have 2 of them as living proof.

I mean, hundreds of years ago, wolves decided to start hanging around man's campfire begging for food. Eventually, he became man's friend.

What makes any of you think it's any different now? Because Scientists say so? You should try thinking for yourselves rather then let someone else do it for you. Just because they wear glasses and a long white coat doesn't make them gods. They're only humans who take educated guesses.

I have two domestic cats that are bred from strays. One hates human contact, the other allows it cautiously. I've made several attempts to "retrain" the one that hates human contact to try and accept it. Using your logic, the same principal applies for cats, and I should have been able to tame the cat. However, despite using all training methods possible, I couldn't! Strange, huh?


Common sense.


Ummm... what? Wolfdogs and wolves aren't the same thing.

I feel inclined to add something to this topic.

The Wolf (Canis Lupus) is a species of the Canidae family, and is also the original version/form of today's pet dogs.
From the time the wolf first came to rest by man and man's fire, Man has created new species through excessive breeding, thus creating the dog races we know today. I do not know when the Wolf began to devolve (yes, devolve. The Wolf has not "evolved" into anything. It has rather lost many abilities, instincts and strengths), but I know this lead to disastrous effects for the Wolf species, causing them to change their physical shape and thereby losing many importan skills to survive on their own.

This was simply caused by the egoism of Man.

Anyhow; I disagree... with those saying that simply because they have been named differently by scientists (Canis Lupus, Canis Lupus Familiae, etc.) does not mean that they are not the same species. The Dog is simply a wolf race, bred in such a way it is adaptible to Homo sapiens (humans) way of life, which is an ability the Wolf lacks. Or you may call it a sub-species if you want, but differentiating them because of their name is unheard of. And these factors are quite uncertain yet; in twenty years, maybe all of a sudden Wolf is dog, and dogs were before Wolves. And some years after that, maybe Wolves just suddenly popped out of nowhere. Or maybe after that again, they say that Wolves are kind and friendly creatures, that everyone should have them, because Wolves are dogs!

But no. that isn't correct. Dogs are technically deevolutioned Wolves.

In my opinion, the latin name is not a factor to consider when judging whether this is that or not.
I can give you an example.

The fox is part of the Canidae family, and by theory, a zoologic family is consisting of "Species which can breed with each others and have a surviving litter" (or living children), yet the Fox can not breed with a Wolf, or a Dog and have pups with them. This does nothing, but underline the fact that we humans are not flawless, and our instinctive urge to categeorize everything often leads us to misconceptions, which then brings us to the wrong decisions. The Fox should be in a family of its own, because the Fox can't breed with anything, but another Fox.

I hope I'm not confusing you all.


Anyhow; The Wolf and Dog technically ARE the same, but Dog has undergone a de-evolution from a Wolf, because of Man.


Although it may not seem that way in this post, I remain neutral to this subject, although I do follow facts as much as possible. This time, however, my post also includes a lot of guesses (I'm no expert ).

Silverstrike: I wouldn't classify that as "de-evolution". It's more like this: Humans were hunting animals, and they didn't always eat the entire carcass, so some wolves learned to follow humans because they knew they could scavenge something. Over time, they got closer, and closer, and eventually, the humans let the wolves be among them. Then, as humans became more intelligent, they started selective breeding among those wolves to get certain traits to help them with herding, hunting, or whatever. It's not de-evolution, it's more of "human-assisted evolution". Dogs are related to wolves, but they are not the same.

Genetically speaking, dogs are wolves. But in terms of everything else, they're completely different animals.

Look, I'm not trying to start a fight but it's a well-known fact that wolves and dogs are entirely different.

So say I started acting like an elephant one day - does that make me an elephant? No.

You can't judge things on how they act.
And by owning a genetically-messed-up animal like a wolf-dog barely makes you an animal expert.

This topic was to discuss the similarities/differences between wolves and dogs. This is the SECOND time you've insulted my intelligence, and now you're insulting Toboe? He's a very happy and healthy wolf puppy (wolf, dog, wolfdog...same thing) and I don't appreciate you calling him 'messed up'. If you insult me (or him) again, I'll be forced to report you. Please stay on topic.

And the elephant comment...that's a ridiculous logic and is nowhere NEAR what I meant.

Maugrim's point was valid. The fact that you've owned a couple of wolf-dogs hardly makes you an animal behavior specialist. The fact that you mom is a vet assistant also lends no credence to your claims. You're a teenager, with no college training and no real experience in animal behavioral science. His point was valid for what it claimed. You may have a personal experience to draw from, but you're hardly an "expert".

Look, report me if you wish. Much good will it do you. I think the mods have better things to do then to yell at me for trying to get my point across - which is excactly what you are doing anyway so I equally have as much right to report you.

Thanks, HarryNrmn. Let's be honest, we're all kids and teens here.

Just because you've owned a wolf-dog it doesn't make you a qualified animal expert.

Where did I say that I was an expert? I've looked up and down my posts and NOWHERE did I claim to be an expert I only stated that I have SOME knowledge when it comes to this topic; just like everybody here has SOME knowledge. Please read my posts thoroughly before you decide to attack me.

And just because you don't like what I believe doesn't mean you can go around insultng me or my pets. Everyone else maybe okay with it, but I'm not.




I said this once and I'll say it again; Scientists are not gods, and they shouldn't be treated (or worshipped) as such. They make mistakes just like ALL human beings and you should always be skeptical of their 'discoveries'. How many times have they disproven themselves over the years? What makes you think they're right about wolves and dogs too? Are you really that gullible, or do you just find it difficult to think for yourselves? (That wasn't directed at you, Maugrim, but everyone who reads this post. I wouldn't want to insult you or anything...)