
Wolf Puppies Are Adorable, Then Comes the Call of the Wild - 101carl
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/science/wolves-dogs-genetics.html
======
nthompson
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.

~~~
refurb
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.

~~~
mariodiana
"That's not to say wolves can't be pets […]"

Is it just me, because everything you've just said seems to suggest that
wolves can't be pets.

~~~
anthroDominator
Depends on your perspective with regard to the rearing of pets.

It’s probably just not very appropriate according to your particular
personality, and perhaps slightly offensive to typical sensibilities.

But there’s something admirable about a companion that requires a degree of
vigilance, and expects domination in exchange for honest respect. In a sense
that sort of presence does you the favor of keeping you sharp for your own
sake, according to the rules of the harsh world that produced its kind.

It’s a somewhat clear contrast worth tuning into, to consider what uncivilized
nature requires from a predator, as compared to what genteel society rewards.

Could it be a pet in some suburban cul de sac? Nah, but a tract of hemmed-in,
woodland terrain might work, such that ordinary folk are protected from it’s
advanced husbandry requirements, both by remoteness, and possibly some
engineered physical barriers.

Would it still be a pet, if you offer it free movement within a zone larger
than it’s natural range? Yes, but only by fostering conditioned dependence,
which is what being a pet owner is really about anyway. Pets are not peers,
but sometimes they believe themselves to be.

~~~
lovich
Might just be me, but I feel like if you have some animal with you that'll
kill you or your kids the second it gets a chance that it falls closer towards
"prisoner" rather than "pet"

~~~
anthroDominator
The word prison implies punishment, which is not always a component of
domination.

Pet is a more open term, and represents the concept of an enjoyable living
possession, retained without enslavement.

Enforcing submission may carry the possibility of punishment, but an equitable
game can be achieved, even amid power differential.

Is the animal’s environment engaging and enjoyable, yet perhaps limited? Then
congratulations, it’s your pet.

------
bambax
> _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.

~~~
Animats
_Not one of our domestic animals can be named which has not in some country
drooping ears._

Neither cats nor horses have drooping ears, except for ones that have serious
birth defects or mutations.

~~~
derefr
We've never prized docility in horses the way we do in other "pets"; in most
cases, we've either bred them to be easily-spooked speed monsters (race
horses; courier horses), or angry muscular bulls (war horses.)

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.)

~~~
Animats
Docility is much prized in horses. I've owned ex-racehorses, a Percheron war
horse, an ex-police horse, and a big quiet warmblood. They're all "docile";
they'll accept training and won't bite or attack without serious provocation.

Horses have been bred to be larger and more docile. The natural size for
horses is a large pony.

It's unclear how this started. Przewalski's horse, the last remaining feral
horse breed, is not the genetic ancestor of the modern horse, but a diverging
line.

(Horses are somewhat different in the Americas than in Europe and Asia.
They're not native. Feral horses in the Americas are descended from ones
brought over from Europe by early Spanish conquerers. Amusingly, the pedigrees
are known; the Spanish expeditions were Government operations and there's
surviving paperwork. Most were good Andalusians.)

~~~
derefr
> They're all "docile"; they'll accept training and won't bite or attack
> without serious provocation.

I guess I'm using "docility" a bit differently. There are two somewhat
different commonly-used meanings, and it'd be helpful if they were different
words:

• the animals _everyone_ tends to commonly use the word "domesticated" for,
which usually have specifically _eusocial_ behaviours, like coming and laying
down beside a human. Dogs are the central example; but numerous animals, from
ferrets to hamsters to pigeons, are actually like this.

• the animals that _aren 't afraid_ of humans, and will tolerate their
presence, and maybe learn skills from them. Horses, cows, sheep, chickens,
etc. Farmers and breeders call these species "domesticated" (compared to their
wild cousins), but they're not called that by lay-people. "Able to be
livestock" might be what the average person would call these. (Oddly, some
common "pets", like guinea pigs, are actually more in this category.)

One of the major differences, in my mind, is that the animals _everyone_ calls
domesticated, like being around humans enough that—if raised in a human
environment—they'll often defend their human "family member" against their own
kind. But this is not a behaviour you see with the technically-domesticated
species; a wolf, or a fox, or a cow, might _defend its territory_ if it's
feeling territorial, but it won't specifically defend _you_ , even if you
raised it. It knows humans are a sometimes-helpful thing, but its instincts
haven't been hacked enough to consider them "kin."

I'm not actually sure where horses fall on this measure, having not had much
personal experience with them. Your input?

\---

Also, fitting into neither category, there are a few extremely-intelligent
species that, by this measure, we might call "domesticated" without having had
much _human-mediated_ human interaction at all. Corvids and chimpanzees both
understand human social behaviour well enough to "befriend" individual humans,
but this doesn't translate to them having a default-positive association with
humans in general.

Also, under this distinction, I'd say that most wild animals that have assumed
a "city habitat" like raccoons, skunks, squirrels, increasingly foxes in
Britain, etc. are "technically domesticated." They're pretty much as docile if
_raised_ as pets as a horse or a cow would be. Definitely less unpredictable
than a "pet" monkey. These species are doing the same thing cats did to get
where they are; they just haven't spent as many generations evolving under the
constraints cats have yet.

~~~
Animats
There are lots of books about horse behavior. It's been studied pretty
throughly. Most horses are willing to socialize with humans. They're not
submissive in the way that dogs are, though. Once you understand some horse
body language (see "Talking with Horses", by Henry Blake) they're much more
willing to socialize. Horses are flight animals, herbivores, and herd animals,
and their behavior comes from that. Dogs are pack animals and carnivores.
Different mindset.

(My current horse is possessive of me. I recently turned him out in an arena
with another horse he likes, and the two played around a bit. Then the other
horse came up to visit me. My horse ran over, ears pinned back and teeth
bared, to chase the other horse away. But he wasn't "defending" me; the other
horse wasn't a threat and my horse knew that. He was just showing the other
horse that I was his human.)

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
> Dogs are pack animals and carnivores.

I was of the understanding dogs, our friends, are omnivores.

From wikipedia:

Unlike obligate carnivores, dogs can adapt to a wide-ranging diet, and are not
dependent on meat-specific protein nor a very high level of protein in order
to fulfil their basic dietary requirements. Dogs will healthily digest a
variety of foods, including vegetables and grains, and can consume a large
proportion of these in their diet, however all-meat diets are not recommended
for dogs due to their lack of calcium and iron.[14] Comparing dogs and wolves,
dogs have adaptations in genes involved in starch digestion that contribute to
an increased ability to thrive on a starch-rich diet.[18]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog)

------
kolanos
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.

~~~
acdanger
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.

~~~
vrc
As a former "kotzebue" mal owner, I completely understand your story. We had a
golden before, and when we got our mal, we really didn't know what we were in
for.

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...

~~~
jamiek88
I identify with this story massively.

Particularly the attitude towards dogs. Dog is dog human is human and everyone
is happier for knowing their place.

Dogs get babied a lot in the US and get very confused as to their role.

We get gushing admiration of how well 'trained' our dogs are. The dirty secret
is they've had barely _any_ conscious training from us, it is an attitude,
energy, "I'm the leader here" approach that they respect and understand.

Dogs will train dogs too, if you have one older, well behaved dog the others
will copy.

This goes very far, the copying, we had a new puppy who's only other dog to
copy in the house was old and had gone deaf thus he didn't bark at random
noises, even thunder and lightning he barely reacted to, walking past other
barking dogs etc., no probs - he couldn't hear them!

The puppy copied this - she could hear of course but she saw the I didn't
react, the older dog didn't react and we calmly continued thus that was what
she did.

The older dog has now passed away (aged 16!) and she is the oldest dog aged 2
now, we have a 1 year old rescue we just got from the hurricanes here in
Houston and he whilst skittish at first from mistreatment by humans (had to
dock his tail someone had put a rubber band round it and cut the blood flow
off, regrow all fur from mange) he picked up the way to act from the older dog
and from us.

A third 'generation' displaying the behaviour started by a dog dead a year.

~~~
KGIII
I have a Golden. I always have a Golden. He's a working dog and he was trained
by the Golden I had before, who was trained by the Golden I had before, etc.

When they start to get old and hip trouble is setting in, I get a new one and
the old one teaches the puppy. I've done this for years, though my first
weren't working dogs. It's always a Golden and only a Golden. I've never had
any other type of dog.

It's neat to watch the pup learn from the older dog. They have retained a
number of behavioral characteristics over the years. I'm not sure if it is
breeding or nurturing.

~~~
j2bax
How old have your Golden’s typically lived? I’ve got a almost 11 year old (got
her at 6 weeks) that doesn’t show any signs of giving up yet. My only
complaint with her is that she has been food aggressive and she’s not a big
fan of small children. We’ve never had her bite anyone but she shows her teeth
sometimes. I never thought a Golden could exhibit wolf like expressions... all
that said I love this dog more than just about anything in this world and I
hate to think I will probably only have her for a few more years at most.

~~~
KGIII
10 to 12 years.

------
smcl
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.

[https://imgur.com/gallery/gHbaN](https://imgur.com/gallery/gHbaN)

~~~
StavrosK
Is it a dog or a wolf? Can the two species interbreed?

~~~
barry-cotter
Dogs and wolves are fully interfertile. Their suites of behaviours and
adaptations are very different but they can be and often are considered one
species.

~~~
StavrosK
Huh, wow, I didn't know that. I knew they're very close, but I thought they
wouldn't be able to interbreed, since they're different species. Interesting.

~~~
umanwizard
I think "same species is defined as inter-fertile", which is what I learned in
school, might be a bit of an oversimplification. IIRC, even dogs and coyotes
can breed together as well and their children (and great^n-grandchildren) are
fertile, however dogs and coyotes are not considered the same species.

------
wallace_f
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.

Or maybe I'm not reading the right publications?

~~~
matt4077
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.

~~~
wallace_f
Sure, it's like I said in my comment that I'm not saying the article is bad,
and I'm fine with you enjoying the meandering style. But for me I was more
interested in the main topic, so it felt like a little bit of a bait and
switch.

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.

------
sethammons
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.

~~~
mcny
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.

~~~
azernik
Humans aren't worse about this; pet owners also anthropomorphize the hell out
of their pets.

------
jacquesm
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.

~~~
seanalltogether
I've always remembered this imgur post regarding hybrids whenever the topic is
brought up. [https://imgur.com/gallery/TqaTE](https://imgur.com/gallery/TqaTE)
Seems to be a volatile mixture to deal with.

~~~
jacquesm
That post is very good and should be enough to discourage anybody but the most
dedicated people.

------
sandworm101
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.

~~~
stevenwoo
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).

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zc8bgk7](http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zc8bgk7)

~~~
sandworm101
Maybe us finding them all cute comes from our adaptation to find puppies cute.
Our willingness to protect baby mammals might have first appeared re wolves,
then allowing us to start domesticating others too.

------
sethammons
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 :)

------
pcmaffey
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.

------
huffmsa
Whereas cats are just different sized versions of their wild varieties. Their
small size making it "cute" when they attack you from around a corner.

~~~
jacquesm
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.

~~~
atom-morgan
I had to help a friend give a cat a bath once. It literally turned into a
cylinder of pure muscle that I could barely control. Plenty of scratches and
blood.

~~~
b5
Even well cared for, domestic, gentle-natured cats can turn quite vicious when
they don't want something to happen to them. We run that gauntlet every three
weeks or so when our two needs their claws trimmed.

~~~
YZF
You just have to sit on them ... At least that worked for us ;) Our cat just
yielded (protesting but not fighting) in this position. I'm sure you're aware
but make sure you're just trimming the dead nail part.

------
Animats
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.

------
gadders
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.

[1] [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5590168-the-
philosopher-...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5590168-the-philosopher-
and-the-wolf)

------
acomjean
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.

------
tbihl
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.)

------
majestik
TLDR:

This just in, wolves != dogs

~~~
thebulgar
Wolves, dogs, and coyotes are all the same species and can produce viable,
fertile offspring when interbred with one another.

"Wolf," "dog," and "coyote" are just social constructs.

~~~
mikestew
_" 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.

------
millettjon
See also:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Belyayev_(zoologist)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Belyayev_\(zoologist\))

Several generations of selective breeding was enough to produce tame foxes.

------
coldcode
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.

~~~
Mikeb85
There's actually a fair amount of variation within each wolf species, and even
within a single pack.

------
partiallypro
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.

~~~
KozmoNau7
The alpha thing has been soundly disproven.

~~~
partiallypro
In some animal groups, yes (like humans); but as far as I know, not in wolves.
There may be some challenging views, but it is far from disproven entirely.
Some of the anecdotes people have shared with "tame" wolves seem to back the
idea of a pecking order.

~~~
int_19h
Quite the opposite - the wolves was where it was disproven most thoroughly, by
observation of packs in the wild (and noticing that they're nothing like packs
in captivity).

------
wstrange
Somewhat related: CBC documentary on Pit Bulls.

[http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2017-2018/pit-bulls-
unleash...](http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2017-2018/pit-bulls-unleashed-
should-they-be-banned)

------
WalterBright
One wonders about the "Born Free" story.

------
thebulgar
Ironically, linked to from the very same page: "Genes for Skin Color Rebut
Dated Notions of Race, Researchers Say"

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/science/skin-color-
race.h...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/science/skin-color-
race.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&rref=science)

