Talk:Gray Wolf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Gray Wolf as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Astur-Leonese,  German or Ukrainian language Wikipedias.
Featured article star Gray Wolf is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Gray Wolf appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 31, 2005.
Peer review Gray Wolf has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Archive 2: June 2004

Contents

[edit] Scent Marking

This is my first time posting on a discussion page, so hopefully I won't mess up. It's a minor issue, but in the article under Scent Marking, it says that only males practice raised leg urination (RLU), and that all females squat. However, I've read numerous times that dominant females are known to also practice RLU. This website cites the same thing: [1] Elana 20:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive linking

I've removed a plethora of wiki links from the first part of this page. There does NOT need to be a link for every noun in a sentence. for example, I removed the link "a wolf's teeth are its main weapons [...]" Why? Because it's not relevant in any way to a wolf. For the article writers: If a word could appear in a children's book (i.e. 'weapon', 'prey', 'tooth') or links to an article that is either far too general in scope to be relevant (see weapon) or is unnecessary to further understand the subject at hand (poison), then don't put double brackets around it. If we wanted to read a page of links, then we could just have Wikipedia automatically link every word. It's not necessary and it causes clutter. If anyone wishes to carry on my task, I ended around the social behavior section. --71.56.32.77 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subspecies confusion

I've started to write some of the articles on the subspecies of wolves (which aren't much more than stubs right now. I spent a summer studying wolves in Canada and am wondering why the Gray Wolf is selected as the "Wolf". While Gray Wolves do indeed have many subspecies associated with it, there are also Red Wolves, Eastern Canadian Wolves and other varieties of wolf. I guess I am also confused as to why certain sections talk about characteristics that are particular to the Gray wolf, while other sections talk about the gray wolf and all of its subspecies. This can get confusing as the size of wolves can vary quite greatly from subspecies to subspecies. Many points in this article would be fantastic for a generic article on wolves, including folklore and many of the generic scial structure of wolves. Even if people do not want to split the article up, I think that a little more clarification is necessary when referring to "wolf" is it the Gray Wolf, or is it the Gray Wolf and it's subspecies. Comments?Thanks! --Waterspyder 20:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Not included (as far as I saw) was the painted wolf, an Afr striped var. Trekphiler 22:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by separating 'grey wolf' and 'grey wolf and its subspecies'? Surely they are both the same thing, as saying grey wolf would include its subspecies (without its subspecies it's nothing right, as all grey wolves are of a subspecies?). And Trekphiler the African hunting dog which I believe you are referring to is a completely different species, in fact it's not even in the same genus.

[edit] Date

Is there any good data on the size of wolves? Rovdjuren, a swedish translation of "The carnivores" (Equinox Ltd, Oxford 1984) lists it as "Body length 100-150 cm, tail 33-51 cm, 66-81 cm tall at the shoulder, weight 12-80 kg". The weight differs quite a lot from that in the article. Comments? --Pehrs

[edit] Discrimination

Now I know nothing about biology, but is this a little Northamericacentric? I understand that the picture is free, but are the other wolves of the world represented in the article? I explained on thursday to a class that the image of the Capitoline Wolf (you know, the bronze statue of the she wolf nursing the babies Romulus and Remus) is NOT unnaturalistic because of her tight mane, that Italian wolves (I think they're called Appenine wolves) DO have a tighter, curlier mane than American timber wolves. --MichaelTinkler

[edit] Naming

Taxonomy is a dark science; a valid name is one that is published according to the rules. The consequence is that even when the name is not regarded to be representive of the "thruth", it is still a valid name. When it comes to the taxonomy, it can be even funnier, the dingo is named here as C. l. dingo, it is to be a descendant of the dog C. l. familiaris. Now dogs, as a domesticated animal, has breeds. So a dingo is a breed gone wild. Actually this whole concept of breeds, races, species, subspecies, varieties is not only frought with taxonominal danger but also with ethical danger. As far as I am aware there is not a good definition for a subspecies and when a subspecies has to be a "natural" occurence how can a dingo and a dog be a subspecies?

Then again, there is one species that we do not apply all the logic on that we use on other species.. GerardM 18:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

I think the Timeline of wolfs in the United States should be moved to its own article. Bogdan | Talk 20:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vague 'Recent Studies' Reference

In the reintroduction section, there is the statement, "Recent studies have shown that the wolf would have enjoyed greater protection had they been allowed to repopulate areas on their own..." Could someone please de-obfuscate that or provide references? I find such vague language... irksome in reference material. Thanks. JRice 14:51, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

[edit] Taxobox

UtherSRG, why don't you want those extra taxobox lines? -- Schnee 00:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing: they're legitimate taxonomic designations. How are they extraneous? ClockworkTroll 00:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They don't add any meaningful information. The majority of mammals, and all Carnivora, are Eutheria. Likewise, all mammals are vertebrates. It *might* be interesting to put Canini into the box since not all canids are in Canini, but that can bee seen by visiting Canidae. (Likewise, it's meaningless to include Fissipedia, Craniata and a host of other intermediary taxa in the box.) - UtherSRG 02:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But they *do* add information - and who are we to decide whether it's "meaningful" or not? -- Schnee 12:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, they don't. When you say Carnivora, you are already saying Eutheria. When you say Mammalia you are already saying Vertebrata. It's redundant. All creatures classified as Carnivora birth their young live. All creatures classified as mammals have a backbone (and a skull). It's not new information when talking about the *species* Canis lupus. It *is* relevent information on higher level articles, but not on the species page. Similarly, we don't need to say that a Wolf is a multi-cellular animal with a nerve chord and brain encased in a skull and backbone, etc, etc. All these small, picayune details are covered when we say it is a member of the Canidae, the dog family. - UtherSRG 13:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's rubbish. You could just as well say that the whole taxobox info should be removed since everything follows from "Canis". -- Schnee 13:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, the taxobox provides a useful purpose of showing the highlights of the taxonomy. The taxobox is not meant to be used to show every nuance of every intermediary ranking. If there's something important to show, it shows it. I suggest you take your query to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and ask what they think of my edit. - UtherSRG 13:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*shrugs* I still think that you don't have a point. Why don't you remove the "Kingdom: Animalia" line, too? Isn't that an obvious and unnecessary nuance, too? Anyhow, I think the best idea is probably to vote on whether the extra info should be there or not. Everybody who wants to vote can then just add themselves to the list below (and please, everybody, don't use multiple accounts, IPs and so on!) -- Schnee 15:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Taxobox_Usage, particularly the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Taxobox_Usage#Complete_classification section. "Kingdom", "Phylum", etc are the major rankings. These should be used on every taxobox. Others ("Subphylum", etc.) are intermediary and are to be used only when needed to better show why the given creature is classified as it is. Otherwise, every species level taxobox would have about 15-20 lines in the taxonomy. This just isn't acceptable andit buries the major data in the noise of theminor data. - UtherSRG 18:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with UtherSRG's last argument that inclusion of "intermediary" rankings would tend to clutter a taxobox. The problem arises that in some taxa, pretty significant "intermediary" rankings exist. Indeed, I do not believe it is a rule of taxonomy that "major" subdivisions match public perceptions of important subdivisions. In the case of the chordates, the very important subtaxa "Vertebrata" is not a "major" subdivision, but an "important" one. This fact needs to be handled somehow. The present thinking seems to be that the taxobox is a "pretty" fixture, and consistency of approach over-rides basic taxonomic considerations. While I have no problem with this approach, per se, I would suggest that either Vertebrata be added in to all taxoboxes where appropriate, or be handled in the text something like this:
"The Wolf or Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) is a vertebrate and a mammal of the Family Canidae and the ancestor of the domestic dog."
- Marshman 17:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Uther; we need a standard to discourage the extension of every taxobox to every imaginable subclassification; I don't believe this is a straw man: there are people (good people) out there on wikipedia who will tend to do this if it's not clearly discouraged. In the case of vertebrata, as long as mammal has a clear link to vertebrate in its head matter, I don't think we need it in every article. But I'm not strongly opposed to this particular expansion either. It would be nice if we had a way to link the standard "pretty" taxobox to a fully expanded, nuanced taxonomy. In general, I'd say if that's what you want go to NCBI, ITIS, (Wikispecies? bwahahahaha!) etc. Perhaps we should finally consider expanding the templates to allow these kinds of external reference links? Or link to a secondary article with just the full taxonomy? Ideal would be a taxobox table that could be javascript dynamically expanded or whatever, but in the current state of WikiMarkup I'm pretty sure we'll never be able to accomplish this. --User:Chinasaur

[edit] Taxobox vote

Should the extra taxobox information that UtherSRG deleted (namely, Subphylum and Subclass) be included in the article again? Cast your vote below and sign it with ~~~~. Voting will be open until 0:00 UTC, October 16th 2004.

Voting has ended. Results: Yes 3, No 7.

[edit] Yes

  1. Schnee 15:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Subphylum Vertebrata only - Marshman 17:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Yes : sub- and super- phylogenies are just as important as the more "classical" definitions - the only difference is that they were described later, after the original K-P-C-O-F-G-S system was already established. ClockworkTroll 17:20, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No

  1. UtherSRG 16:41, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. After reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxobox Usage, I have to change my vote to "no". See comments below. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:49, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Following the standard format seems like the best solution P.S. 20:38, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. Taxobox is for context-setting, seven is more than enough. Stan 21:11, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Since the standard format seems to be sparser than the additions proposed. Maastrictian 22:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. --Yath 06:04, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. In this case : certainly no. On the other hand there are cases were intermediary taxa are necessary, e.g. the orchid family Orchidaceae with about 1,000 genera to be divided in subfamilies, tribes, subtribes, alliances... In other words, if intermediary taxa can be avoided, then avoid them. Otherwise, use your own judgment. JoJan 09:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Abstain

  • Either way is just dandy with me. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:01, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

artic wolves do have light blueish grey colored eyes as adult if raise in snowy regions,they adapt to the enviroment to keep their eyes from getting sun burned by the snow. I know this because I have a pure blood wolf(DNA test confirmed) and she has blue eyes. (Unsigned, 00:16, 14 March 2006 by 207.69.138.141)

  • ClockworkTroll, would you then also want any other the other intermediary taxa? Metazoa? Bilateria - it's important to note that wolves have bilateral symmetry? Coelomata (this term links now links to body cavity --TheLimbicOne 14:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC))? Deuterostomia? Craniata - it's important to note that wolves have a braincase? Gnathostomata - it's important to note that wolves have a jawbone? Teleostomi? Euteleostomi - because it's important to note that wolves have bones? Sarcopterygii? Tetrapoda - because it's important to note that wolves have 4 legs? Amniota? Theria - even though there is only a species of mammals that lay eggs? Eutheria - placental birth vs. metatheria which are marsupials? Fissipedia? At what level do you draw the line? the standard we have is the KPCOFGS system, and the noting intermediary ranks in accordance with policy outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Taxoboxes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxobox Usage. And do please read the policy. - UtherSRG 17:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I would draw the line exactly where I drew it. Bilateria, Tetrapoda, Craniata, etc. are mere types, they are not phylogenic classifications in the strict sense, and to bring them up merely clouds and confuses the issue. I have no desire to step on any toes, so if you feel as though I've intruded on your territory, do what you will. I don't have the time of patience to quibble over minutae. Anybody who wants such information can just go elsewhere, anyway. ClockworkTroll 20:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • You show your lack of understanding of phylogeny and taxonomy. With the exception of Coelomata, all the links I provided above show that they are intermediary taxa in the taxonomy of Wolf. Why would you leave any of them out? - UtherSRG 21:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • First, having just had similar stuff pulled on me at another article I gotta comment that telling people they are putting their ignorance on display is about the best way to discourage participation in Wikipedia in general. Uther, I agree with the substance of your reasoning above, but I also agree with the sentiment (frustration, injury) of ClockworkTroll's response. Second, it's true that (as you have Socratically pointed out) drawing a line at including vertebrata is arbitrary, but honestly isn't the standard you (we) are advocating also pretty arbitrary? The only advantage to the standard is that it is the standard. I'm still for the standard, but I don't see any reason why it's fundamentally better than what ClockworkTroll or Marshman suggested. --Chinasaur 07:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Yup. My bad. I was operating under the misunderstnading that ClockworkTroll was, well, a troll. As such, I didn't cut him the slack and patience that I would have given an eager and honest Wikipedian. I have since apologized to him on his talk and I believe we've settled our differences. As to the arbitrariness, I'd have to say both yes and no. For species taxoboxes, noting that a mammal is in subphylum Vertebrata (which all mammals are) is generally less noteworthy than noting an intermediary taxa that distinguishes several closely related species. A reasonable exception to this might be if there is something particularly interesting about that particular species' spinal column, but even then I'd be hard pressed to to see why it should be noted in the taxobox (a tool for navigation and information highlights) versus in the article's text where an explanation can be given. However, when you are looking at higher level taxoboxes, different intermediary taxa will have more importance. - UtherSRG 12:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I never claimed to be an expert; I am only a soon-to-be geneticist and not a zoologist. However, my knowlege of the subject is greater than average and I was hoping to be able to help. It is my opinion that the best information is given at the sub- and super- levels. Infra, branch, and anything beyond shows, to me, diminishing returns. If others disagree, fine: it's just my opinion and I'm not especially attached to it. Since you clearly consider yourself the expert and guardian of all things taxa, and my help is very plainly less than welcome, then I will leave you with your wolves. ClockworkTroll 23:37, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Can be frustrating, I know. You are right about the information, and ALL factual information is welcomed. The debate you stepped into is about the taxobox and whether to display such information in a taxobox (and thereby give up a simplified but consistent "pattern" displayed on taxonomic articles) - Marshman 03:15, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Do not use this complete list: instead cut out all ranks except for the seven major ranks (regnum, phylum, classis, ordo, familia, genus, species) and the particular other ranks that are important to the taxon being described. The fine details of classification between (say) regnum and phylum are obscure, not directly relevant to an article on a species, and moreover are subject to dispute and change as conventions evolve and more discoveries are made.
I'm not sure this should be voted on. It seems to me, any changes to the way we do taxoboxes should be applied to all articles equally, and should be discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxobox Usage. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:49, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me since my vote was to go along with Uther's simple format, but to take another look at the special case of the Vertebrata - Marshman 03:15, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] world distribution

There is at least one wolf specie in South America. I dont know its scientific name. The popular name is lobo guara. It is found in the center of Brazil.



[edit] USA timeline

I see the addition of the USA timeline. It needs serious condensing and it fails to discuss wolf populations outside of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan...in such areas as Montana and Idaho...not to mention Alaska, etc.--MONGO 10:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i just deleted the whole section Plugwash 15:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subspecies

Hello,

I have changed the outdated subspecies information (again), and rest assured I do know what I'm talking about and am fully aware there are longer lists out there. Like I explained to UtherSRG, the older and longer lists are still very common on the net due to the size- most people assume just because there are more names, it is more complete. However, fairly recent research has shown that many of these so called 'subspecies' are far too similar, and regularly interbreed. I have not included the domestic dog or dingo, in my opinion their position within the species is far too debatable for anything to be considered fact.

http://www.kerwoodwolf.com/BIOLOGY.htm

"In North America, 24 subspecies were originally recognized. The more modern view however, is that there are only five valid subspecies here: the Eastern Timber Wolf, the Northern Plains Wolf, the Mexican Wolf, the Mackenzie Valley Wolf, and, the Arctic Wolf. Classification is difficult because wolves, so similar to their subspecies in the first place, travel, cutting into the territories of other wolf subspecies, sometimes even interbreeding with the other race and creating pups that are even more difficult to classify. Although the situation is equally confusing in parts of Europe and Asia, scientists have recognized another eight wolf subspecies or races there."

So are Dingo and Domestic Dog then considered full species? - UtherSRG 21:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well like I said, that is debatable. 'Species' is a far more whooly term than some scientists like to make out. The proper definition is organisms which can reproduce and have fertile offspring. But then, it is possible for all members of the 'Canis' genus to mate and have fertile offspring... wolves, coyotes, jackals and domestic dogs. Yet the grey wolf, coyote and the jackals are considered separate species. Which makes us not as clever as we thought.

Therefore, whatever you decide to call them is purely a human means of separation, though personally I would go with a single subspecies of 'Canis lupus familiaris', including both the domestic dog and dingo.

[edit] Regarding hunting by helicopter

So it goes to the discussion page for us to hash out? Well, I would like to point out what I did on the requests for page protection page, and that is that while many of us would agree with Gabrielsimon's intent in inserting his comments on wolf hunting by helicopter, the simple fact that Wikipedia is not to be used for propaganda, and Gabrielsimon escalated the situation by adding emotional appeal on top of POV violations, and did not back down when called on it. Gabe, we're not trying to start a fight here, but you've been shot down by almost a half a dozen people in the space of four days. What does that tell you about what you're trying to do? Haikupoet 7 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

i was trying to re add the base of what would be modified, and before i can even begin to modify it, bang, its gone again, tell me, how am i supposed to work when people keep erasing the text that is the basis for what im trying to put? Gabrielsimon 7 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)

I suggest the group of editors for this page propose a solution to the edits below - for the next 24 hours while the page is protected, Gabrielsimon, if you'd like to write below what you think is a good solution to the suggested edits and then allow the other editors to use the talk page to edit your work and so forth until a compromise is reached. Gentlemen, good luck. -Visorstuff 7 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

I have held out hoping that either other editors or Gabrielsimon would step up and have their say, but no one's really offered a solution. I don't have a particularly good one either -- I think Gabrielsimon is really the only person pushing his viewpoint, and he hasn't made his case here. I propose that the main article be deprotected under the watchful eye of a mod, and if GS resumes his POV-pushing that this be taken to arbitration (or further as necessary). I don't think it's quite appropriate to talk about bannings at this point, but GS should realize that there is a consensus that his additions to the article are not welcome. Wikipedia is not a place for activism. Haikupoet 03:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

im going to, giveme time to find wording thats not terribly POV. Gabrielsimon 03:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"Hunters routinely chase entire packs of wolves until, the wolves themselves are too exhausted to move, and thereafore defenceless, then they ( the "hunters") land, and walk up and shoot the wolves, at point blank range." Gabrielsimon 09:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, perhaps this will help. Find a source, and report what they said. People can still argue all day long whether it's appropriate to the article, but at least it's verifiable. Keep in mind that if the source is considered dubious, people won't like it as much. You can't be neutral with an edit about what's fair. You CAN be neutral with an edit about a particular group SAYING something is unfair. Friday 16:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf hunting

Wolves are hunted for the pelt and for the alleged control of their numbers despite their possibly near extinction. Previously anything was used to kill wolves, including large amount of poisons. Some of the more diabolic creations of mankind have been used to kill wolves during the extermination campaigns in Europe and America. Today most of the hunting is done on the ground or from helicopters, either with shotguns or rifles. This practise has been condemned by many wilderness protection organisations as barbaric, cowardly and bloodthirsty, and hunting from airplanes or helicopters in most countries is usually only legal for state officials. Wolves are considered very tough as they can still survive for a few hours after being shot repeatedly. "How Wolves may be caught with a Snare."--Fac-simile of a Miniature in the Manuscript of Phoebus (Fifteenth Century). Enlarge "How Wolves may be caught with a Snare."--Fac-simile of a Miniature in the Manuscript of Phoebus (Fifteenth Century).

The hunting section was pretty bad from a NPOV perspective. Trying to fix without removing much information. Are there any sources for the extermination campaigns in the past or the helicopter hunting? Also, the "Conservation status" says "lower risk", yet this section had some very POV language suggesting they were near extinction. I removed it for consistancy, however if anyone has accurate facts regarding their conservation status, it would certainly belong in the article. Friday 23:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Made some more tweaks. I thought it was pointless to say "from the ground or aircraft", and the controversy seems to surround aircraft hunting, so I reworded. Also continued trying to move toward NPOV. Friday 23:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

your "continuing moves" are very deletionist, please stop. Gabrielsimon 23:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I have really, really tried to assume good faith on your part. Really. However, you've now restored very POV language that I pointed out on the talk page. If that wasn't good enough, you've re-inserted your typos as well. All this after you've been blocked many times for inappropriate reverting, and this very article had to be protected because of you. Please, please, please, do not continue your present editing habits. Friday 23:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

you dont get it, i worked hard to find wording that is both close to NPOV and factual, without omission, then you remove it, i even checked with an admiin before i put it in, and was given the green light. then you remove what it took mer four weeks of tweaks to come up with. gee, why do you thinki i put it back?? Gabrielsimon 23:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Friday wrote: "I thought it was pointless to say 'from the ground or aircraft', and the controversy seems to surround aircraft hunting, so I reworded." It would have been infinitely better if you'd bothered to do some research rather than operating based on sheer assumption. There are two distinct methods in use (notably in Alaska), both of which involve aircraft. The first is "aerial hunting/shooting," in which the gunner shoots the animal(s) from the aircraft while in flight. The second is "Same Day Airborne Hunting/Shooting"; in this, the wolf (or wolf pack) is chased to exhaustion, the pilot lands the aircraft, the gunner dismounts from the aircraft and then shoots the animal(s) from the ground. So the original phrasing was not, in point of fact, pointless. Euromutt 11:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I assumed you mean the changes shown in this diff? I should have been more clear. With "from the ground or aircraft", I was objecting to wording, not facts. So I'm not sure how research would help. The sentence was "Today most of the hunting is done on the ground or from helicopters." This was the very first mention in the paragraph of aerial hunting. Looking back, that still doesn't look like a good sentence to me, because it seems obvious than from the ground or air are the two main options. I suppose they could be hunted from the sea too, but nothing in the article suggests that that's common. Friday 13:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trapping

Wolves are frequently trapped, in the areas where it is legal, using snares or leg hold traps. The economic value of wolf pelts is limited, so it is mainly a considered as a recreational activity. Wolf trapping has come under heavy fire from animal rights groups and is used to attack other forms of trapping and hunting. It is alleged that trapping, using the right tools and equipment, can be considered as humane as hunting; however, unskilled trappers can create a lot of pointless suffering.

[edit] Breeding For Fur

Wolves are bred for their fur in very few locations, as they are considered as a rather problematic animal to breed, and combined with the low value of the pelt it has driven most of the fur farms to change to slaughtering other animals, such as the fox.


Added what exists now. - JRice July 8, 2005 14:19 (UTC)

[edit] updated set of interwikis

adding here so they can be put into the page when its no longer protected. Plugwash 01:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC) [[ang:Wulf]] [[ast:Llobu]] [[bg:Вълк]] [[ca:Llop]] [[da:Ulv]] [[de:Wolf]] [[en:Wolf]] [[eo:Lupo]] [[es:Lobo]] [[et:Hunt]] [[fi:Susi]] [[fr:Loup (mammifère)]] [[he:זאב מצוי]] [[it:Canis lupus]] [[ja:オオカミ]] [[ko:늑대]] [[la:Lupus]] [[nl:Wolf]] [[nn:Ulv]] [[no:Ulv]] [[pl:Wilk (zwierzę)]] [[pt:Lobo]] [[sl:Volk]] [[sv:Varg]] [[zh:狼]]

Updated the list. - UtherSRG 13:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected page

A bunch of us are talking with Gabriel. I think he understands now about avoiding an edit war. As long as people are willing to coach him, I see no resaon why the page should be locked. I'll put it on my watchlist. Uncle Ed 15:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed hunting passage

  • Hunters routinely chase entire packs of wolves until, the wolves themselves are too exhausted to move, and thereafore defenceless, then they ( the "hunters") land, and walk up and shoot the wolves, at point blank range, either with shotguns or rifles. This practise has been condemned by many wilderness protection organisations as barbaric, cowardly and bloodthirsty, and hunting from airplanes or helicopters in most countries is usually only legal for state officials. Wolves are considered very tough as they can still survive for a few hours after being shot repeatedly.

Gabriel, there is no point in repeatedly reverting. Let's try to work this out. Uncle Ed 23:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


that passage is as close to NPOV that i can make it, as close as can be, without eliminating importamnt inforamtion... it took me a long time to get it right.... of course its gonna seem a little NPOV to those who havnt put it in perspective, but ive done mny best to remove emotion and opinion from it. Gabrielsimon 23:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see sources, but I left in the bits about people calling it barbaric, etc. It's pretty easy to find references to aircraft-based wolf hunting. Let's have some real information on where aerial hunting is legal, for starters. Here's an anti-hunting site [2] that discusses the issue. They imply that chasing the wolves is not legal. I'm also curious why shooting from short range would be considered less humane than from further away. You'd think a nice, quick, clean kill would be considered more humane than a slow death. I'm no expert on wolves, and I'm not exceptionally interested in them, but I am interested in NPOV and verifiability. Friday 23:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


its less humane becasue the animals have no chance to escape, in that situation. Gabrielsimon 23:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

huh? If you shoot them from far away (as is the common practice here with wolf-like animals), they don't see you coming. They have no chance to get away, they're dead or mortally wounded before they hear the gunshot. If you try to walk up close to them, they certainly have a better chance. If you're still on your "they've been chased until they can't run anymore" kick, help us out with some sources. I'm not saying this is impossible, but it sounds to me like it's not legal even in some places where aircraft have been allowed. You're suggesting this is a common practice, so give us some evidence. Friday 23:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


it is common practise. i dobnt currently have the time to seek the sources becasue of work i have to do, but check Alaska. Gabrielsimon 23:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't know what to tell you, other than this: next time you work for four weeks on an article, you should consider using sources. Also, please understand, the amount of work that you or anyone elses claims to have put in is irrelevant. What IS relevant is making factual, neutral, verifiable edits. Friday 00:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War

Sorry... I for one am sick of this. I would like arbitration on the part of a moderator. Looking for seconds... anyone? - JRice 23:55, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

If things calm down, I think we're OK. If edit warring continues, I regrettably have to agree with you. Friday 00:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Friday, Gabriel has made a lot of effort to learn the wiki way. Now if you two can come up with a way to express both POVs - neutrally - we got it in the bag. Uncle Ed, co-chair, Mediation Committee

[edit] Shifts and splits

I move down the section on predation, to the 2nd wolf hunting section. Now we have a section on "how wolves hunt" and another on "how people hunt wolves". My cut and paste was kind of sloppy, so please help me install it. It may need some transitional phrases, and so on.

I also created an entirely separate article, initially called "wolf hunting". I know, I know, it's not immediately clear from the title whether this is about how wolves hunt or how people hunt wolves. Well, it's the latter. Please go read it and tell me what you think. I tried to make it as neutral as possible. Perhaps it could be fleshed out a bit. Uncle Ed 13:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to Wolf hunting controversy. Uncle Ed 13:41, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
And I am afraid I recreated another article of the same name. I am happy for the controversy to go to Uncle Ed's page, but for historical and anthropological reasons wolf hunting is worth an article of its own. I think it is clear it refers to the hunting of wolves and it has a link to Uncle Ed's page. I too would be interested in comments. Lao Wai 14:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

I've just placed a request for comment on Gabrielsimon's behavior. This user has been blocked for 3RR violations several times, and seems undeterred by it. Please read it and contribute with your comments. --Pablo D. Flores 13:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Regrettably, from looking at Wolf hunting controversy, it seems someone had to do it, especially considering that Gabrielsimon was given a chance to address the POV issue during the page protection and didn't. Unprotect, page fork, back in business. How obtuse do you have to be? Haikupoet 04:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


what page fork? Gabrielsimon 05:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

  • The creation of Wolf hunting controversy, which you are editing as tenaciously as you were the main page, to the same response. Haikupoet 02:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


i didnt make that page. Gabrielsimon 02:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extinct wolves

There is another extinct species which is considered as valid.

The Florida Black Wolf Canis rufus floridanus was a distinct subspecies of the Red Wolf and became extinct around 1910.

The Spanish Wolf (an endemic subspecies of the Gray Wolf) became extinct around 1930 but was rarely recognized by taxonomists. Melly42 16:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Saddly, all the wolves in Japan are extinct like the Honshu wolf and the Ezo wolf. However, there has been some rumors about sightings and howls, But no one has proven these rumors to be true.

[edit] Wolf subspecies distribution

Hello,

After much research and painstaking days spent on MS Paint (I cannot afford anything better unfortunately) I have created what are hopefully the most accurate wolf subspecies 'original distribution' and 'current dstribution' maps on the net, with different colour shading to represent different subspecies. Of course they are open to debate and if anyone sees anything questionable, please let me know and I'll look into it. There are many areas I'm unsure about- for example the presence of wolves in Korea, and exact range of the Arabian wolf (though I suppose this varies from day to day). However, for the most part I hope they represent what many maps I have seen certainly do not.

Now for the question- how should I go about getting these on the site? They are both 800x588px GIF images. I was thinking of putting them in the 'subspecies' section. Any problems with this? I would make them smaller but then all the detail I went into would be lost.

The Eastern Timber wolf distrobution is messed up. It definitly exists in Minnesota. Also the info I am finding is bringing up the 'great plains wolf' as extinct. -Ravedave 07:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
That is because what you are finding is from the old classification system, which is still widely distributed on the net. The newer system (which identifies 5 subspecies within the United States as opposed to 20 odd) lumps many groups (including the original Great Plains wolf population which was thought to have become extinct) into a single Canis lupus nubilis otherwise called the Plains wolf, Great plains wolf, or Buffalo wolf. This, like is illustrated on the map, ranges throughout Eastern Canada and North East USA. The reason many sources will say it is the Eastern timber wolf I believe is mainly to help conservation. Not only does the name seem more attractive to residents (therefore they are more likely to want to preserve it) but this wolf is comparitively vulnerable in it's smaller range. Another confusion may be because Eastern timber wolves may have lived in this area, but were killed off due to the bounties. It was then the other subspecies, the Plains wolf, which eventually reinhabited the North Eastern states.--Tommyknocker 10:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf attacks on human beings

Would be good if someone knowledgeable could include a section on wolf attacks on human beings, myth vs. reality. I'm not an expert but I believe documented attacks are, in fact, vanishingly rare. Barnabypage 18:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You'd be right, I think there are three documented deaths resulting in wolf attacks ever in the USA. The only reason they would attack I'd imagine is if they're ill and aren't in the right state of mind, or aren't capable of catching their usual prey.--Tommyknocker 00:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

IWHT the state of prey would have something to do with it as well - frex, a small or injured or weakened individual. The (specifically central/eastern-European?) idea of the wolves chasing the travellers seems to me implausible given normal lupine behaviour. Unless, as you say, the wolves were crazed. This wouldn't happen through hunger because in folklore it almost always happens in a forest where there must be lots of other prey. Maybe rabies? Barnabypage 02:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not good in writing correct english, but have studied the subject in detail. Maybe someone can edit the english in the following and then post it to wikipedia encyclopodia?

Wolves were in the 20th century (1900-1999) responsible for at least 607 human deaths (AMBIO, vol. 33, nr. 6, aug. 2004 pp 283-288.) The number is uncertain because several problems arise when tracking real incidents. For example; (1) Some stories are written down a long time after the incident has occurred. Factual mistakes have been discovered studying such incidents. In one incident, a postman in Rumania was claimed by local villagers to have been killed by a wolf. Investigation led to the conclusion that the postman in question was still alive. In fact, the closest he had been to a wolf, was that he once had been seeing two wolves that had been following him. (2) At least two times a wolf was claimed to be the "killer" but through investigation one discovered that the wolf was not. In one incident, an wolf attack was faked in order to make an escape during the second world war. (3) Confusion about names. In one investigation on wolf attacks in Rumania, most attacks could be rejected because they were caused by dogs. The confiusen was because some dogs in Rumania (german sheppards) are named "caine lup" (wolfdog). (4) many attacks or similar incidents are not lethal in themselves, still they can cause human death. For example, wolf bites can lead to dangerous infections and organ failure. "killed by wolf/wolves" also include Human deaths caused by microbal diseases, rabies being a major cause of death. It is worth mentioning that rabies is most often detected when occurring. Other microbal diseases includes rhabdomyolysis and pulmonary thromboembolism). In Iran a shepherd died of what might have been a heart failure, occurring after he had defended his flock from a pack of wolves. (5) Some times wolves has been discovered scavenging on a person, but one can not tell if the person in question has died of natural or other causes than "killed by wolf/wolves". (6) In older historical literature there is the risk of the expression "killed by wolves" being used as an euphemism for other causes of deaths. (7) Mistaken identity, in particular dogs and hybrids between dogs and wolves are suspected to be responsible for many of the claimed non-rabies attacks by wolves. There are other problems establishing an "attack file" too. For example, wolves occur in parts of the world where attack information is neither contained nor reported.

In the number given above, a group of scientists understood that 568 deaths were not attached with wrong information, still 50 deaths were caused by rabid wolves. Attack by wolves in this period are reported in 14 countries, including Afghanistan, Canada, China, Estonia, France, India, Iran, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Spain and USA.

Like with attacks by some other large carnivores, attacks on humans by wolves seem to be scattered uneven throughout the species range, many attacks occuring in Asia, few in North-Amerika. Reasons for this is a study in it self, but some key points include habitat and prey management, effective combating rabies and keeping wolves wild.

Wolf attacks on people are rare, and rare even when comparing it to attacks by other wildlife. Also, many examples show us how little afraid humans should be of wolves. For example, wolves almost always flee when smelling or seeing humans, wolves may even abondon their nest when humans go into the wolves' nest to (1) study the wolves' young or (2) take out and kill the wolves' young. An old hunting method written in historical huntingbooks, was to follow the wolf in deep snow on ski till it was tired and then hit the wolf with a stick, breaking the wolf's spinal column. In one story an eleven year old girl did this with a wolf approaching her. (Jonny Loe)

FYI a Wolf (non-rabid) just killed a human in Saskatchewan this month. It was the first such death in Canada in over 100 years. It is being blamed on the overhunting of moose int he area and wolves being forced to resort to hunt other prey animals. --Waterspyder 01:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The categorical denial in many American publications that wolves ever attack humans, is certainly exagerated. In a popular but trustworthy Russian biology book (Zweri i ptitsy nashej strany) from about 1965, it is clearly documented that in the second half of the 19th century several dozens of people were killed every year in Russia. Russian wolves are somewhat bigger and more ferocious than the American "softies", you should know. Of course, all the attacks occured in winter time, when hunger made the wolves more audacious than normal.

Lignomontanus 08:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for additional information

I'd like it if there was a paragraph here (maybe in the human-wolf interaction area) about wolves in captivity (there was somebody in my old neighborhood who kept a couple of them in a large yard behind a high electric fence - man, there was something eerie about those eyes staring at you in the middle of the night when we went to look at them), as well as wolf-dog hybrids - or at least links to relevant pages. I know nothing about this stuff, but I figure someone hanging around here does.ZacharyS 02:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be made more clearer on where wolves where hunted then. --Dara 05:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  Wolves are still endangered after being hunted down in the 17th century.

[edit] in relation to the dog

I think for article development (for both this and the dog article), it should be written with the viewpoint that these are merely two sides of the same coin, that the dog is a domesticated wolf whose differences arose out of breeding...ie. the wolf is not really different from the dog, or vice versa in the most technical sense, theoretically you could have a dog that looks roughly like a wolf except it behaves like a juvenile throughout its entire lifetime. Oh by the way, there is a term for the juvenilization of wolves that become dogs, it starts with "P" but I can't remember what it was... -- Natalinasmpf 15:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Some people are usng the term paedomorphosis, which I don't necessarily agree with from a biological perspective. Paedomorphosis refers to physiological characteristics, not behavioural characteristics (the word roughly means "child shape"). I don't see how dogs retain juvenile wolf physical characteristics and it is something that needs to be corrected in the dog article. Behaviourally, I don't believe that dogs retain juvenile behaviour, I think humans breed and train for it. Wolves in the wild are documented (photographed, videotaped) playing as adults. --Waterspyder 01:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
For something like this to happen, you'd have to get the scientists to agree on whether the domesticated dog is canis familiaris or canis lupus familiaris. The whole wolf taxonomy classification is a little screwy, as can be seen on the International Wolf Center's Scientific Classification of Wolves page. Last time I checked, the best you could get everyone to agree on was that both common dogs and various wolf species were, in fact, canines. --Kyle Davis 16:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Dogs and wolves are a right mess right now. I'm currently trying to handle the Canis lupus lycaon and canis lycaon confusion. No more finding new species, it gets everyone confused (kidding). Basically, in accordance with rules for defining species, dogs are not even necessarily one species since Chihuahuas and Irish wolfhounds cannot breed in the wild and produce fertile offspring (physical barrier due to size). This would disqualify them from being the same species. Since Wolves and many dogs can interbreed and produce fertile offspring then in theory they should be the same species. Basically, the jury is still out. --Waterspyder 01:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coyote-Wolf hybrids?

I read the part of this article on Coyotes getting bigger when wolves returned and remembered watching a news segment saying some people thought this increase in size was due to wolves breeding with coyotes (on a limited scale). Has anyone heard any more about this? It was a while ago, for all I know the theory has been debunked since then. TastyCakes 17:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of interbreeding and coyotes growing in physical size, but I have read that coyote population sizes are negatively impacted by reintroduction of wolves. The POV of the article I refer to was that this was a positive benefit of wolf reintroduction.
Upon further googling, I found this and this, and a bunch of others. It appears it is a documented fact that coyotes and wolves have been interbreeding in Eastern Canada over the past few decades. I don't know if it's worth putting in the article, but I think it's interesting enough for it.. TastyCakes 00:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism attack on article

Doc glasgow has protected this page, rightfully, due to a string of over a dozen destructions of the article by an anon vandal on like a dozen IPs. -- user:zanimum

[edit] "prey" -- singular/plural noun?

A sentence beginning with "As long as there are enough prey animals, wolves..." was recently edited to "As long as there are enough prey wolves...". While as an English speaker I don't have any trouble understanding "prey" as a plural noun, none of the dictionaries I checked had it listed as such. Anyone know for sure? --Kyle Davis 00:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I almost positive prey is a singular noun. it should read "prey animals" to indicate the plural. I also want to not that a comma is required to denote the clause in the sentence. --Waterspyder 00:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Livestock Predation: Protection from LLamas...?

Llamas as guard animals from WOLVES? Something seems logically wrong here to me. --68.229.73.233 02:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Aside from logically wrong, let's chalk it up to vandalism.--Waterspyder 00:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Llamas are actually used as guard animals. I do not know if they are there to guard against wolves explicitly, but they are used as guard animals. They can be seen in some farms in Southern Ontario. 128.151.130.17 03:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Iain Marcuson.

[edit] Wolfdog

May I enquire as to why the link was removed? Fightindaman 16:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The general wolfdog link is still there. I don't think it's a good idea to list all the wolfdog breed links, though - UtherSRG (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see that before. Makes sense. Fightindaman 03:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Past human perceptions of wolves, et al.

I was looking through this article when I got to the section on "Perceptions". I have to say it strikes me as pretty NPOV, for one of many examples: It is somewhat unbelievable that wolves managed to garner such an incredible amount of hatred for having done little else than what any species would do if both its habitat and main food source were destroyed.

First, what exactly does that mean? But second and more importantly, this whole section is quite POV. One comes away with the feeling that the writer(s) are arguing that wolves are these gentle creatures which have not had any significant impact on human herds, economy or safety for the last 50,000 years, and then one day humans just started hating wolves and massacring them for no real good reason.

I do realize by skimming the Talk page that debates of this sort did go on a year or so ago, so I didn't want to just wade in there and change things in this case. But IMHO this section should be rewritten. (Unsigned by Deville)

Done. But don't be afraid to wade in. Wiki guidelines encourage you to be bold when you think something needs fixing. If you're mistaken, someone will fix your fix. --Coyoty 02:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Subspecies" Concept

I have a few comments/questions concerning the concept of the term “subspecies”, regarding the wolf. I never really understood this concept. Who are what determines which geographic wolf is the standard wolf? I would tend to think that a real subspecies of wolf would be the coyote, since they are able to interbreed. I see coyotes as being lesser wolves. And dogs being domesticated wolves. Dogs would probably constitute as a real subspecies. I was watching a program where a bunch of researchers were trying to halt the natural assimilation of “red wolfs” and “coyotes”, which I believe is a huge error. This behavior suggests that coyotes and wolves don’t harbor such a direct hatred. I believe wolves that kill coyotes are really doing them a service from an evolutionary standpoint. They same way carnivores prey on the weak and ill.

Scientists make these determinations, using a variety of techniques and data. Interbreeding in and of itself is not suffificent to warrant granting subspecies status. Lions and tigers are different species but, under synthetic conditions, can interbreed. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Coyotes and wolves do interbreed/assimilate naturally though as well as different "subspecies" of wolves, thus creating new "subspecies?" In this sense there is no such thing as "subspecies." Only in regards to the coyote or the dog, or even a dingo since they are both lesser forms of "the real thing."

Like I've said before, classification of even species is a very whooly subject. Technically grey wolves and coyotes are the same species, because they can interbreed and easily produce fertile offspring. Culturally they are not... the same goes for the red wolf. A subspecies is determined by unique differences in the genetic code beyond the normal variety, which might someday lead to a new species. So you are right in a way. UtherSRG your example is slightly irrelevant, as while a lion and tiger can interbreed they will not produce a fertile offspring, so are indeed separate species whatever way you look at it.--Tommyknocker 01:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks TK for responding to my comments and inquires above. The nature of the wolf is never static. They are always on the move, always in a state of adaptation and evolution. In regards to culture differences: The overridding goal of the wolf is to live in a strong pack; that is their true ambtiton. In reality however, not all wolves live in packs. Many Artic wolves for example live in pairs, just like coyotes. Furthermore, due to the recent man-made thriving dominance of coyotes, they have started pack behavior like the wolf. This is canine logic. This then ties in to my reasoning in the state of assimilation which I have started on the redwolf page. (~PassiveBluffing~)

Again, it is not for us to decide what is or isn't a species, or how one species becomes another. It is not our job to create the information or to theorize. It is our job to show what information exists about these phenomena. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get it right or just remove the damn thing

Wolves and wolfdogs are NOT the same species. And yes, wolves ARE near extinction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.36 (talk • contribs).

At the first statement: Where does the article say that? At the second, depends on the subspecies. Kim van der Linde at venus 01:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reintroduction to areas in Europe

I added some text to the Reintroduction section, mainly retaining to initiatives to reintroduce the gray wolf to various countries in central and western Europe. I cannot currently find information retaining specifically to reintroduction initiatives in those countries however I have read from several sources in the past that they exist. If someone can locate reliable sources I would appreciate it.

I'm not really sure though how re-introduction initiatives which are still in the planning/impact assessment phase should be treated though. I think they do deserve mentioning as reintroduction is generally quite a recent idea in many parts of the world and given the long time-frame reintroduction planning takes (e.g. two decades even in Yellowstone), I don't think these reintroduction schemes could really be expected to be any farther progressed at this stage. Canderra 02:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length of article

This article (great as it is), at 72 KB is waaaay too long. I suggest that it be trimmed a bit by moving some of the material to separate articles. For starters, I propose to move most of the material under "Historical perceptions" to a new article entitled Attitudes toward wolves leaving just the summary in this article. I will proceed with that (Be bold!), but if there are objections, by all means, let's discuss them here. Sunray 01:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also created a new article for Reintroduction of wolves. The two new articles have reduced the size of the article by just over 20 KB. Sunray 05:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Praise

This article is a very well written article with a tremendous amount of information. This article should be distinguished for its complexity and mine of information. This article provides a lot of information.

[edit] Wolves as Pets

Any chance of adding a section on keeping wolves as pets? Stuff like where it is and isn't legal (and how many people get around those laws by having their wolves "re-classified" as something else - I know a wolf who's officially listed as an Alsatian Husky), how they differ from dogs in terms of care needs, etc. I know at least two people who have pet wolves. Very friendly animals, gentler than many dogs I've met, and certainly smarter. --Lurlock 23:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I myself would love to have a pet wolf, but in having a tame wolf, wouldn't it essentially become a new breed of dog. In my personal opinion, a wolf is beautiful and magestic because it is untamed and in the wild. Having one sitting on command or rolling over is a mockery of all that wolves are. The wolves that those people have aren't true wolves anymore. They are but a sad shadow of their ancestors, and a cheap rip off of the real creature.

Wolves are known for shamanic prophisies. Shamans usse the semble of the wolf to help find their way through difficult places.They represent nobility, wisdom, and cunning.

Once again, this is just my opinion, and only that. I'm sure the people you know that have wolves would think differently and you probably do too, Lurlock. Solon Olrek 18:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Lurlock, are you sure those "pet wolves" aren't really wolfdogs? As I recall you simply cannot capture a wild wolf and turn it into a pet. I'm not so sure you can even raise an orphaned wolf cub to be a pet, but I could be wrong on that. I don't think it's possible to keep wolves as pets in the traditional sense of a pet.--Caliga10 19:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animals that prey on humans category

The source[3] that was added to support this category doesn't strike me as too convincing. It pretty much only consists of quotes from locals that say "We are sure they were killed by wolves" and "Fellow villager Rab Nawaz said they had probably got lost in the snow and were attacked by wolves" (emphasis mine). To me, this sounds more like heresay than actual facts. As the category itself states that "All of the species listed below are known to have attacked and killed humans on multiple occasions", maybe we should remove the category until we find better sources? --Conti|✉ 14:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm also nominating the category for deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I had previously added the category to this article and someone had deleted it, so I was careful to locate a source before adding it again. I realize the source I listed might be unreliable, but as the article already implies, wolves have been feared as man-eaters since time immemorial. I would guess that this is a case of "where there's smoke, there's fire" and assume occasional predation on humans has occurred (also, see Beast of Gevaudan). The point is certainly not to malign wolves, but to fill out that category and make it comprehensive (with the possible exception of the crocodilians none of the species listed there *frequently* prey on humans). Certainly I'm willing to remove the cat if there is consensus that wolves have never preyed on humans.--Caliga10 15:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone disputes that wolves are accused of killing and eating humans for centuries now, but there is quite a big difference between being accused of doing something and actually doing something. And as long as we don't have a really good source on this, I don't think we should include the category (if it survives CfD). --Conti|✉ 19:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that the cat should stay if it can be switched to being known as an opinion by the accusers, not cold, hard facts.Solon Olrek 18:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That category has been deleted in due process. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reintroduction

95% of the reintroduction section now deals with USA. The spin-off article wolf reintroduction is much more geographically balanced. Fornadan (t) 23:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/Talk%7EGray_Wolf_8637.html"