Hacker News Reader

Comment by nthompson | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

I'm curious—do people get "pet" wolves spayed/neutered? Because that basically sounds like the behaviour of non-neutered cats; it goes away completely when their gonads do.

What kind of vet is going to neuter a "pet" wolf?

Simply tranquilize it, with a dart if necessary, and snip snip.

I didn't say it wasn't possible, just that no reputable vet will do it if wolves are not legal as pets.

"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.

Exactly. Wolves should never be pets. Dogs evolved to be easily domesticated and dog breeders have continued to favor those traits.

I'm really against most types of exotic pet. Large cats need a lot of room, as do wolves. There are many cases of exotic pets turning on their owners. It's really unfair to the animals.

Unless you really know what you're doing and have a significant amount of time to invest, avoid exotic pets. They can be very dangerous and turn on you. Humans have spent a lot of time domesticating the animals we keep today.

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.

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"

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.

I guess it depends on how you define "pet". You can keep wolves as companion animals, but it requires a very different skill set compared to domesticated dogs.

If you lived in a rural area without kids and had tons of patience and a capacity for personal risk, then I don't see the problem really. But anything outside of that seems reckless and dangerous and any person doing that which results in any harm should be held personally responsible.

> 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.

This makes sense, and it makes me wonder if an even more 'subservient' human creature should be, or is being (unintentionally) created. Individually, the wolf is greater than the dog. However, a pack of dogs could easily take down a wolf. Wolves are to dogs as the Heroes[0] are to us. Collectivization is not a strategy for 100 years but for 10,000 years. Are we today just going through the painful process of a genetic local anesthesia towards domestication?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Heroic_Age

I doubt it.

Slavery, including slavery where attempts to breed slaves for particular traits has existed in various forms, and there doesn’t appear to be a situation like dogs where people live to serve.

Our social conditioning is strong enough that I would guess that it slows down genetic changes. Why bother with eugenics when marketing works just fine?

> if their pack leader looks sick or injured

So, basically, if I'm sick instead of my dogs taking it as an opportunity to spend all day in bed with me sleeping, my wolf is going to look at as an opportunity to take me out? Great.

this is awful. that person was absolutely reckless and horrible.

That's a horrible story that made me feel sad.

It got shot rather than alternatives because the humans in charge were hillbillies, per the beginning of the story? Sucks all around, though, regardless.

Your story clearly indicates this has nothing to do with it being a wolf. It happened to have a body that was capable of killing, yes. But the owner picked it up and slammed it whenever it misbehaved, and the owner actively encouraged it to kill things.

If your parents did that, you would do the same thing.

You see this kind of prejudice against pitbulls too. They're some of the sweetest dogs.

>Your story clearly indicates this has nothing to do with it being a wolf

How do you figure that? The entire article basically talked about how you can never domesticate a wolf.

Do you believe that if you can't domesticate an animal, that it's inherently and randomly violent? Every single one, in all cases?

People live with tigers. You'd never say that they were domesticated. The majority of the time, this works fine. you only hear about cases where they turn on their owner, which is rare.

I've spent a long time thinking about this question, and it seems like the ultimate truth is that we humans are uncomfortable with anything that can possibly threaten us. If we can't win in a fistfight, we classify it as subhuman.

We don't really classify dogs as subhuman. We treat them like family. We love them. They love us.

If you think back to when gay people were oppressed, and are still being oppressed in Uganda (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2W41pvvZs0), the rhetoric against them is pretty similar to the type of thing you'd say to convince you that wolves are randomly and uncontrollably violent. It's at least an interesting coincidence.

It's not fair to label them. "Only get a wolf if you can stomach putting a bullet in its head after it brutalizes your kids." Are you sure it makes no difference in how you raise them? The article seems to support this.

Again, the specific wolf matters. But there are certainly wolves that don't have a high adrenaline response, meaning they are genetically predisposed to being nicer. They're not dogs, but they're not mindlessly violent.

It's important to realize that the comments in this post suffer from selection bias. Obviously, if you make a post about how wolves become nasty, you're going to get ten thousand stories about all the wolves anyone has ever seen that were remotely nasty.

I have no experience with wolves. I don't know one way or the other. Maybe you're right, and literally all of them will bite your kids. But almost no one here is speaking from first-hand experience, except this top comment. And that wolf owner was more interested in having a killing machine than having a new member of their family. It's important to be actively skeptical in that context.

So, there you go. I've tried to be thorough and intellectually gratifying. I will say that I've been teetering on leaving HN lately because no one seems to be willing to engage with controversial ideas anymore -- they want to shout them down. I try not to generalize like that, because HN isn't a single entity, but there are a variety of ways to stomp on intellectual curiosity without breaking the rules. Maybe if I just attach that disclaimer to the bottom of all my long comments, things will turn out differently.

> Do you believe that if you can't domesticate an animal, that it's inherently and randomly violent?

The wolf in the story wasn’t randomly violent. It was vying for a better spot in its pack’s hierarchy. It was exhibiting ambition. Unless you’re willing to be seen as an equal by an ambitious animal willing to rationally dispense violence to obtain its short-term goals, you don’t want a wolf. You want a nice, subservient dog whose competitive instincts vis-à-vis humans have been bred out.

The wolf biting the children may be related to being raised in an environment that included brutally murdering other animals at the owner's whim. We can't know whether that matters.

> We can't know whether that matters

Not from this anecdote, but there is research on the topic.

Studying puppies at 3, 4 and 5 weeks of age: “compared to wolves, dogs tended to display more communicative signals that could potentially facilitate social interactions, such as distress vocalization, tail wagging, and gazing at the humans’ face. In contrast to dog puppies, wolf pups showed aggressive behavior toward a familiar experimenter and also seemed to be more prone to avoidance. [1]”

Approach avoidance through biting and other behaviours are discussed in the same paper’s “discussion” section.

Later, they find wolves are worse at yielding to humans, keeping eye contact, sensing changes in vocal intonation or context when multiple people enter the room, et cetera [2].

[1] http://real.mtak.hu/3680/1/1075597.pdf

[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159113...

You could say the same thing about introverts. (I promise that's a genuinely thoughtful point, not an offhand dismissal.)

Research into the question of whether wolves are different will discover that wolves are different.

I appreciate the cite, but it isn't evidence that wolves will maul children just because they're ambitious. Maybe they do; maybe you're right. All we can say for certain is that we don't know.

I think you could make the same points about lions, yet there is evidence of lions loving their owners and treating them with the same emotional bonds as a family member.

> it isn't evidence that wolves will maul children just because they're ambitious

I agree, the research doesn’t say this. It says wolves offer a lower tolerance for making mistakes, a higher cost when things go wrong and fewer aids (e.g. picking up on intonation, instinctive subservience) to help you along.

You can do it. (Our ancestors did.) You’ll just have an animal vying for your seat in the pack, because it honestly thinks (warning: anthropomorphising) it can do a better job than your weak, debilitated ass in promoting the survival of its pack. Which it sees as much as its as much as it is yours. If someone is okay with that, fine. But understand the risks, that lots of people who thought they understood the risks didn’t, and that the worst-case outcome involves your animal killing someone’s kid or having to be put down because of your hubris.

Ah, I didn't mean to give the impression that owning a wolf would be a good idea. It's certainly perilous, just like living with a tiger.

I just think they can love you in their own way. If someone wants to explore the question, and they're doing so safely and only risking themselves, then it's probably no one else's business.

On the other hand, it's hard to imagine how that could be done safely, so I concede. Thanks for the interesting debate.

> I just think they can love you in their own way.

Yes. In the same way your sociopath childhood friend might love you. They will prioritize you over others (probably because you're known and they can anticipate your behavior), and use you or allow you to use them when they think it is beneficial. Don't expect sacrifice or compassionate understanding though, and don't expect your feelings to have much weight beyond how they affect your attitude towards them (or how you can affect the attitudes of others).

Are you basing any of this off of experience?

I had two indoor outdoor cats, neither of which were neutered. I couldn't bring myself to do that to them. To my surprise, I found that none of the stereotypes were true, at least with one of them. He was the sweetest, most caring thing. He didn't care to assert dominance, he didn't try to fight, he didn't spray. He didn't do any of the things that people said cats will do unless neutered.

After an experience like that, you start to think differently about the world, and about people's unqualified opinions.

The fact is, you can't know. You are (and feel free to correct me) speaking based on no experience. I think there's at least one wolf in the world that would surprise you and defy your stereotypes.

But yes, you're probably correct in the general case.

>I just think they can love you in their own way.

Usually it's not a good idea to anthropomorphize wild animals.

> Do you believe that if you can't domesticate an animal, that it's inherently and randomly violent? Every single one, in all cases?

domestication is determined by a collection of genetic features that essentially stunt an animal's physical development as a juvenile, and it's not environmentally-instilled (or at least, not for the most part). you can treat a chimp or a bear like a pet from the day it's born, but one day it's almost invariably going to cause serious damage. people treat this as a proxy battle for racism but it's not even slightly controversial science.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096361/

i would also recommend reading about the effort to domesticate silver foxes. it was doable in about fifty years via culling of aggressive foxes, allowing the friendlier (ie, more juvenile) foxes to survive and breed.

You get my upvote for your last two paragraphs, and because you shouldn't be voted to oblivion simply for disagreement.

As for your comment further up the chain: No, pitbulls are not sweet. Pitbulls are unpredictable monsters. Where I live, they are prohibited, and for good reason.

> No, pitbulls are not sweet. Pitbulls are unpredictable monsters.

Do you have any direct experience with a well-loved, housebroken pitbull? In all my experiences with the breed, the only thing they're aggressive about is snuggling. /anecdata

Yes I have. She was sweet as sweet can be. But I never got to trust her.

They are bred for fighting. Not all that bright, and with fuses that are known to blow without apparent reason. Too many cases of owners suddenly attacked and maimed.

It's an American thing which has spread to the rest of us. Thirty years ago, we never saw these muscle- and fighterbreeds. I don't believe we were the poorer for it.

> It's an American thing which has spread to the rest of us. Thirty years ago, we never saw these muscle- and fighterbreeds. I don't believe we were the poorer for it.

Pitbulls as a general category have been around for hundreds of years and originated in Europe.

>Do you believe that if you can't domesticate an animal, that it's inherently and randomly violent?

Depending on the animal, but yes.

>People live with tigers.

We're talking about wolves.

>we humans are uncomfortable with anything that can possibly threaten us.

Maybe. In general one should have a healthy amount of respect for wild animals.

>And that wolf owner was more interested in having a killing machine than having a new member of their family.

You're drawing lots of conclusions from an online, off-hand remark.

>"Only get a wolf if you can stomach putting a bullet in its head after it brutalizes your kids."

No. The right answer is: never get a wolf to keep as a pet. This person you're talking about was acting unethically by having a pet wolf.

I don't know why you're getting downvoted.

Pitbulls, golden retrievers, wolves--all technically the same species. The prejudice against certain breeds of "dog," or against "wolves," is no different from racism.

Pretty much. Imagine what it would be like to be born a wolf or a pitbull. If nature is stronger than nurture, what does that say about our own species? How likely is it that it's impossible to shape a wolf? Dogs came from them. It has to start somewhere; it's not a step function.

It's difficult to explore the question, though.

> The prejudice against certain breeds of "dog," or against "wolves," is no different from racism.

Jesus Christ.

The same species if you ignore thousands of years of human breeding. And racism, WTF?

I've never seen this argument before, so I would be interested if you could expand on your point

Reply on news.ycombinator.com