I'm 100 percent not the kind of Animal Activist

DaySleepers said:

It's also extremely disrespectful to come onto a forum of dog lovers and tell people that their pets are suffering. Please keep this in mind, and consider whether this forum is a good fit for you.

Click to expand...

It is disrespectful to say my opinion about a general thing like wolf domestication that happened tens of thousands of years before? I don't day that your dog as individual is suffering, or the dog of any other member of this forum. I didn't accuse you of mistreating your dog, your dogs are probable having happy doggy lives, however I said that for the species of dogs would have been better if they weren't domesticated, because of the reasons I posted in the original thread. To summarize, none of your dogs is suffering, I didn't say that at all, they are probable happy and well, however I say that for today dogs, would be better to be not domesticated and wild, in my opinion. If you understood that I told you that your dog is suffering right now, I'm sorry, I meant completely something else.

DaySleepers said:

you, the original poster, declared the debate was over and 2. It was a controversial topic with the potential for things to become heated and violate forum rules. I didn't see any reason to allow it to continue if you didn't have anything to add.

Click to expand...

Yes, I wanted the thread to be closed, however after someone asked me if I'm an animal activist I wanted to reply, so I created another thread. I started the original thread as a friendly debate over a subject related to dogs and wolves, I don't know why the situation became tensioned. I'm sorry if you, active members of this forum, interpreted any of my replies on the other thread as disrespectful, I never intended them to be.

DaySleepers said:

violate forum rules

Click to expand...

I don't understand why do you say that, it was meant to be an inoffensive debate, and in my opinion, I didn't say anything that could potentially be offensive or rule breaking.

Look at the wild animals of today. Tasmanian tigers are extinct from hunting. Dodo birds are extinct from hunting. There are only two Norther white rhinos left in the world. There are only about 40 red wolves in the wild. There are no longer any South China Tigers left in the wild and only about 100 left in captivity.

I think it's unrealistic to say that dogs would have been better off not domesticated.

Wikipedia states "Wolves occur across Eurasia and North America. However, deliberate human persecution because of livestock predation and fear of attacks on humans has reduced the wolf's range to about one-third of its historic range; the wolf is now extirpated (locally extinct) from much of its range in Western Europe, the United States and Mexico, and completely in Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Japan."

They were extirpated from California by the 1920s. It is only in the past couple decades that a wolf has crossed into California. Without the conservationists releasing grey wolves back into Yellowstone and elsewhere, they would be much higher up on the endangered species list.

So exactly how can you be so certain dogs 1) would even have survived through the ages, and 2) been better off as such.

And, if they weren't domesticated, they would have remained a now extinct type(s) of wolf.

Per the nps website regarding the lifespan of wolves in their area:

• Average lifespan in Yellowstone: 4-5 years
• Average lifespan outside Yellowstone: estimated 2-3 years
• Oldest known wolf in Yellowstone: 12.5 years - 478F of the Cougar Creek pack
• Oldest known wolf in the Rockies: B2 released in Idaho at estimated 4 years of age; died at age 13.8 of unknown causes
• Causes of mortality in adults in Yellowstone: natural causes 77% (intraspecific 42%, natural unknown 15%, interspecific 8%, malnutrition 5%, other 4%, disease 3%); human causes 17% (harvest 7%, vehicle 6%, illegal 2%, control 1%, other 1%); unknown causes 6%
• Causes of mortality in adults in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: human causes 77%;natural causes 23%
• Proportion of population >5 years old: 18%

If only 18% of the population is over 5 years old and the oldest known wolves were 12.5 and 13.8 years, then you are incorrect to state they "can expect to see a 15 years life".

{Edited by Mod}
Edited by the OP:
Thanks for removing the part about America, it was a semi-offensive comment about how I see some things related to America. This clearly shows how democratic this forum is.



Fact about wolves in Central Europe:
Average lifespan in Central Europe's wilderness: 6 - 8 years
Oldest known wolf in Central Europe: 20.3 years(born in wilderness and died in captivity)
Oldest known wolf in Central Europe: 19.7 years(born in wilderness and died in wilderness)
Cause of mortality in Central Europe of cubs(less than 1 year old): (84% starving, 13% birth complications, 3% unknown)
Cause of mortality in Central Europe of adults: 56% human hunting, 32% starving, 10% fighting with other wolves, 2% unknown)

If humans are the no 1 cause of mortality of wolves in Central Europe, and the oldest ever wolf is 19.7 and 20.3 it is incorrect to state that they can expect to live just a few years.

Yellowstone park is the worst example in term of wolves. In the first half of 20 century yellowstone park has 0 wolves and that caused a massive disequilibrium in the ecosystem and in the last years of the century they bring wolves back and that seems to start fixing the ecosystem, however the wolves in the yellowstone park are not 100% yet recovered and the ecosystem continues to feel a disequilibrium in terms of wolves.

You haven't answered my question, so I can only assume I am right.

To use myself as an example, you have told me that my small breed, floppy-eared, curly-coated dogs are deformed abominations who have it so much worse than wolves that they would've been better off never existing than suffering the injustice of living with me, solely because you personally have an aesthetic preference for wolf-like features and think that living in the wild is some kind of ideal paradise.

I hope you can see why this is a 'controversial' opinion, and how your statements could be upsetting or frustrating to others. You cannot make sweeping statements about all dogs being worse off and suffering and then try to exclude individuals. You have made it entirely clear that you think that all dog - and by proxy all of the specific dogs owned currently by forum members - should not exist, simply by virtue of not being wolves.

Oh, and a private forum is not a democracy, nor did we ever claim to be one.