Treatment of Livestock

[Lekgolo555]

I read an interesting thread on another forum about Mike Vick going to jail

 

The threadstarter said that meat industry workers should also go to jail, because their livestock were also treated cruelly by them.

 

What do you guys think?

 

How are the animals treated on the big ranches? People on the other forum said they are being treated badly, but I cannot trust those people.

[lucaspa]

I read an interesting thread on another forum about Mike Vick going to jail

 

The threadstarter said that meat industry workers should also go to jail, because their livestock were also treated cruelly by them.

 

What do you guys think?

 

How are the animals treated on the big ranches? People on the other forum said they are being treated badly, but I cannot trust those people.

 

Have you done any research on treatment of food animals on big ranches on your own? If not, why not? You might try USDA because they do have some rules on housing and treatment of large animals.

 

The treatment of juvenile cows so that their meat will be "veal" is widely regarded as cruel. Free range cattle seem to have a life equivalent to any herbivore. Humans simply act as the predator. In between those extremes are cattle raised in feed lots.

[Lekgolo555]

What do they do to the Veal cows then?

[pioneer]

I am not for dog fighting, but from the point of view of objectivity, this isn't a clear cut as it would appear. First of all, fighting dogs are not your garden variety of household pet. They are prize fighters. The analogy is the average person would never step in the ring with a prize fighter. From the position of no training and ability, it appears brutal. But to the guys who train 6 hours per day, who can take and give the punches, this is a sport they like to do.

 

Fighting dogs, like some pit bulls, are nth generation fighters from a long line of fighters. This is what they know and this is what they are good at. Anyone that is good at something, gains a certain joy in what they do. These dogs are trained athletes. If you brought your little poodle to play with most of these dogs, they would kill your dog. Their expecting a fight from another dog who is tough and will react with trained ferocity.

 

Many of these dogs have a lot of heart and will fight too long. The owner should step in, and keep it a prize fight and not some type of death sport. That is where I think they cross the line. These dogs like to fight and are well conditioned althletes, but often they encourage the dogs to go way to far against their injured opponents. Or they encourage their dog to go way to far while fighting injured.

 

Modern dog fighting is like having a prize fight without a referee. The fighers are well trained and ready to go at it. But without an objective referee to look at the fighter and make sure nobody is injured too bad, the coaches and the fan cause many fighters to go too far, resulting in death and mortal injuries. The mortal injuries often require euthanasia.

 

I remember watching a pit bull fight in the TV. It is not what you think. There main weapon is a very strong jaw than locks. They try to clamp down on each other's neck and just hold it until one gives up. Most of the cuts occur as each dogs try to avoid the clamp grip of the other, while also trying to apply the clamp . This is how pit bulls beat larger dogs. They will take good punishment until they get the clamp on. These dogs are pets to the people who raise then to fight. They don't wish to see them injured severely, but know they will get injured in this rough sport. Most prize fighters break their hands, ribs, jaw, nose, etc.. Noboby wants to the see that, but they heal and then start training for the next fight.

 

What the public impression is ,are cute little poodles with their cute sweaters being dog napped and then placed in the arena with killer-dog-kowski. Or these fighers are overweight pampered flea traps. They are rough and tough althletes that are trained and breed to like fighting. They need to include referees in the underground dog fighting to making it sporting. One will not stop dog fighting, but we can try to make its safer for the dog athletes. I would also bet steroids are being overused. They also need to test these dog athletes for steroids before fights.

 

I know this sound heartless but these are not lazy overweight pets. And no pet owner would put their animal in the arena unless they believe that their dog is well trained, very tough and has a shot at winning. Nobody would pay to see someone get knocked out with the first punch. They want to see a good fight between champions. Betting does not benefit by a lopsided fight, since Vegas would lose everytime. It needs to be closer so the odds makers can shift the money down the right set of pockets.

[Lekgolo555]

How do we know vick and his comrades were using pitbulls only?

 

How do we know he did not stick in some helpless puppy, to train some dogs?

 

I have a problem with any kind of animal fighting for entertainment: bullfighting, cockfighting, cricketfighting (yes it does happen)

[JHAQ]

I feel the humane killing of "crop" animals is a very different thing from torture & killing for pleasure .In the former case there is no ( nor should be ) any anticipatory foreknowledge of imminent death .

[lucaspa]

What do they do to the Veal cows then?

 

http://www.vealfarm.com/industry-info/facts.asp

http://www.britishmeat.com/veal.html

 

Seriously Lekgolo, I just did a Google search using "veal calf" and these were the #1 and #3 websites. Took me a minute. If you do science, you need to do searches to find knowledge. Come to us when your search fails to find the information you want.

 

Fighting dogs, like some pit bulls, are nth generation fighters from a long line of fighters. This is what they know and this is what they are good at. Anyone that is good at something, gains a certain joy in what they do.

 

This is projecting your own feelings onto the animals. Ask any combat veteran, especially the ones that were good at it, if they got a "certain joy" in killing people.

 

As you noted, the dogs are trained to be aggressive. Remember that the adorable friendly dog on The Little Rascals was a pit bull. So someone made the fighting dogs the way they are. Right? Woudn't those dogs have been just as happy playing with kids and being petted than fighting?

 

You can't ignore the intervention of humans to influence the behavior of the dogs and turn them into "trained athletes"/killers. Is that intervention moral?

 

After all, a human boxer gets a conscious choice. The dog didn't. Its owner forced it to be this way. What would be your ethical attitude toward a trainer who purchased young teenagers and then forced them to be boxers? Turning gentle, kind kids into agressive, violent kids who would attack another teenager on sight? (Remember your comments about putting a pet poodle in with one of the trained dogs.) Would that be moral for a human to do? Why do you think it ethical for people to do this to dogs?

[Phi for All]

I saw a video on how the big pig farms do things these days. It was pretty sickening but I have to admit I was anthropomorphizing a lot. There is no getting around the fact that these animals are being raised to be slaughtered. They have a floor grid so the fecal matter is removed almost immediately. The place was so pristinely clean that visitors had to be decontaminated before entering to avoid bringing in anything which might infect the pigs (they are highly susceptible to contamination due to being raised in this pristine environment).

 

Most people react pretty badly when exposed to any kind of slaughterhouse conditions. There are no magic wands to wave that instantly and painlessly kill the animal and package it for your table. The pig farmers really have to go out of their way to keep the animals calm. The last thing they need is to have pain and suffering spread through a herd and cause any mishaps. They are making money and they lose money when things don't go smoothly.

 

Ultimately you have to decide whether you like meat more than you hate slaughterhouses.

[BenTheMan]

I gotta agree with Phi---

 

I've been to a few ranches, and the cattle are pretty much left to their own devices. (Even though I am from Texas, I do have a rather limited experience with this sort of thing.) The place where we deer hunt in South Texas, for example...there are about 1000 head of cattle on the ranch, and they're more or less wild. The vaqueros go out and round them up when it's time for them to be slaughtered. This is done as quickly and painlessly as possible---for one reason, if the animals are excited, then the meat has a lot of adrenaline in it. You can taste the difference in venison, at least, between deer that were killed immediately and deer that ran after they were shot. I assume that it probably works the same way in cows.

 

I'm sure that animals are treated differently in different places in the world. In Japan, for example, I've heard that the Kobe beef cows (Wagyu, I think?) get mesages and such. There are also ``organic'' beef farmers (in Ohio the brand is ``Laura's Lean Beef'') which raise free range cattle, which aren't sent to feed lots.

[Reaper]

I saw a video on how the big pig farms do things these days. It was pretty sickening but I have to admit I was anthropomorphizing a lot. There is no getting around the fact that these animals are being raised to be slaughtered. They have a floor grid so the fecal matter is removed almost immediately. The place was so pristinely clean that visitors had to be decontaminated before entering to avoid bringing in anything which might infect the pigs (they are highly susceptible to contamination due to being raised in this pristine environment).

 

Well, some places are certainly "humane", if such a thing is possible. But there have been reports of animal abuse in slaughterhouses, especially revolving around conditions in which they kept. Not all factories keep them in ideal conditions, it costs a lot of money to do so. So we import and outsource a lot of our ingredients and food where regulations are either lax or virtually non-existent. Also, what you see on TV is most likely what they want you to see.

 

Otherwise, you can only make the conditions so good; the animals are raised with the intention of getting slaughtered, whether they are grown in a factory or a ranch. Most people get a little squeamish around that fact.

[SkepticLance]

In this issue, as with so many others, everything is relative.

 

Are slaughterhouses human? We must ask : "relative to what?"

Are they humane in relation to previous times? Absolutely.

Are they humane compared to the 'natural' way of life for cattle?

 

Again, we have to say, yes. The ancestors of cattle in the wild lived lives of fear, often hunger and disease, and for most, a death at the hands of a predator in utter terror and incredible agony.

 

A life on a ranch with predators kept away, feed management to keep hunger away, vet services to keep disease away, and the final inevitable death by humane means, delivered without warning, and thus without fear - that has to be more humane than the alternative.

 

The final question is : Can we do better? When this question is asked, the answer is always yes. And people are constantly finding and applying ways to do better.

[Severian]

In my neck of the woods, cattle are slaughtered by an electric current through the brain which wipes their brain instantly, supposedly preventing pain. It is certainly true that the slaughterhouses go to great lengths to ensure that the cattle are not stressed, since that spoils the meat.

 

Also, most butchers where I live (not supermarkets though) get all their meat from organic free-range farms, simply because that is the way it has always been, even though they don't advertise it as such.

[bombus]

After all, a human boxer gets a conscious choice. The dog didn't. Its owner forced it to be this way. What would be your ethical attitude toward a trainer who purchased young teenagers and then forced them to be boxers? Turning gentle, kind kids into agressive, violent kids who would attack another teenager on sight? (Remember your comments about putting a pet poodle in with one of the trained dogs.) Would that be moral for a human to do? Why do you think it ethical for people to do this to dogs?

 

Indeed. Also, pitbulls have been bred not to have the same 'restraint' inherant in wolves and most other dogs. This restraint is essential when living in social packs, and enables one wolf to cease fighting when the other submits. To breed this instinct out and then get the dogs to fight seems terribly cruel to me.

 

I saw a video on how the big pig farms do things these days. It was pretty sickening but I have to admit I was anthropomorphizing a lot.

 

As was discussed in another thread, anthropomorphizing intelligent mammals may not actually be that wrong IMO - epecially with pigs.

 

'Tis said, a cat looks down on you, a dog looks up at you, but a pig looks you straight in the eye!

[SkepticLance]

To bombus

 

Breeding dog behaviour is the key. Humans have been breeding dogs to be like playful puppies for thousands of years, and to breed out the tendency to bite - for obvious reasons. Even hunting dogs have been bred to be non-aggressive, though still with a love of hunting.

 

And now there are breeders who are trying to breed vicious and aggressive breeds of dog once more. It is these breeds that end up in dog fights.

 

The answer is to make such breeds illegal, and continue the breeding to non aggression. Try getting two non-aggressive 'puppy dog' types to fight to the death!

[lucaspa]

Breeding dog behaviour is the key. Humans have been breeding dogs to be like playful puppies for thousands of years, and to breed out the tendency to bite - for obvious reasons. Even hunting dogs have been bred to be non-aggressive, though still with a love of hunting.

 

And now there are breeders who are trying to breed vicious and aggressive breeds of dog once more. It is these breeds that end up in dog fights.

 

The answer is to make such breeds illegal, and continue the breeding to non aggression. Try getting two non-aggressive 'puppy dog' types to fight to the death!

 

It's more than breeding. As I pointed out, the cute dog in Little Rascals was a pit bull. Pit bulls are not necessarily agressive. They are taught to be that way by humans.

 

So "the answer" is also to make such training illegal and then fighting illegal. Which we have.

 

However, note that we do NOT consider it immoral to breed and train guard dogs! That is, to train them to act violently in particular situations -- usually violently to specific classes of humans (such as thieves or muggers).

[SkepticLance]

To lucaspa

 

Your point is correct, but so is mine. There are certain breeds with the potential for complex training and aggressive action, which are not necessarily aggressive in innocent situations. A German Shepherd or Rotweiler is highly intelligent, and can be trained to become either gentle family dog, able to play with children without harm, or alternately, they can be trained to be extremely effective guard or attack dogs.

 

On the other hand, there are breeds that are just plain aggro. They are not especially trained for intelligence. Just aggressive fighting tendency. Pit Bulls are an example. Here in NZ, the government drew up a list of (I think this number is right, but I am going from memory) five breeds that are not now permitted to be bred in this country, due to their aggressive natures. The Pit Bull Terrior is one of them.

 

The government almost banned them entirely, but a lobby group of dog lovers got them to back down, and merely prohibit breeding.

[bombus]

It's more than breeding. As I pointed out, the cute dog in Little Rascals was a pit bull. Pit bulls are not necessarily agressive. They are taught to be that way by humans.

 

So "the answer" is also to make such training illegal and then fighting illegal. Which we have.

 

However, note that we do NOT consider it immoral to breed and train guard dogs! That is, to train them to act violently in particular situations -- usually violently to specific classes of humans (such as thieves or muggers).

 

It is more than breeding, but breeding helps a great deal. This is why wolves don't make great pets. Also, any dog taught to be aggressive (including police dogs) is not one I'd trust with small children.

[iNow]

It is more than breeding, but breeding helps a great deal. This is why wolves don't make great pets.

 

This line of reasoning would not apply to a wolf who had been cared for by humans since birth. Such a wolf would be nearly indiscernible from a dog. Maybe the wolf has a greater tendency toward certain behavior, but it only becomes the animal you've described/alluded to above once it's learned through social conditioning how to survive in it's environment.

[DrDNA]

This line of reasoning would not apply to a wolf who had been cared for by humans since birth. Such a wolf would be nearly indiscernible from a dog. Maybe the wolf has a greater tendency toward certain behavior, but it only becomes the animal you've described/alluded to above once it's learned through social conditioning how to survive in it's environment.

 

I suggest you do some reading. Wolves are not domesticable.

http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/petwolves.html

Keeping wolves in captivity is cruel.

I had a friend once with a hybrid wolfdog (50/50). That thing was crazy man. He thought it was cool at first, but it killed every goat, sheep, calf, and dog it sight. The neighbors got very angry. It was nice around people though.... It was always finding ways to escape and eventually did not return...much to relief of its owner.

[iNow]

I suggest you do some reading. Wolves are not domesticable.

http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/petwolves.html

Keeping wolves in captivity is cruel.

I had a friend once with a hybrid wolfdog (50/50). That thing was crazy man. He thought it was cool at first, but it killed every goat, sheep, calf, and dog it sight. The neighbors got very angry. It was nice around people though.... It was always finding ways to escape and eventually did not return...much to relief of its owner.

 

Wasn't it you who in a recent thread just talked about the difficulty in convincing others of the merit of your point when you begin by calling them names or attacking their character or ability?

 

 

If wolves cannot be domesticated, how do you think dogs became "man's best friend" in the first place? I don't know, apparently I don't know how to read, so perhaps you can tell me what the link below is all about?

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dogs/about.html

 

Never mind, my question is rhetorical. You were a dick when my comment was to imply the tremendous impact had by environmental conditioning despite genetic predisposition, not that people should run out and put a bunch of wolves into cages with their infants.

 

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I read an interesting thread on another forum about Mike Vick going to jail

 

The threadstarter said that meat industry workers should also go to jail, because their livestock were also treated cruelly by them.

 

What do you guys think?

 

How are the animals treated on the big ranches? People on the other forum said they are being treated badly, but I cannot trust those people.

 

Back to the OP...

 

The terms you use are not objective. What does it mean to treat an animal "badly?" Clearly, some big ranches take more efforts toward kindness and care than others, but what's the line that divides good from bad treatment? After all, they are being raised for slaughter.

 

In terms of the putting meat industry workers in jail, that's like 83 degrees of retarded (unless the circumstances of an individual and specific situation calls for it). The industry itself is a business, and there is a market for meat. If killing animals for food (and if you think about it, the workers are actually killing the animals for others, and are only doing so such that they can earn a paycheck to feed themselves and their own families) is an imprisonable offense, then it would be more appropriate instead to outlaw the selling of meat.

[Paralith]

Wasn't it you who in a recent thread just talked about the difficulty in convincing others of the merit of your point when you begin by calling them names or attacking their character or ability?

 

 

If wolves cannot be domesticated, how do you think dogs became "man's best friend" in the first place? I don't know, apparently I don't know how to read, so perhaps you can tell me what the link below is all about?

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dogs/about.html

 

Never mind, my question is rhetorical. You were a dick when my comment was to imply the tremendous impact had by environmental conditioning despite genetic predisposition, not that people should run out and put a bunch of wolves into cages with their infants.

 

 

Wolves can be domesticated to a degree, but there will still be some key differences between them and dogs that will make them inherently more dangerous. There was a study done using wolves that had been hand raised by humans since birth, that compared behaviors between them and dogs. (I saw it on tv, and when I have time I'll try and find a real reference for it.) What their results showed is that dogs look to humans for guidance in a way that even domesticated wolves simply will not.

 

The first test involved making two cups smell like food, but only putting food in one of the cups. A human will stand between the cups while a dog is held a few feet away. The human points to the cup that actually has the food. The dog goes right to that cup every time. The wolves don't even want to pay attention when the human is doing the pointing. The second test had food in a cage that was attached to a stick, so by pulling the stick the food could be pulled out. Obviously both the dog and the wolf figured it out. Then the cages were rigged so that it looked like the same trick would work, but the food was fixed in place and couldn't be pulled out. The wolf tried and tried to find a way to get the food. The dog, after trying a few times and being unsuccessful, would stop and look up at the human - presumably to "ask for help."

 

This leads me to believe that a wolf can't be controlled by their owner the way a dog can. Dogs have been bred to pay attention to human cues and to listen to a properly dominant owner. But wolves are not. Thus Dr.DNA's personal example of his friend's wolf-dog running off to chew on the neighbors' goats whenever he felt like it. I suspect this is largely why un-domesticated animals don't make good pets - they simply don't have any respect, as it were, for humans in a dominant role in their lives.

 

Conditioning can definitely have a huge impact on an animal's behavior, but I think that in the case of dogs vs wolves, the existence of a basic genetic predisposition can presuppose a lot of that conditioning.

[iNow]

Okay. Agreed.

 

So how does this relate the slaughter of animals and the methods we use do so? How does this tie into the question of meat workers and/or ranchers being sent to jail?

 

 

I can say that meat tastes better when it dies unaware and without stress. If the animal is stressed during the slaughter, it will send chemicals (I'm thinking adrenaline, but not sure if this is common throughout the animal kingdom) throughout the meat and cause it's texture and taste to become altered. Maybe we can euthanise the cows after they've viewed beautiful videos of pastures ala Soylent Green.

[Paralith]

Well, I think the whole dog conditioning vs. genetics thing started because pioneer suggested Vick might not be so much in the wrong for allowing fighting dogs to do what they were bred for. And yes, dogs bred for aggression will be more aggressive. But dogs, unlike wolves, are also bred to listen to humans. So an aggressive dog will fight when it's being told to fight, but it can also be controlled by a human to the point where they can be considered pretty safe dogs - which is a better lifestyle for them anyway. Just because a dog likes to fight doesn't mean it likes to get hurt. So yes, what Vick did is not acceptable in society today. (Besides, even aside from the fighting, he killed under-performing dogs in various cruel ways for fun. I think that alone is enough to lock him up.)

 

So, like Vick, are cattle workers/ranchers giving their cattle an unacceptable lifestyle? Well, as long as the cows are happy as they can be prior to slaughter, I'd say no. And like everyone's been saying, it's even in the industry's interest to make sure this is so.

[iNow]

So, like Vick, are cattle workers/ranchers giving their cattle an unacceptable lifestyle? Well, as long as the cows are happy as they can be prior to slaughter, I'd say no. And like everyone's been saying, it's even in the industry's interest to make sure this is so.

And, as we all know, happy cheese comes from happy cows.

 

 

Mooo...

 

 

 

I can say that meat tastes better when it dies unaware and without stress. If the animal is stressed during the slaughter, it will send chemicals (I'm thinking adrenaline, but not sure if this is common throughout the animal kingdom) throughout the meat and cause it's texture and taste to become altered. Maybe we can euthanise the cows after they've viewed beautiful videos of pastures ala Soylent Green.

 

Turns out it's cortisol. I should have been able to guess that one on my own.

 

 

 

Also, there are laws in place, so I presume a cattle rancher or slaughter house employee would be subject to imprisonment were they to engage in actions counter to this (and any other locally enacted laws or) set of statutes:

 

 

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode07/usc_sup_01_7_10_48.html

Summary: These statutory sections comprise what is commonly termed the Humane Slaughter Act. Included in these sections are Congress' statement that livestock must be slaughtered in a humane manner to prevent needless suffering, research methods on humane methods of slaughter, the nonapplicability of these statutes to religious or ritual slaughter, and the investigation into the care of nonambulatory livestock.

 

 

STATUTE IN FULL

 

7 U.S.C.A. § 1901 Findings and Declaration of Policy

 

The Congress finds that the use of humane methods in the slaughter of livestock prevents needless suffering; results in safer and better working conditions for persons engaged in the slaughtering industry; brings about improvement of products and economies in slaughtering operations; and produces other benefits for producers, processors, and consumers which tend to expedite an orderly flow of livestock and livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce. It is therefore declared to be the policy of the United States that the slaughtering of livestock and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter shall be carried out only by humane methods.

 

 

7 U.S.C.A. § 1902. Humane methods

 

No method of slaughtering or handling in connection with slaughtering shall be deemed to comply with the public policy of the United States unless it is humane. Either of the following two methods of slaughtering and handling are hereby found to be humane:

 

(a) in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or

 

(b) by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering.

 

 

7 U.S.C.A. § 1904. Methods research; designation of methods

 

In furtherance of the policy expressed herein the Secretary is authorized and directed--

 

(a) to conduct, assist, and foster research, investigation, and experimentation to develop and determine methods of slaughter and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter which are practicable with reference to the speed and scope of slaughtering operations and humane with reference to other existing methods and then current scientific knowledge; and

 

(b) on or before March 1, 1959, and at such times thereafter as he deems advisable, to designate methods of slaughter and of handling in connection with slaughter which, with respect to each species of livestock, conform to the policy stated in this chapter. If he deems it more effective, the Secretary may make any such designation by designating methods which are not in conformity with such policy. Designations by the Secretary subsequent to March 1, 1959, shall become effective 180 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

 

 

7 U.S.C.A. § 1906. Exemption of ritual slaughter

 

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit, abridge, or in any way hinder the religious freedom of any person or group. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, in order to protect freedom of religion, ritual slaughter and the handling or other preparation of livestock for ritual slaughter are exempted from the terms of this chapter. For the purposes of this section the term "ritual slaughter" means slaughter in accordance with section 1902(b) of this title.

 

 

7 U.S.C.A. § 1907. Practices involving nonambulatory livestock

 

(a) Report

 

The Secretary of Agriculture shall investigate and submit to Congress a report on--

 

(1) the scope of nonambulatory livestock;

 

(2) the causes that render livestock nonambulatory;

 

(3) the humane treatment of nonambulatory livestock; and

 

(4) the extent to which nonambulatory livestock may present handling and disposition problems for stockyards, market agencies, and dealers.

(b) Authority

 

Based on the findings of the report, if the Secretary determines it necessary, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to provide for the humane treatment, handling, and disposition of nonambulatory livestock by stockyards, market agencies, and dealers.

 

© Administration and enforcement

 

For the purpose of administering and enforcing any regulations promulgated under subsection (b) of this section, the authorities provided under sections 8313 and 8314 of this title shall apply to the regulations in a similar manner as those sections apply to the Animal Health Protection Act. Any person that violates regulations promulgated under subsection (b) of this section shall be subject to penalties provided in section 8313 of this title.

 

NOTE: Sections 1903 & 1905 were repealed.

[lucaspa]

To lucaspa

 

Your point is correct, but so is mine. There are certain breeds with the potential for complex training and aggressive action, which are not necessarily aggressive in innocent situations. A German Shepherd or Rotweiler is highly intelligent, and can be trained to become either gentle family dog, able to play with children without harm, or alternately, they can be trained to be extremely effective guard or attack dogs.

 

On the other hand, there are breeds that are just plain aggro. They are not especially trained for intelligence. Just aggressive fighting tendency. Pit Bulls are an example. Here in NZ, the government drew up a list of (I think this number is right, but I am going from memory) five breeds that are not now permitted to be bred in this country, due to their aggressive natures. The Pit Bull Terrior is one of them.

 

But the data is that Pit Bulls are just like German Shepherds or Rotweilers. Many of them are gently family pets! As I keep saying, the dog on Little Rascals was a pit bull! Check the testimonial at this site: http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanpitbull.htm

 

IMO, the NZ politicians just took the easy way out. Rather than deal with the responsible people, just ban the breed. It's a common tactic of politicians. Why do you think I have to spend so much time on IACUC forms for the use of animals in research? Rather than punish the offenders who misuse animals in research, just set up regulations so it "can't happen".

 

Now you said: "They are not especially trained for intelligence. Just aggressive fighting tendency."

 

By your statement, pit bulls are trained for aggressive fighting tendency. What they are NOT trained for is distinguishing between attacking dogs and attacking humans. If they were trained this way, they wouldn't be dangerous! But that takes too much time and energy from people who only want to have fight dogs. Much easier to have just general aggressive fighting training rather than adding discriminating between another dog and a human.

 

I suggest you do some reading. Wolves are not domesticable.

http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/petwolves.html

 

Since modern dogs are descended from domesticated wolves, wolves MUST be domesticable. In fact, the website you posted says this explicitly!

 

Nor does it say that wolves cannot make pets, but that the owner has to have experience!

"A wolf knocking around, or being knocked around, by human society only rarely finds an adequate owner. These owners are at least fairly knowledgeable, have already been dog owners, are prepared for a wolf, and are conscientious of their obligation. Are you one?"

 

So, DrDNA, you apparently didn't even do your own reading! This article does not say what you say it does. It says that wolves are "domesticable" but that it takes a very special person to do so.

 

Modern dogs have been deliberately selected for thousands of generations (by artificial selection) to deal with humans, so the behavior of modern dogs and modern wild wolves is going to be different.

 

Keeping wolves in captivity is cruel.

That is a value judgement and is very different from whether it CAN be done. You are saying it SHOULD not be done. Apples and oranges.

 

Wolves can be domesticated to a degree, but there will still be some key differences between them and dogs that will make them inherently more dangerous. There was a study done using wolves that had been hand raised by humans since birth, that compared behaviors between them and dogs. (I saw it on tv, and when I have time I'll try and find a real reference for it.) What their results showed is that dogs look to humans for guidance in a way that even domesticated wolves simply will not.

... This leads me to believe that a wolf can't be controlled by their owner the way a dog can. Dogs have been bred to pay attention to human cues and to listen to a properly dominant owner. But wolves are not.

 

As you noted, there is at least 10,000 years of evolution between wolves and modern dogs. And dogs have suffered severe artificial selection so that they will "look to humans for guidance". Any of the early domesticated wolves that didn't were killed by their human owners!

 

The issues isn't whether there are differences. Of course there are: those 10,000 years of different evolution. The issue was whether wolves COULD BE domesticated. The answer is "Yes".