Wolf Gardens Wildlife Center

10/31/2017

We have joined the Paypal Giving Fund. Our Pay Pal donations page is https://www.paypal.com/us/fundraiser/charity/2348262
Please drop in and have a look.

Help me spread the word about First Nations Outreach Project. Together we can make a difference.

09/26/2017

Please Support Our Efforts
You can donate directly through PayPal

You can donate any amount you would like to donate. No amount is too small. Thank you !

09/15/2017

In February we posted this message for help. We need a little help with a medical issue with Comanche. He has developed a growth on his upper gum. we are not sure if it is Gingival Hyperplasia or Cancer. It will require a biopsy and surgery to determine that. We hope that by getting it taken ca...

03/23/2017

Comanche has Osteosarcoma in the roof of his mouth. He needs a CT scan and Surgery. He will be going to Auburn University to have this done. Any help would be greatly appreciated

In February we posted this message for help. We need a little help with a medical issue with Comanche. He has developed a growth on his upper gum. we are not sure if it is Gingival Hyperplasia or Cancer. It will require a biopsy and surgery to determine that. We hope that by getting it taken care...

02/19/2017

We need a little help with a medical issue with Comanche. He has developed a growth on his upper gum. we are not sure if it is Gingival Hyperplasia or Cancer. It will require a biopsy and surgery to determine that. We hope that by getting it taken care of soon we can reduce that chance of furth...

02/23/2016

The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence....
In comparison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence.”
Robert K. Wayne, Ph.D.
“Molecular evolution of the dog family”
Theoretical and Applied Genetics

What is a Wolfdog?

A wolfdog is a cross between a gray wolf and a dog--what some refer to as a wolf hybrid. The term "hybrid", however, is used differently in the various scientific disciplines. For example, in horticulture, hybrids are formed by humans as crosses of different 'types' of plants; the term is used equally for crosses both among and within species. Conversely, in evolutionary biology, the term "hybrid" is used almost exclusively to describe offspring arising from a naturally-occurring cross between two separate and genetically distinct species. So one might recognize the potential for confusion arising from the use of the word "hybrid" when applied to a wolf/dog cross. It is more appropriate to refer to these animals as wolfdogs.

In 1993, the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists reclassified the dog from its separate species designation of Canis familiaris to Canis lupus familiaris. So, now, the Timber wolf (Canis lupus nubilus), the Mackenzie or Tundra wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis), the dog (Canis lupus familiaris ), etc., fall under the genetic umbrella of the gray wolf: Canis lupus.

Background on DNA

Animals have two types of DNA, nuclear (nDNA) and mitochondrial (mtDNA). Nuclear DNA is found in the nucleus of a cell. The genes coded for by nDNA are responsible for external characteristics and for behavior, but they also have important regulatory functions inside the cells. Mitochondrial DNA is separate and distinct from nDNA and is found in the mitochondria of the cell. The gene coding here is strictly regulatory and has little effect on external characteristics or behavior in comparison to nDNA.

Nuclear DNA occurs in the cell as tightly packed units called chromosomes and each cell has two copies of each chromosome. One pair of chromosomes are involved in s*x-determination and are, therefore, called s*x chromosomes; females have two X chromosomes and males have an X and a Y. The other chromosomes are called autosomes. All mammals have only one pair of s*x chromosomes, but the number of autosomes varies according to species.

Genes are discrete pieces of DNA on the chromosomes that code for particular gene products, which are proteins. Slightly different forms of the same gene are referred to as alleles and each chromosome pair has two alleles; some alleles are dominant and are always expressed, while others are recessive and are only expressed when both alleles of a gene are recessive.

It is a myth that female (or male) genetics are stronger. Certain forms of genes (alleles) are dominant and these are expressed over recessive alleles, but dominant alleles do not occur in a higher frequency in males or females. However, there are s*x-linked genes (e.g., male pattern baldness in humans) and these recessive alleles--slightly different forms of the same gene--occur in nDNA, specifically on the X chromosome. Though we know much about s*x-linked genes in humans, I personally know of no such studies that have been done on canids.

If you know of any new research that has been conducted on canid genetics or have anything to offer/counter, please reply or send via e-mail to me at Gwragedd Annwn as I would be interested in reading any scientific papers or hearing any comments.

DNA: Wolves & Dogs

Mitochondrial DNA analysis, rather than nDNA analysis, is widely used to study populations of many animal species (including canids) because of its advantage over nDNA in that it does not recombine with other DNA as nuclear DNA does. The only way to conclusively determine (thru mtDNA) if a canid contains wolf content would be the presence of mtDNA restriction fragments specific to wolves. This is the root of the whole problem scientists are encountering when trying to differentiate between wolves and dogs. They are just too closely related, which is what led to the Society of Mammalogists and the Smithsonian Institution's taxonomical reclassification of dogs ( Canis lupus familiaris) as a subspecies of wolf (Canis lupus) in 1993 .



Many people erroneously believe that wolves and dogs are distinctly separate, one being 'black' and the other being 'white'. Throw in the wolfdog, and these same individuals see a completely different color: blue, green, purple, etc. However, Monty Sloan of Wolf Park put it simply: "there is no black and white in this issue, only shades of agouti gray."

Wolf/Dog Genetic Research

Currently, scientists are having difficulties distinguishing definitively between wolves and dogs. Robert K. Wayne and his colleagues are seriously pursuing this topic and things may or may not change in the future depending upon their ability to isolate the different alleles inherent in each animal. Therein lies the crux of genetically differentiating between the wolf and the dog.

Below are some of the studies that have been conducted on this topic. The titles of the papers and their locations are provided, as well as the abstract or a short description. For further reading, click on the title and it will take you to the full paper.


Can You I.D. Your Dog with DNA?
Ray Coppinger, Ph.D.
LGDA Doglog, Summer 1991

Through time there has been an infusion of unrelated genes, a sharing of mothers, so to speak, between species and between breeds. The wild animals we think of as distinct from one another, the purebred dogs we appreciate for their special form and behavior are not really unrelated. To a geneticist, the lines between the dog (Canis familiaris), the wolf (Canis lupus), or the coyote (Canis latrans) are indistinct because they are not true species, that is not reproductively isolated.

Molecular evolution of the dog family
Robert K. Wayne
Theoretical & Applied Genetics, June 1993, Vol. 9, No. 6.

Molecular genetic tools have been used to dissect the evolutionary relationships of the dog-like carnivores, revealing their place in the order Carnivora, the relationships of species within the Family Canidae, and the genetic exchange that occurs among conspecific populations. High rates of gene flow among populations within some species, such as the coyote and gray wolf, have suppressed genetic divergence, and where these species hybridize, large hybrid zones have been formed. In fact, the phenotype of the endangered American red wolf may be strongly influenced by hybridization with coyotes and gray wolves. Hybridization and habitat fragmentation greatly complicate plans to conserve the genetic diversity of wild canids.

Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog
Caries Vila, Peter Savolainen, Jesus E. Maldonado, Isabel R. Amorim, John E. Rice,
Rodney L. Honeycutt, Keith A. Crandall, Joakim Lundeberg, and Robert K. Wayne.
Science, Vol. 276, 13 June 1997.

Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences were analyzed from 162 wolves at 27 localities worldwide and from 140 domestic dogs representing 67 breeds. Sequences from both dogs and wolves showed considerable diversity and supported the hypothesis that wolves were the ancestors of dogs. Most dog sequences belonged to a divergent monophyletic clade sharing no sequences with wolves. The sequence divergence within this clade suggested that dogs originated more than 100,000 years before the present. Associations of dog haplotypes with other wolf lineages indicated episodes of admixture between wolves and dogs. Repeated genetic exchange between dog and wolf populations may have been an important source of variation for artificial selection.

Review of Wayne's Papers (Above)
Jody Haynes
(Full Review Included Below)

Wayne's recent papers on the genetics of dogs and wolves show, quite clearly, that "[d]ogs are gray wolves, despite their diversity in size and proportion" (Wayne, 1993). This review is intended to summarize the work of Wayne and his colleagues in trying to determine the phylogenetic relatedness of species within the Family Canidae, as well as the origin of the domestic dog and its relatedness to the gray wolf, Canis lupus.

Wayne's 1993 paper entitled “Molecular evolution of the dog family” (Theoretical and Applied Genetics, v. 9, or http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm ) provides evidence—in the form of karyotypes (chromosome number and morphology) and nuclear and mitochondrial DNA markers—that there are four major phylogenetic divisions in the Family Canidae. The first of these divisions contains the wolf-like canids, which includes domestic dogs, gray wolves, coyotes, and jackals. Wayne then began to elucidate the genetic affinities shared by gray wolves and domestic dogs in the following statement: “The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence.... In comparison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence.” Taken alone, these data suggest that gray wolves are 20 times more closely related to dogs than to coyotes.

Also in his 1993 paper, Wayne stated, “[t]he earliest remains of the domestic dog date from 10 to 15 thousand years ago...; the diversity of these remains suggests multiple domestication events at different times and places. Dogs may be derived from several different ancestral gray wolf populations, and many dog breeds and wild wolf populations must be analyzed in order to tease apart the genetic sources of the domestic dog gene pool.” Wayne further stated that “the wide variation in [the domestic dog's] adult morphology probably results from simple changes in developmental rate and timing” (Wayne, 1993). But the question is how this variation arose and how it has been maintained during the process of domestication.

To answer the first part of this question, Wayne and his colleagues set out to test the hypothesis that domestic dogs arose from the gray wolf at different times and places, as opposed to the competing hypotheses suggesting a “single origin” or a “single main divergence followed by numerous subsequent intermixing events.” To do this, Wayne chose to analyze rapidly evolving mtDNA sequences.

Wayne et al.'s 1997 paper (Science, v. 276, or http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm ) summarized their mtDNA analyses, stating that several different methods of phylogenetic analysis supported the grouping of various dog mtDNA haplotypes into four distinct clades. (Note: A clade is a purported monophyletic group in which all members share a single common ancestor at some unidentified point in the past.) Figure 2 in this latter paper represents a graphical depiction of hypothetical phylogenetic relationships of mtDNA haplotypes from wolves and dogs. This ‘gene tree’ suggests that the mitochondria of the dogs listed in clades 2 and 4 are more closely related to the mitochondria of wolves than they are to the mitochondria of the dogs in clades 1 and 3. If these analyses of mtDNA haplotypes represented the genetics of the whole organisms, this figure would suggest that dogs are polyphyletic, which would mean that the term “dog” would no longer represent a genetically coherent group of organisms. However, a single gene tree may not represent the true genetic affinities of the organisms involved (dog breeds, wolf subspecies, etc.).

Later in this paper, Wayne et al. cited a robust analysis of mtDNA control region sequences that strongly rejected the monophyly of all dog haplotypes (P = 0.0004). This result suggests that all dog mtDNA haplotypes did not arise from a single divergence event (i.e., are not monophyletic), thereby rejecting the “single origin” hypothesis. In other words, just because Wayne's research focuses primarily on mtDNA—and not on individual nDNA or on the whole organisms—we cannot completely ignore the possible explanations for the cause of the observed distribution of mitochondrial haplotypes into four clades or the rejection of monophyly among all dog mtDNA haplotypes.

Wayne et al. (1999) nicely summarized this earlier work by stating that the clustering of dog haplotypes into four distinct clades “suggests that either wolves were domesticated in several places and at different times or that there was one domestication event followed by several episodes of admixture between dogs and wolves.” Wayne et al. continued by stating "[w]hichever the case, the results imply that dogs have a diverse origin involving more than one wolf population"; Wayne et al. then concluded by stating "[i]n conclusion, the domestic dog is a genetically diverse species that likely originated from wolf populations existing in different places and at different times."

To sum up, Wayne's original “different times and places” hypothesis has not been rejected. Furthermore, more work needs to be done to differentiate this hypothesis from the “single main divergence, secondary intermixing” hypothesis.

The Origin of Dogs: Running With the Wolves
Virginia Morell
Science, Vol. 276, 13 June 1997

An international team of geneticists and evolutionary biologists reveals on page 1687 of this issue [that] all of today's breeds had only one canine forebear: the wolf. What's more, the team, lead by Robert Wayne of the University of California, Los Angeles, says that although humans tamed members of that lone progenitor species at least twice, domestication was apparently a relatively rare event, requiring special skill. The researchers also say that the first transformation from wolf to dog may have happened more than 100,000 years ago--long before the 14,000-year date archaeologists typically assign to Fido's domestication. Many biologists remain skeptical about the date, but they are impressed by the genetic study, the largest of its kind for the dog. "That's absolutely great; it's first-rate," says Stephen O'Brien, a geneticist and chief of the Laboratory of Genomic Diversity at the National Cancer Institute in Frederick, Maryland, who has done similar genetic studies of wild and domestic cats. "He has confirmed genetically what most zoologists have believed for a long time," adds David Mech, a wolf expert with the Department of the Interior in St. Paul, Minnesota, "and that is that the dog is a domesticated wolf."

02/23/2016

The state of Alabama is moving toward a catastrophic bill for wolfdogs.
SB66 will end the lives of as many as 90% or more of wolfdogs in the state of Alabama.
URL: http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/searchableins
truments/2016rs/bills/SB66.htm
Depth: 0 singles
Size: 12,848 bytes
Modified: 2016-02-02 13:36:57
Categories: -None-
Title: SB66
Description: -None-
Keywords: -None-
Meta data: -None-
Body: 173127-1:n:02/01/2016:KBH/cj LRS2016-152
SB66 By Senator Ward RFD Judiciary Rd 1 02-FEB-16
SYNOPSIS: Under existing law, it is illegal to own, maintain, sell, or trade any canidae or felidae for which there is no USDA licensed rabies vaccine.
This bill would include in the authorized vaccines that can be used an FDA approved rabies vaccine.
This bill would make it illegal to possess, sell, transfer, or breed any large felidae, defined as a tiger, lion, leopard, snow leopard, clouded leopard, jaguar, cheetah, or cougar, or any wolf, or hybrid thereof, with certain exceptions.
This bill would allow persons who lawfully possessed a large felidae or wolf prior to the effective date of this act to keep the animal under certain conditions.
This bill would authorize a local governing body to adopt registration fees based on the number of large felidaes or wolves owned and require payment of these registration fees annually.
This bill would provide penalties.
Amendment 621 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 111.05 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, prohibits a general law whose purpose or effect would be to require a new or increased expenditure of local funds from becoming effective with regard to a local governmental entity without enactment by a 2/3 vote unless: it comes within one of a number of specified exceptions; it is approved by the affected entity; or the Legislature appropriates funds, or provides a local source of revenue, to the entity for the purpose.
The purpose or effect of this bill would be to require a new or increased expenditure of local funds within the meaning of the amendment. However, the bill does not require approval of a local governmental entity or enactment by a 2/3 vote to become effective because it comes within one of the specified exceptions contained in the amendment.
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT
Relating to animals; to amend Section 3-8-1 of the Code of Alabama 1975, relating to required rabies vaccines for canidae or felidae, to further provide for the authorized rabies vaccines that can be used; to add Section 3-8-2 to the Code of Alabama 1975, to make it illegal to possess, sell, transfer, or breed any living large felidae, as defined, or wolf, or hybrid thereof, with exceptions; to authorize a local governing body to adopt annual registration fees for large felidaes or wolves, under certain conditions; to provide penalties; and in connection therewith to have as its purpose or effect the requirement of a new or increased expenditure of local funds within the meaning of Amendment 621 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 111.05 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:Section 1. Section 3-8-1 of the Code of Alabama 1975, is amended to read as follows:
§3-8-1.
"Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, it shall be illegal to own, maintain, sell, or trade any canidae or felidae for which there is no USDA licensed or FDA approved rabies vaccine. Anyone currently owning or maintaining such animal may keep the animal for the length of the animal's life providing the animal is spayed or neutered and is registered with the Department of Agriculture and Industries. This section does not apply to any zoological parks, circuses, colleges, and universities, animal refuges approved by the Department of Agriculture and Industries, county or municipal humane shelters, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, or veterinary clinics."
Section 2. Section 3-8-2 is added to the Code of Alabama 1975, to read as follows:
(a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(1) LARGE FELIDAE. A tiger, lion, leopard, snow leopard, clouded leopard, jaguar, cheetah, or cougar. The term includes a hybrid large felidae.
(2) WOLF. The term includes a hybrid wolf.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 3-8-1, or any other law to the contrary, unless exempted by subsections (c) or (d), it shall be illegal to possess, sell, transfer, or breed any living large felidae or wolf.
(c) Subsection (b) may not apply to any of the following:
(1) A research facility, as defined in the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. Section 2132(e).
(2) A nonprofit wildlife sanctuary that meets all of the following criteria:
a. Operates a place of refuge where abused, neglected, unwanted, impounded, abandoned, orphaned, or displaced animals are provided care for the lifetime of the animal.
b. Does not conduct any commercial activity with respect to large felidaes or wolves, including, but not limited to, the sale, trade, auction, lease, or loan of large felidaes or wolves or parts of large felidaes or wolves or uses large felidaes or wolves in any manner in a for-profit business or operation.
c. Does not allow direct contact between the public and large felidaes or wolves.
d. Does not use large felidaes or wolves for entertainment purposes or in a traveling exhibit.
e. Does not breed large felidaes or wolves.
(3) A duly incorporated nonprofit animal protection organization, such as a humane society or shelter, temporarily housing a large felidae or wolf at the written request of law enforcement, including any county sheriff, police officer, animal control agent appointed pursuant to Sections 3-1-13 or 13A-11-242, or any warden deputized pursuant to Section 9-11-5, acting under the authority of this subsection.
(4) A licensed veterinary hospital, for the purpose of providing treatment to a large felidae or wolf.
(5) A law enforcement officer, as defined by subsection (c)(3), for purposes of enforcement.
(6) A Class C exhibitor licensed by the USDA, including, but not limited to, zoological parks and circuses, provided that the licensed exhibitor meets all of the following criteria:
a. Has not been or has not employed a person who has been convicted of or fined for an offense involving the abuse or neglect of any animal pursuant to any local, state, or federal law.
b. Has not had a license or permit regarding the care, possession, exhibition, propagation, or sale of animals revoked or suspended by any local, state, or federal agency, has not received any official notices of warnings or entered into any stipulations, consent decrees, or settlements with the USDA within the last five years, and has disclosed any known pending investigations that are being conducted by the USDA.
c. Has not allowed direct contact between the public and large felidaes or wolves.
d. Maintains liability insurance in an amount of not less than two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).
e. Has a written plan that is made available to local law enforcement and state agencies, upon request, for the quick and safe recapture or destruction of a large felidae or a wolf in the event a large felidae or wolf escapes, including, but not limited to, written protocols for training staff on methods of safe recapture of the escaped large felidae or wolf.
(7) A person temporarily transporting a legally owned large felidae or wolf through the state if the transit time is not more than 24 hours, the large felidae or wolf is not exhibited, and the large felidae or wolf is maintained at all times in a species-appropriate cage or travel container. The person transporting the large felidae or wolf shall provide notice of the transport to local law enforcement at least 72 hours prior to entering the state, identifying the number and type of large felidaes or wolves that will be transported, in addition to obtaining any veterinary certificate or other permits required by local, state, or federal law.
(d) Subsection (b) does not apply to a person who lawfully possesses a large felidae or wolf prior to the effective date of this act, if the person meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The person maintained veterinary records, acquisition papers, or other documents or records that the person or entity possessed the animal prior to the effective date of this act.
(2) The person has not acquired additional large felidaes or wolves after the effective date of this act, whether by purchase, donation, or breeding.
(3) The person has not been convicted of an offense involving the abuse or neglect of any animal pursuant to local, state, or federal law.
(4) The person has not had a license or permit regarding the care, possession, exhibition, breeding, or sale of animals revoked or suspended by any local, state, or federal agency.
(5) The person has developed and is prepared to implement a disaster plan, maintains a current animal inventory, and makes the plan and list available to law enforcement, upon request.
(6) The person has registered with and paid the registration fee to his or her local law enforcement agency by January 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, indicating the number of animals each of large felidaes and wolves in his or her possession, and the person has shown proof of liability insurance in an amount of not less than two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). For the purposes of this subdivision, the term "local law enforcement agency" means the municipal police department if a municipality has a police department or the county sheriff's office in all other cases.
(7) At least 72 hours prior to the sale or relocation of an existing large felidae or wolf, the person has notified local law enforcement, identifying the recipient of the animal. At all times, possession, sale, transfer, and transport of the large felidae or wolf shall conform with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.
(e) This act is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other laws protecting animal welfare. This act is not intended, and should not be construed, to limit any other state law or rule protecting the welfare of animals. Nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit a local governing body from adopting or enforcing any rule or law that places further restrictions or additional requirements on the possession, sale, transfer, or breeding of large felidae or wolves.
(f) A local governing body may adopt annual registration fees based on the number of large felidaes or wolves a person possesses on January 1, 2017.
(g) Any law enforcement officer, as defined by subsection (c)(3), with or without warrant, may arrest any person who violates this act in his or her presence or view and may execute any warrant or other process issued by any officer or court of competent jurisdiction and, with a search warrant or as incident to a lawful arrest, may search for and seize any large felidae or wolf possessed in violation of this section or any regulations issued thereunder.
(h) A violation of subsection (b) is a Class A misdemeanor.
Section 3. Although this bill would have as its purpose or effect the requirement of a new or increased expenditure of local funds, the bill is excluded from further requirements and application under Amendment 621, now appearing as Section 111.05 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, because the bill defines a new crime or amends the definition of an existing crime.
Section 4. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.
Animals
Crimes and Offenses
Misdemeanors
Veterinarians
Law Enforcement
Code Added
Code Amended
To find it you will have to go to the Alison site and to a text search for wolf hybrid.
It appears that little scientific information is required.
In 1993, the Smithsonian Institution and the American Association of Mammalogists reclassified the dog’s scientific name to reflect its close relationship with the wolf (Canis lupus). It’s now commonly accepted that all breeds of domestic dog descend from wolves.
Canis comes from the Latin word for dog, while lupus is the Latin word for wolf. Familiaris means familiar or friendly, so the dog’s scientific name can be loosely translated as “friendly wolf dog.”
We have a conundrum, are all dogs "wolfdogs" or are all friendly "wolfdogs" simply dogs ?
The argument the state makes is that there is no USDA approved rabies vaccine for wolves and "wolfdogs". However this is not true.
What vaccine is approved for a sub species yet not for the species as well?
Any adversity that would come from the use of a rabies on the species would also affect the sub species as well.
Since vaccines are basically species specific rather than sub species specific.
We have been having wolfdogs vaccinated for rabies for over 18 years with no adverse reactions.
This holds true across the breed and across the country with many other rescues and owners.
There is also the unfounded fear of wolfdogs that is simply fiction.
The proof of this is born out in the CDC report on dog bit fatalities posted here http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/PrevGuid/m0047723/m0047723.asp…
You will notice the top fatalities are credited to
"Pit bull"
Rottweiler
German shepherd
"Husky"
This is Nation wide. Spanning the years from 1979 to 1996.
While wolfdogs are credited with 14 fatalities in this period of time, there is actually a problem with this claim.
Who identified the "wolf Hybrids" and was it simply stated that it "looked like a "Wolf Hybrid" or was it known for a fact to be a "Wolf Hybrid"?
I urge everyone who loves animals to join in stopping this SB66 before it is passed.
Most responsible canid owners know and understand that there are not bad dog breeds. There are only bad owners.
It is true that any breed can have a bad animal.. and predominantly this is caused by bad ownership.
At any rate, no breed should be destroyed entirely at the whim of politicians.
If they succeed with this Bill, then what breeds are next.
SB55 was introduced by Representative Cam Ward.
I urge yo uto contact Representative Ward and demand that he scrap this Bill and that bills like this not be introduced without proper science.
After all, as of 1993, all dogs are wolfdogs. I wonder if Representative Ward has a "wolfdog" of some form.
Perhaps a Chihuahua, a breed that runs in wild packs in Mexico as large as 50 to 100 members and can take down a full grown bull.
That does classify them as predators I believe.