Gnasher, you are explaining your self v well, as Jackbox says - I understand but I dont agree with everything you are saying

Cant find the link but there was a experiment done with a group of puppies and a group of wolf cubs, all were raised as dogs, all socialised and trained the same way

One major difference between the 2 groups was when they were shown a treat that they could not get themselves the dogs all after trying to figure it out turned to their human for help - none of the wolves ever turned to work with the human

A dog is a wolf who wants to work with people - and IMHO that is one of the joys of owning a dog - I dont have to be boss of him, he wants to work with me I just have to show him how

Ben, this I would expect ! In that one succinct sentence, you have managed to highlight the difference between wolves and dogs ! This is what I mean by the aloofness of the wolf ... Hal had it to a small extent. He "deigned" to live with us, and bless him, he died unnecessarily early because of his incapability of showing us his feelings. Actually he did ... to me, once, in the middle of the night, and I ignored it in my befuddled sleepiness. Which I beat myself up about still.

I like what you say too "a dog is a wolf who wants to work with people". That's great. perhaps because I have a preference for recent wolf crosses (which is what Mals and Sibes are) is why I think as I do. You see, Hal didn't want to WORK with me, he wanted to BE with me, there is a huge difference. He didn't want to please me, he didn't even need me to survive, but we formed a uniquely strong bond which I cannot explain.

Tai is far more of a "dog" - he truly wants to please, he wants to work with me, but still he shows that little spark of wolfy independence which I love !

Great posting Ben !

What struck me most the only time I`ve been close to a wolf, was the total lack of `connection` between us. A dog would have been trying to get my attention or sizing me up or working out what I wanted. To the wolf, I was of no importance, being neither threat nor resource. This is what I meant when I said previously that the body language was not the same. When my dog looks at me, there is communication. That is the difference.

The difference between wolves and dogs is all behavioural. I quite agree. But I don't agree that this means we should treat dogs differently from wolves. I have the evidence of my own eyes with my own high % wolf dog plus an F1. I cannot refute what I have had personal experience of. The ONLY way you can train a wolf dog or a wolf is with good old-fashioned Pack theory. Coming down the line as it were to your average domestic dog, the Pack theory still works. I have seen it over and over again with the most difficult of dogs. I'm a funny old besom, if something works and works well I tend to continue to use it !

Waiting for the explanation of Lamackism !?

It wouldn`t work with mine. Daisy would resist to the last breath in her body and Shamus would be a basket case.
I am getting confused by your responses - in one sentence you agree there is a difference in behaviour and in the next you say we should treat them the same. This is not logical!

Absolutely C & D, you've got it. But you can have the same connection with a pure wolf that you can with a dog, but even more so with a wolf do you need to be Alpha, else even more than with a dog, Mr Wolf will take the michael ! And believe me, when you connect with a wolf it is absolutely amazing !

The body language is there, just a lot more subtle. Hal would never fawn over you like a dog. He would merely brush you with the most fleeting touch of a wet nose so delicate that you could never be sure he had even done it. By this, he expected you, as his alpha, to understand that he was telling you he was loving and loyal but no way in a million years was he going to become one of those sycophantic fawning ordinary dogs, so just forget it !! It was often too quick to catch with the naked eye, but sometimes we caught one of his sideways glances and my Gosh you could read what he was thinking, his eyes were so expressive and the particular set of his ears could convey a myriad of words if only I were clever enough to understand !

Its so hard to explain !! There is a difference in behaviour of course. The aloofness of the wolf, the subtlety of body language, movements etc. that they expect us to understand. Dogs are so easy to read, to understand, they are full on, in your face. Wolves are so subtle, more nervous if you like, although that is not quite the right word.

Dogs want to please you, wolves don't, they want to please themselves. But at the same time, when you click they are as loyal as any collie. They are a paradox !!

Gnasher, I can only take your word for it about the wolf and wolf crosses, although I think wolves are amazing animals I would never want to try and train or live with one
To me they should be left in the wild, I am sure you have and did have a great connection with your dogs but that just isnt for me

You are happy with your method, and I with mine, I doubt we could change eithers mind about it but I do appriciate the time and manner you have taken to explain your point of view - its nice to be able to disagree while playing nicely

Well yes it is indeed Ben, but I'm sorry I'm such crap at explaining things ! I am much better face to face, but there we are.

I'm immensely enjoying the debate I must say, although beddy byes calls, so I shall have to wish everyone a good night ! Although I am still awaiting to hear what Lamackism is !

If it helps, Wikipedia says:

Lamarckism (or Lamarckian evolution) is the once widely accepted idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance)