Talk:Common raccoon dog/Archive 1

Archive 1

Capital Letter

Why is the article title currently "Raccoon Dog" and not "Raccoon dog"?--Tokek 11:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea, maybe the person who created the article didn't know about the naming conventions? Josh 16:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Or rather the opposite. Note that all other canids are also following the capitalization of all words for species. - UtherSRG 15:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ah crap, sorry about the name change. --Arekku 18:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, in English we have no convention of using capital letters (upper case) for the common names of species. Am I missing something? I just went ahead and changed the capitalization of the first half of this article to match the second half, which uses lower case for species names. 63.200.127.34 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked on Wikipedia conventions and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms. Specifically, let me quote "Common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case (oak, lion). There are some exceptions:" The most obvious exception is for common names of birds. There was nothing about canids. 63.200.127.34 (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tanuki and Folklore

The discussion of the use of the character for tanuki is quite confused. First, that is not the feline radical. Secondly, while declaring that the 'clawed beast' radical version is archaic, the article gives two examples using exactly that radical. Is this a case of traditional and simplified characters, in which case the expression 'archaic' seems incorrect -- or this statement made only in reference to Japanese? --Bathrobe

I removed the the Japanese term tanuki part alltogether. An article about an animal is not the place for a discussion on kanji ethymology, since kanji is never used to write the names of animals or plants in scientific texts in Japanese. The other two paragraphs are just equally confusing and I believe not of general interest. Those interested in regional differences and historical ambiguity regarding the naming of wild animals in Japanese, should be able to read the much better worded Japanese article anyways. --Himasaram 09:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. If deemed of interest by others (and by popularity, it seems it might be), I would suggest a new page for the information. JRice 13:42, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Agreed. As per the below, if we do have to create a seperate tanuki page (and as of the last time I checked, that might be within the near future - about a year or so, if authorities their tails in gear), it can be put on a seperate tanuki page, as then it would have nothing to do with the two other subspecies, anyway.--Mitsukai 15:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to try separating the historical / whimsical 'tanuki' to a separate page. If I were here researching the animal, this information would be of no use to me, though I might want to peek at it, if curious. I felt a separate page was warranted. If there is a need to create a separate species (see below), so be it: we can use a disambiguation, or include the more-cultural information there. -- JRice 15:26, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

The separation of the mythological tanuki from the raccoon dog article is all well and good, but now the raccoon dog article doesn't at all mention the relationship between the two. That's a pretty serious omission. -- Sebkha (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed with a See also. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Speciation

As per http://www.canids.org/PUBLICAT/CNDNEWS2/racoondg.htm, there is documentation to indicate that the tanuki (Japanese raccoon dog) is now a seperate species from the Siberian and Chinese raccoon dog subspecies due to speciation. I'll see if I can dig up more information in regards to it, but it may be that we might have to create seperate articles for Tanuki and Raccoon dog in the near future. Anyone else know anything about this? Mitsukai 15:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I would think that ANYTHING that had a different amount of chromosomes would be a different species. And I don't mean like Down's Syndrome, but a large amount of organisms with the same amount-such as the tanuki.Icelandic Hurricane 21:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify: does anyone know if the organizations involved have made a final determination? I think I may have seen something regarding the tanuki (as a species name, with a tax of Nycuteres nipponesis), but nothing is coming up in google except for anime references.--み使い Mitsukai 21:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo

I changed the photo with a (in my opinion) better one from the Japanese page. MikeDockery 00:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Adden one more photo, as it shows different fur colouring of animals. Probably different subspecies. More raccoon like Edo 555 (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

New species

I found a website (see external sites on main article) that says that they have discovered and extinct species of Raccoon Dog; N. abdeslami. Shall we make a separate article on it?Icelandic Hurricane 21:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, should we make an article on N. pacivorus, another extinct Raccoon Dog?Icelandic Hurricane 21:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If we do make articles on these two species, I call starting them!Icelandic Hurricane 21:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, N. pacivorus doesn't really exist; it's really Speothos pacivorus, I just got them mixed up.Icelandic Hurricane 22:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I also found out about some more extinct species.Icelandic Hurricane 02:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Tail movements

What does They do not bark, and they turn their tail into an inverted U to express dominance. mean? Isn't an inverted U the same as a U? I assume this either means the tail is arched over the back like a scorpion or between the legs like a frightened dog? If you know, please clarify... Thanks -SCEhardT 17:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• No, an inverted U would be a ∩ shape, which would be neither like a scorpion, nor a frightened dog. Anaxial 09:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduced Raccoon dogs meet Introduced Raccoons?

Raccoon dogs, as the article mentions, have been introduced in Europe and have populations in Finland and France and Italy. Meanwhile, Raccoons were introduced in Germany and elsewhere in Europe as long ago as the 1930's. There is a fair population in the vicinity of Kessel, I believe.

Have they ever met that people know of? Is there any record of their interaction. They must be competitors for the same niche.

They are abundant all over Middle Europe of course they have met, there is even video-footage of it.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How is this not a raccoon?

Maybe I am missing something, but it looks pretty obvious by this article that this is a much closer relative to the raccoon than a type of dog. In fact, it seems as if people are going through great pains to note the uniqueness of various features (curved claws, climbs trees, eats berries, hibernates) but maintaining, without explanation, that this creature is in fact a dog, and not the masked raccoon it appears to be and acts very much like.

If this article is to be maintained in this fashion, shouldn't there be an explanation on why this is a dog, and not a raccoon? Has anyone ever tried to interbreed this animal with another type of raccoon? What about other dogs, who are notoriously capable of interbreeding?--216.227.56.70 04:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've been trying to breed them for years with no success. Just a lot of bites and scratches to show for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdchachi (talk • contribs)

Hahahaha! —SlamDiego_←T 12:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Raccoons are a completely different species. The raccoon dog is definitely established by genetic testing as a member of the canidae family -- see that article. Dolphins look a lot like fish.

Having a mask, hibernating, and eating berries do not characterize a zoological grouping. Those are superficial similarities brought on by similar lifestyles. As noted above, genetics, as well as anatomical comparisons, prove this is a member of the dog family and not the raccoon family. Most aspects of its behavior are also much like the domestic dog and various foxes. 153.2.247.33 (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think one it is valid to give some of this animal's dog traits in the article. Not to mention, the phrase "superficial resemblence" to a raccoon is poor. It looks nearly identical to a raccoon. At the very least, it looks like a combo of a raccoon and a dog and the resemblence is more than "superficial." Its connection to raccoons may be superficial, but its appearance certainly isnt-SF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.158.167 (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with anonymous user above. A lot of people look like their dogs, but that doesn't make them dogs. They are different species, different genetics, etc.Bob98133 (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

They weren't saying they were the same species, they were saying that the raccoon dog bears more than a superficial resemblance to a raccoon, and as such there should be something in the article showing how they are dogs. If anyone can find a source to a test, maybe just a "genetic testing has shown...". The article makes it seem like it's not really a canine, even saying it is not a true dog in the introduction, which is misleading (even though I assume they mean familiaris, people use the word to refer to canines in general.)Torca (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggested merge

Merge discussion has moved to Talk:Tanuki#Suggested merge with Raccoon Dog.

Please do not leave your comments about the suggested merge here; instead, please leave your comments at Talk:Tanuki#Suggested merge with Raccoon Dog. —Tokek 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Endangered or Taking Over Eurasia?

In one place the article says they are endangered or population is declining -- in another that they're spreading out to colonize all of Eurasia.

Which?

And BTW, is there any known factor why they are only now spreading out -- are they taking advantage of built-up human areas (as coincidentally, raccoons do) for foraging? Has some predator been eliminated in their home territory (population expanding there and being forced out) or in the newly colonized areas (used to keep them from expanding)? Or maybe a predator is gone that used to eat something they can now eat instead?... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.233.157 (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Clearly not endangered in Europe. Actualy introduced spacies newer are counted as endangered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edo 555 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

24 out of 25 jackets tested have raccoon dog fur

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/07/dog.fur/index.html

Sorry if I'm not posting correctly, this is my first time adding to a discussion... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badbread (talk • contribs) 00:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Here is a highly shocking video of a supposedly chinese fur farm that shows how they skin the dogs alive, while standing on their heads, hitting them with clubs, smashing them agains the grounds, etc. Some of the dogs are still alive after they skin them and are left to die in a pile of their skinned bretheren, while yelping and writhing in agony. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_8Ko-9uKRs Please do not watch if you are already shocked with the description. Watch if you believe people defending animals rights are wrong. My point is, should this be mentioned or linked somewhere in the article? This is the source —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.72.43.176 (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

There is speculation that that controversial and shocking video was staged. The person who filmed the video would not name those who perpetrated the horrific acts. This could be because he is protecting them, and therefore himself, from investigation. There exists a thing called "animal snuff" videos. There are films of women in stiletto high-heels squishing hamsters; those are called "stomp" videos, and it's just one example of the many out there. This could simply be one of those snuff films, designed and orchestrated to film animal torture; since it cannot be verified that it was not staged, mentioning it could simply attract more viewers, and create more demand for such torture footage. By demand I mean the part of human nature that wants to view the horrible "reality" videos out there. If you asked someone if he'd like to see photos of a gruesome car accident he'd probably say no, but that same person might watch "The World's Wildest Police Videos" full of car crashes, that same night on tv. We cannot take the risk of inadvertently promoting torture.

Secondly, it's not appropriate to refer to these canids as "dogs" because they are not domesticated. It's a canid, coyotes and wolves are canids too, but to call them dogs is erroneous. It's been a concerted propaganda effort on the part of animal rights activists to call them dogs, in order to play on emotions and make people visualize their own pet treated this way. It's emotional manipulation 101.

Thirdly, we should remember this is an encyclopedia. It's not meant to shock anybody, just to define, in greater detail, what would be stated in a dictionary. I'm sure there's been horrible incidents concerning animals of every species, but mentioning that here isn't appropriate or relevant, especially when we cannot confirm it. Tsarevna 02:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I hated that video. I am sorry I watched some of it. They may not be domestic dogs, but they seem to have similar emotional characteristics and were suffering terribly. Since they will never stop killing these animals, I wish somebody would just go over there and show these people how to kill the dogs quickly so they won't be tortured this way. 153.2.247.33 (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Until there are reliable references for this, and not just the same old 7 year old ‘suspected to be staged’ video from the animal rights group the SAP that shows the one Raccoon dog in the one video being skinned alive, then this ‘skinning alive’ statement should be omitted. Without a single other example of this happening in China, it sounds too much like animal rights propaganda.Kelly2357 (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Raccoon Dog -> Modern Japanese Spitz?

Does anyone else notice a startling resemblance? Obviously the spitz are mostly white, but look at the ears, the face, the overall size. --andrew leahey 01:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Soapbox on Steroids

Looks like somebody's got a bit of an ax to grind. Don't see anything there that's factual, all of it seems to be silly soapbox arguments in favor of trapping this critter.

Mind, I have no fondness for PETA myself, but you don't produce a sensible product by providing a balanced selection of tripe.

Patently absurd to claim that trapping will not cause a decline in a wild population. You kill off large numbers of animals, the population goes down.

Don't feel like arguing the nonsense though. Can't really approve of trapping it myself, and think that the inverse of the argument in favor of hunting applies here, rather see domestic mutts used myself, but not worth a fight with this crackpot/shill or whatever this guy is.

Nutters like this are why I tried to get away from Wikipedia in the first place, so I won't ger myself worked up about it. This user seems to be here pretty much only to write long soliloquies defending the fur trade though, so I thought I'd point it out.

Have fun. --71.192.117.127 04:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply by poster: All the references are from organisations involved in conservation. such as the WWF and Traffic; aswell as official reports from the environmental agencies of Japan and the EEC animal welfare scientists report (headed by one of the world's experts in welfare Dr Dancer) . HOW THEN do you make them out to be tripe? Try READING them. It is essential that any wikipedia article has balance. Immediately you show your bias by impling the immorality of trapping animals for fur; a practice that has been carried out by humans for 40 000 years without anyone questioning it. It is only in the last thirty that it has been seen as immoral and that is largely to do with "alternatives" to fur...all made from oil which is a non renwable resource that destroys habitats, causes eco disaters etc. A fine morality. You also use emotive insult like "nutter" which also throws your alleged objective stance into question. It may be worth you investigating the first evidence of human scoial heirarchy cognitive development and language in early modern humans. You will find that the firt evdiece of humans capable of abstract thought and therefore depth of culture wre in Russia; one of he coldest areas on the planet 28/40 thousand years ago. Evidence has been found of these humans placing great cultural value on fox pelts and teeth; these were the first humans who actually made clothing (rather than wore raw skins) from furs and hides. So the allegation that hunting animals reduces their numbers isn't necessarily true is it? 40 000 years later and the fox is still prolific throughout Russia despite 40 millenia of hunting them for fur. If your views have any validity why are they still there in such prolific numbers? Answer? Because the people who live their protect the habitat as it is in their interest that the anials are abundant. In the Czech republic however, the fox is extinct. Why? because Adolf Hitler's ban on foxhunting ensured oblivion for the unfortunate creature:the first nation to ban foxhunting and the first extinction of the common fox.

Strange that you see my article as biased but not the one above it which has emotive quotes from unsubstantiated sources. Trapping and hunting within a conservation framework have become the cornerstone of policy by many Conservation organisation sincluding the WWF some of whose projects are linked there. Quite simply the argument is that if an animal is in an area of traditional use it does seem to thrive. It is in areas of alternative land use such as logging intensive farming and oil exploration that animal number sharply decline. In Canadian Cree territories for example the beaver, trapped by themselves and under licnese, thrive wheras in other arres of Canada the beaver has declined sharply due to habitat loss and human settlement. If you actually read the links you would see that. I hardly think that CITES, the WWF , EEC fur farming welfare reports, Russian Conservation Agency, Japanese Government reviews of stocks etc can be said to be biased and I am merely directing the reader to see the other viewpoint from the PETA one quoted here previously unchallenged. I have experience and knowledge of aboriginal peoples in these areas...and therefore have seen raccoon dogs and their pelts... and seen the damage that the West's morality about fur and hunting is doing to their economy and sunsequently western development....which has had a dreadful effect on wildlife. The WWF and other protected areas for traditional use have protected habitat and non used animals also are growing in number, such as bears and wolves. The Siberian Tiger is also offered hope by such incentives. READ the links before you criticise. The only alleged "biased" link is the Chinese Government one and it seems appropriate to link to it so people can see the other side of the argument. Once again I do not work in the fur trade but question the validity of cultural and speciesist prejudice here.

There can be no doubt, killing animals reduces their population! 153.2.247.33 (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As pets?

Are they domesticatable? Do they do tricks? Are they used as pets? Should be answered. Patcat88 23:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• No. (Well, almost everything is kept as a pet by someone, somewhere, but this isn't common so far as I can tell). But then, neither are most other wild animals, so I don't think this needs specifically mentioning. Anaxial 09:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• They aren't used as pets, altrought I have read one article, how it was keeped as pet buy one.
• Is a cow a pet? It's not a dog, you know, different animal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.28.254.134 (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

use as fur

I can understand the deletion of the third ph in this section (which is now deleted), but the first two paragraphs are sufficiently well-refrenced and neutral to remain in the article. I think that not mentioning the contoversy about racoon dogs used as fur leaves a gap in this article.Bob98133 (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

UtherSRG: Pwayman here, I undid your deletion of the "Use for fur" section, and you undid my undoing, so let's discuss, ok? Being new to this topic, I'm unclear as to what your edit summary meant:

(disagree - not when the article was removed as a POV essay, and this section is just as bad)

Since there is no Raccoon Dog Fur article, I can't see what it looked like and whether it was POV as you say, but the section you deleted doesn't seem to be POV. I guess I agree with Bob98133, and think it seemed pretty neutral. Your input? --Pwayman (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been a couple weeks, and there hasn't been any discussion on this, so I added the fur section back, except for the third paragraph.--Pwayman (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Need for this Discussion of the Raccoon Dog and Fur

Many of you have questioned the motives for my entry here. I work in the anthroplogical and conservation fringes and lecture in Aboriginal Art. I have used NONE of my own research as that is forbidden by wiki. SO I have linked to the various initiatives of Incentive Conservation that are now considered very effective, and practised by the WWF and various Conservation authroritis around the planet. Wherever one encounters native peoples th story is the same: one of moral imperialism ruining their economies, from Cree to Inuit to Sami to Evenk to Bushmen of the Kalahari. Meanwhile it is modern western civilsation that actually destroys habitats. No coincidence that the most common mammal predators are also the most used for fur and hunting: mink and fox. Here is a little of the Inuit response to our moral imperialism: http://www.niyc.ca/comment.php?comment.news.218

So why the Raccoon dog to be singled out by me with reference to fur? Well because I came across it while googling for an image, and read about the fascinating animal. When I read it, it smacked of cultural prejudice. From cultures as diverse as Japan, through the 250 tribes of Siberia, a colossal land area, through north westrn Europe the animal is common. The Sami have tried to encourage it as a furbearer, and some fur farms have worked with the Sami with their stocks. It appears that animals like the wolverine however, and possibly distemper, have interrupted its prolificity there. Nevertheless it is not an uncommon sight, and certainly you will find Raccoon dog furs at Sami markets. EXCEPT throughout the North of Scandinavia and Baltic Russia it is called Finn Raccoon; a word that was absurdly absent from the article. That demonstrates a degree of cultural prejudice in itslef, but then consider this.

To all these diverse cultures...from China to Russia to Scandinvaia to Japan ....both the aboriginal and "civilised" cultures, the Raccoon dog is seen as a furbearer. An animal which is used...for meat aswell as fur. So to me, stumbling on this wikipedia article....and the factual stuff was okay as far as it went....NOT to mention it apart from in a detrimental attack by the animal rights lobby...as an animal used by man throughout all those areas...is ridiculous. As ridiculous in fact, as seeing an entry about sheep or goats or cows without mentioning meat sheepskin and leather as human uses of those animals. Quite simply, it is breathtakingly absent..or was....of how the animal is perceived and usd by peoples throughout the North, China and Japan. What? It is okay for us to farm cows but not for the evenk or Chinese to farm Racoon Dog? Isn't....given the length of time and deep rooted importance of the animal's sue in all these cultures...that just a little racist and speciesist.

If wikipedia is to work as a testimony of human knowlege, it MUST take into accont all perspectives; and not be moralistic or culturally prejudiced. A young estonian colleague who works in Conservation that I know has a coat which she describes of course as finn raccoon. She was bemused when she read this entry, and fully endorses me writing the response...in fact she gave me the Traffic link. Her words were: "but it is always used for fur; in many areas it is considered pest, in others worshipped...(laughs) but they still use it for fur.....and here they are on wiki trying to pretend it is a pet dog and we are all evil for using it. Maybe we should cut all the forest down in the North and make rape seed oil fields or graze cows instead like you do in England(laughs)and then there would Tanuki be!"

Oh and in case you have any doubt that what I say is correct, note also that Saba Douglas Hamilton (Big Cat Diary)...who has spent some time with the Sami....has taken to wearing fox fur too on her Arctic schedules.

So please try to keep an open mind about these things; okay if China IS skinning animals alive that needs to be addressed. BUT it simply does not happen on western fur farms like SAGA and the Raccoon dog IS of vital importance to aboriginal and rural people who rely on it for trade and food. As it says, Japan for example culls 70 000 a year to keep the balance in check and that is under license to hunters. Any discussion of the animal in an Encyclopedic context cannot refer merely to allegations made by animal rights groups without looking at the animals economic imporatnce to humans and the way in whcich conservationists now recognise that such activities can have enormous benefits for habitat protection for whole eco systems; significant because the protection of such forests in Siberia is also the Tiger's only hope of salvation, as logging and oil replace areas of traditional use. Yes the raccoon dog is a beautiful animal, but to some it is as important to another beautiful animal, the sheep for example. And we slit their throats open while they are alive. I see no ethical difference between a raccoon dog hat and a plate of lamb. Except while on provides sustenance for a day or two, the other can conserve your head from heat loss and look beautiful when worn for 50 years. So please please...do not let you own western prejudices interfere with knowledge. I have provided a wealth of interesting sources relevant to this here; have seen the animals in the wild and on a fur farm, and know what I am talking about. I only wish som of the Siberian people I am talking about could make an ntry here thmselves; but I have found as an academic the process difficult enough with the conventions lol! Ironic when some of the misinformation floating around the wikipedia with regards to conspiracy thories etc is presented as fact. Well the Raccoon dog IS used for fur, IS farmed to high welfare standards in many areas, IS culled for its fur as part of Conservation programmes,IS important economically to incredibly culturally varied native and rural peoples over a vast distance, and is used by hundreds of fashion houses many of which buy direct from native sources. All that IS fact....keep the morality out of it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evenkyia3 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Siberia

Actual region in Russia is not considered Siberia, but Russian far east. Early 20 century region was known with name Usuria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edo 555 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Species debate

I restored the reference to the species debate (which was deleted despite being cited). I added an additional citation. Note also that the editor who removed the debate broke the References section by not checking to see that the reference he deleted was used elsewhere in the article. I moved it to be after the list of subspecies, which seemed more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryHenryGebel (talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Diet

"Racoon dogs have a craving for raw, human flesh." lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.27.203 (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline due to urbanization?

The article states that the asian population was in decline due to urbanization. That is strange since these canids are known as culture followers over here in Germany.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Tanuki

Why has the acknowledgement of the Tanuki article almost COMPLETELY disappeared?--Kurtle (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it is specific to the Japanese Raccoon Dog, not the species as a whole. However, I'm not going to object to anyone re-adding it.Mariomassone (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah - Sorry; I didn't realise. I assumed they were the same page. Maybe that's what needs sorting rather then. :~) --Kurtle (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tree climbing

According to this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corsac_fox the Corsac can also climb trees.....although perhaps they do not do it regularly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.3.44 (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What is/are their common name/s.

Shouldn't the local names for this animal be given? Unless they are actually called raccoon dogs in the countries where they are found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.190.244 (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Raccoon dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927014956/http://www.traffic.org/content/293.pdf to http://www.traffic.org/content/293.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Links checked; replaced - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Management and attempted elimination

The BBC has an article dated 7 May 2016 and entitled The cute creature Sweden wants to wipe out, which suggests a need for section on ‘Management and attempted elimination’, which I am not qualified to write. JDAWiseman (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference/info to use

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36228601 Bananasoldier (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Bananasoldier (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Introduction

Added section about introduction. Throught that region in Russian are mostly called far-east not the Siberia Introduction of Tick-borne meningoencephalitis together with racoon dog are pretty official wiev in Latvia. In Latvia this infection is serios problem.
Alsou added one more photo, as it shows different fur colouring of animals. Probably different (ussurian) subspecies. More raccoon like.Edo 555 (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting Information

The Raccoon Dog article states "The animal is also known under the Japanese name tanuki...", while Tanuki states "Tanuki are often mistaken for raccoon dogs but they are indeed different animals." So which is which? --Arekku 14:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it meant tanuki are often mistaken for raccoons. Brutannica 00:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

---

or perhaps the disputed claim that the Japanese Raccoon Dog is a different (though closely related) species or subspecies vs. the Korean/Chinese types.

Signed for archive purposes only.  William Harris |talk  09:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarification

I think the correct term for the type of light hibernation the Tanuki goes through is called “Torpor”. -- Neo Piper 17:22, 2006 January 31.

Raccoon Dog Or Fur Trade Article?

I was just made aware of the horrific suffering of these animals at the hands of Chinese fur traders and decided to learn more about them. The article started out informative. Then, I began reading not so much about the creature itself but a rambling piece of propaganda (perhaps Chinese?) supporting, albeit indirectly, the proposition that the savage butchery endured by even one of these animals should be overlooked for the greater economic good it provides to those who take such great pride in inflicting unimaginable pain. I would suggest to the author that the human race no longer lives in the Ice Age and animal fur of any kind is no longer crucial to human survival. The author should stick to the facts about the animal. Raccoon dogs are generally raised in captivity and then slaughtered in gruesome fashion. Why go to the expense and trouble of trapping when you can breed and raise hundreds in cages? Hunter society? These people don't hunt squat! There is no defense, economic or otherwise, for skinning any animal while it is still alive. It is simply barbaric. The very least these people could do is make sure the animal is humanely dispatched in some manner before reaching for the knife.—72.192.70.41 06:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply by poster: The information I posted was in the interests of balance. You may regard the views of the chinese government as propaganda but it is important to see both sides of the story. Some of the films of alleged brutality on fur farms in the far eats remain unsubtantiated....why are the sources not given? Several people have since com forward saying that they wre ofrd large sums of money to stage such a skinning alive and while this could easily be proven wrong by givin the source "farm" that it took place at this is not forthcoming.

You have clearly never been to a western fur farm and I suggest you read the links to the EEC welfare sientists report and also SAGA's site. SAGA are one of the largest producers of fur and their husbandry is renowned. There may well be abuses in China but it is important not to taint the whole fur trade with this accusation. SAGA farm racoon dog. It has always been called Finn Racccoon and the way that the raccoon dog is reprsented as a dog by Animal Rights groups is both misleadinng and in itself is unscrupulous propaganda.

The fur trade in Siberia from where the animals originate has used the animals for fur for centuries. In fact recent archeological evidence suggests the origins of modern human cultural development lie in societies based in that region (30 000 years ago plus)which demonstrate the first evidence of human complex society and trade based on fur. The peoples of that region now include several hundred aboriginal peoples who have ben able to return to a native lifstyle since the collapse of communism. They herd reindeer and hunt and farm furbearers. As their activities have not interfered with the eco system there and their culture is based on respct for nature and sustainable harvest then it can hardly be criticised from an eco perspectiv. In fact their activities act as a barrier to western economic activity such as logging and oil which are habitat destructive. No we are no longer in the ice age but we are only able to survive in the west by exploitation of such raw materials which are non renwable. The native peoples of the region such as the Evenk howver have to survive in temperature sof minus sixty. They rely totally for financial income on sales of furs including fox hare raccoon dog and of course evenkyian gold...the sable.All the ats of the animals are used too.These furs are to be found in fur auctions in Russia and further afield. It may be not now as productive as China, but nevertheless criticism of the chinese fur trade re the raccon dog...should not be levelled at either these peoples or SAGA which farm very humanely. Fur farming in the west for example is the only method of animal farming which practices ethical weaning of the young.

This is not fur trade propaganda and it is up to you whether you follow the links read them and realise that just maybe is you who have been misled by anti fur propaganda.

I agree that there is no excuse for skinning an animal alive. What is more it would be very unwise to do so unless the animal was drugged. A raccoon dog a mink or a fox is quite able to defend itself unlike a chicken or sheep and there would be absoutly no reason that that would be done as standard practice. The normal methods of culling animals in the fur trade are humane and approved by close veterinary inspection in western countries ad to native people a swift death for the animal is part of their animist beliefs. Cervical dislocation is still one of the most common forms of dispatch and this is instant, as is the much maligned electrocution which is far swifter than the mild electrocution used on cows etc before their throats are slit . Meat is no more necessary than fur and in fact is not as defensible from a point of view of energy....a meat meal gives a few days of energy whereas fur can conserve human energy for generations. In fact many aboriginal people will not kill an animal unless all parts are used and the fur is usually the primary motivation. Even in the Canada almost half the poluation of aboriginal peoples are involved with the fur trade. In Greenland it is one of the main ecoomic activities and to people like the Sami and Evenk it is the only one of significance. What all these peoples and many more have in common is that such a lifestyle protects areas of wilderness and have done for centuries.

I hope this answers some of your questions. User Evenkyia2

Signed for archive purposes only.  William Harris |talk  09:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Issues with "The Raccoon Dog and Fur Trade: the other perspective"

The recent addition of a new section to this article, "The Raccoon Dog and Fur Trade: the other perspective", appears to be biased and unencyclopedic.

Instead of correctly citing references, the section links to a few PDF files and documents from the Chinese government. Politics aside, news releases from the Chinese government are generally regarded by the democratic world as being biased propaganda.

Given that the section is not written to Wikipedia standards, I have placed a noncompliant tag on it. I chose not to remove it because as much as I disagree with the subject, it might be able to be cleaned up and perhaps merged into a better area of the overall article. The "Use for fur" section would be a good candidate.

The section also makes a large number of grand statements that are not backed up with fact. They have been flagged with "citation needed". Also, the author claims to be an "academic" but offers no credentials backing up this fact.

The following statement appears to be a complete fabrication: "Also the fact that the WWF have introduced areas of traditional hunting use in the region as the best method of conservation; where native peoples are able to hunt sable and raccoon dog fox etc and also sell the furs.".

A search of WWF for the phrase "raccoon dog" only returned two hits: http://worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/europe/bulgaria/bulgaria23.html http://worldwildlife.org/bsp/publications/europe/bulgaria/bulgaria32.html

The articles only briefly mention raccoon dogs and neither mention the alleged fact that WWF has "introduced areas of traditional hunting". As such I have removed this statement.

216.232.228.33 03:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Add by entry poster: I beg your pardon in rushing the wiki entry but felt tht the ovrall artcile needed urgent address in terms of balance. I have indeed quoted the Chinese but that seemed in order as it is of interest as a defense. The video by PETA is unsubstantiated ( still as far as I know where it was filmed remains a mystery...hardly an academic link then) but that was posted. I wish to remain anonymous here but am an academic. This is not really my field but my own research (which I am not allowed to link here in any case) has touched on this. You do your own research on google? I am not very computer literate unfortuantely so cannot work out how to list the references , but the citataions your requested are now linked. If you look at the sources when pressing the links they are evident. Yes I agree it is not very tidy but is much needed here if the overall article is to have any credibility. I agree that the overall entry could be merged to give both sides of the argument. I have given reliable and reputable sources here from conservation anthropological and economic sources. I have also given things like th Chinese govvernment reponse and also the SAGA fur link as it is important to hear their defence; my field is not western fur farming but have visited several fur farms and have seen raccoon dog well treated. It is very easy to claim cruelty when there is a plethaera of propaganda aginst the industry posted on the net. The EEC report by top welfare scientists (who are often used as a source to back up animal welfare propaganda) is massively important here and is balanced.

I have now postd the link to the WWF area off traditional use and would be obliged if you would kindly take back your remarks about coplete fabrication in line with wiki policy . Thankyou.

Signed for archive purposes only.  William Harris |talk  09:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)