Myth: Wolves in the Wild Do Not Live As Long As Domestic Dogs Because Of Their Diet

by Jim McBean on December 2, 2009

  • Stumbleupon

A fantastic article, that intelligently and convincingly debunks the myth propagated by pet food companies,  most veterinarians and otherwise uneducated individuals, that wolves in the wild do not live as long as their domestic counterparts because  a wolf’s natural, evolutionary diet is somehow inferior to a modern crap-mercial diet. C’mon man, grab some reality!


Originally article lives here.

The assumption of this claim is that the diet of wolves shortens their lifespan and that we therefore should not feed this diet to dogs. However, this is another example of faulty reasoning and false logic. Yes, wolves do not live as long in the wild as their domestic counterparts, but this is NOT because of the food they eat. Why would nature design an animal to be sustained on a diet that inevitably kills it? How could eating what it was designed and has evolved to eat decrease a wolf’s lifespan? Its diet is what keeps a wolf alive! If it did not eat, how would it live? These questions aside, we must look at how absurd it is to link wolf longevity solely to diet.

Living in the wild is a tough job. Wild wolves face the brunt of nature and must deal with the bitter elements every single day—heat, cold, rain, storms, blizzards, ice storms, etc. They also must deal with the high energetic costs associated with bringing down huge herbivores like elk, deer, and moose. They also encounter intraspecific competition for food among other wolves in addition to interspecific competition with bears, cougars, and humans. They face predation, habitat loss, and prey loss by humans as well as a decreasing environmental quality in habitat and food. They also must deal with parasites (every wild animal has them and usually coexists quite peacefully with them), with foreign toxic pollutants, with wolf-wolf altercations, with wolf-prey altercations, with wolf-other carnivore or scavenger altercations, and with increasing encroachment and habitat destruction by humans. They face a sporadic prey supply and starvation routinely and may go several weeks without food. In spite of all this they can still thrive well enough to expend precious energy in reproductive forays, producing litters of healthy pups and creating an increased demand for food. These are the reasons a wolf’s lifespan in the wild is shorter, NOT because of its diet. It is precisely their diet and genetic hardiness that keeps them alive, even in the face of disease. It is not that their food is somehow lacking and incapable of sustaining them, but that they cannot always get enough of that food to meet all their metabolic requirements. It is that very food that fills, heals, and sustains them. Hopefully you can now see how ludicrous it is to assume diet is the reason for a decreased lifespan in the wild.

When we look at our domesticated wolf companions—our dogs—this lifespan issue becomes a moot point. Our dogs do not live in the wild and therefore do not face most of the energetically costly factors wolves face. Our dogs live comfortably in our homes where they should always receive enough food and care, and where the raw food they need can be obtained from parasite-free sources. Just look at the example set by Jerry, the 27-year-old raw-fed Australian cattle dog-bull terrier mix of the Australian Outback (Outback Mongrel Could Be Oldest Dog. USA Today. 7-13-2004.). To see the full text story, please click here (if this link does not work, please tell me; it may mean the story has moved elsewhere).

  1. Dogs are Wolves and Wolves are Carnivores, So….
  2. Book Review: Real Dogs Don’t Eat Kibble
  3. The Dalmatian Diet
  • Very interesting article.
  • Honestly I'm blown away by the resistance some people have when it comes to feeding raw, not to mention the propaganda spewed by pet food companies and veterinarians against this healthier diet. What did dogs and cats eat prior to the emergence of dog "food" companies?

    Big money = the ability to brainwash.
  • You are right.

    You know, we recently changed our pet's (five of them) diet. We had a very hard time finding food in the local pet stores that had anything of actual substance in it. So many foods are filled with byproducts and fillers, nothing real or healthy. We were shocked.

    I am sad to say, we never really educated ourselves on the contents of pet foods until one of our dogs was diagnosed with a gluten allergy.
  • Good for you guys for making the switch. =]

    It's funny (not really I guess), but with the whole Menu Foods debacle a couple of years ago, we seen most pet food manufacturers moving away from including wheat in their formulations. Of course the only purpose of including wheat in the first place was because it provided a cheap filler and they could also boast a higher protein yeild ( crappy quality from the wheat), on the bag. These days, instead of wheat, you see sweet potato and peas in the formulations. Just another cheap filler, and one that would not be seen in a pre-commercial pet food world.

    Oh, and now this: Beware Raw Feeders, New Legislation Detrimental http://bit.ly/8rdMSC
  • Yep, cheap fillers are in all of the foods we saw. We researched for a long time what cats and dogs should actually be eating to be healthy and happy. We tried to find those products in the right percentages in foods at pet stores, and it was HARD. Really hard.

    As for that legislation. That is bologna. If parents can choose what to feed their children, then we should be able to decide what to feed our pets.

    Technically we used to be able to eat raw too. That is actually what our appendix was for. However, we evolved out of needing our appendix to clean out any harmful parasites and bacteria from raw food. Thus, our appendix is just in our bodies not being used.

    Well, animals haven't evolved out of their ability to consume raw food yet. Not from what I have read online. Of course there can be some dangers. With all of the packed pet foods being recalled over the years, though, it seems there are dangers on both ends.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: