We respond to Mech (2019) “Do Indigenous American Peoples’ Stories Inform the Study of Dog Domestication” and point out a number of errors and omissions in Mech’s essay. These include: 1) assuming that the behavior of all wild wolves is the same, and can be characterized according only to Mech’s personal experience; 2) assuming that the domestication of wolves took place in only a single location at one time (14,000 yrs BP); 3) misrepresenting the statements and findings of other scholars; 4) assuming that all wolves that have ever encountered humans have experienced persecution; and 5) dismissing all accounts of interactions with wolves by Indigenous Americans. The last of these is particularly egregious and seems to represent a form of neocolonial thinking, in which only accounts and findings by Europeans are considered to be acceptable evidence. Mech’s own work on Ellesmere Island seems to support the idea that wolves can be curious and unthreatening to humans. We suggest that this might be the only actual time Mech interacted with true Canis lupus. In addition, Mech’s statements on wolf attacks and the significance of rabies are shown to be misleading. As a result, Mech’s work, especially his questioning of the validity of Indigenous knowledge, which often provides crucial insights into some aspects of ethnobiological research, represents a critique of methods employed by scholars within the discipline of ethnobiology, whereas, as a wildlife biologist, Mech seems to lack knowledge of the principles of ethnobiology.

中文翻译：

---

新殖民主义思维和对自然的尊重：土著人与野生动物的关系是否与欧洲人不同？

我们回应 Mech (2019) “Do Indigenous American Peoples' Stories Inform the Study of Dog Domestication” 并指出 Mech 文章中的一些错误和遗漏。其中包括：1）假设所有野狼的行为都是一样的，只能根据机甲的个人经验来表征；2）假设狼的驯化一次只发生在一个地点（14,000 年前）；3) 歪曲其他学者的陈述和发现；4）假设所有遇到过人类的狼都经历过迫害；5) 驳斥所有关于土著美国人与狼互动的说法。其中最后一个特别令人震惊，似乎代表了一种新殖民主义思想，其中只有欧洲人的叙述和发现才被认为是可接受的证据。Mech 自己在埃尔斯米尔岛所做的工作似乎支持狼对人类很好奇且对人类没有威胁的观点。我们认为这可能是 Mech 与真正的犬红斑狼疮互动的唯一实际时间。此外，Mech 关于狼袭击和狂犬病重要性的陈述被证明具有误导性。因此，Mech 的工作，尤其是他对土著知识有效性的质疑，通常为民族生物学研究的某些方面提供重要见解，代表了对民族生物学学科内学者采用的方法的批评，而作为野生动物生物学家， Mech 似乎缺乏对民族生物学原理的了解。我们认为这可能是 Mech 与真正的犬红斑狼疮互动的唯一实际时间。此外，Mech 关于狼袭击和狂犬病重要性的陈述被证明具有误导性。因此，Mech 的工作，特别是他对土著知识有效性的质疑，通常为民族生物学研究的某些方面提供重要见解，代表了对民族生物学学科内学者采用的方法的批评，而作为野生动物生物学家， Mech 似乎缺乏对民族生物学原理的了解。我们认为这可能是 Mech 与真正的犬红斑狼疮互动的唯一实际时间。此外，Mech 关于狼袭击和狂犬病重要性的陈述被证明具有误导性。因此，Mech 的工作，尤其是他对土著知识有效性的质疑，通常为民族生物学研究的某些方面提供重要见解，代表了对民族生物学学科内学者采用的方法的批评，而作为野生动物生物学家， Mech 似乎缺乏对民族生物学原理的了解。