Talk:Reindeer/Archive 1

ecotypes
I found no mention of the mountain caribou which is an ecotype found in Quebec, in the mountains east of Ungava buy and in Gaspe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.45.146 (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation of peoples
I'm unsure of some translations from Swedish into English. This is my suggestion:

How about Native North Americans? Do they herd reindeers? // Rogper 17:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I have not read anywhere that native americans herded or domesticated reindeer. Paddling bear (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

There needs to be some clarification.
I saw that the entry for "Caribou" transfers directly to that for "Reindeer." While both caribou and reindeer are rangifer tarandus, North American and European useage of "caribou" and "reindeer" are pretty different. In North America, "caribou" refers to wild rangifer tarandus, while "reindeer" refers to domesticated rangifer tarandus. While there is no speciation, reindeer have been bred as meat or draft animals, and so tend to be shorter and heavier than caribou. Moreover, in Alaska, there is legal difference between the two. According to AK Fish and Game regs, there are limits on how caribou can be hunted and how caribou meat and hides can be sold. This is why you'll see a lot of reindeer sausage at supermarkets and restaurants in AK, but you won't see as much caribou on the menu unless you're buddies with a hunter.

I understand that in European useage, "reindeer" is used to describe both wild and domestic rangifer tarandus, but this is not the case in North America. There are also subcategories. In the far north, caribou are often identified as "barren ground caribou." The tundra habitat causes a shift in diet and results in generally smaller animals. I believe that the antler growth and drop dates are also different in these populations, with bulls dropping their antlers around January and cows shortly after spring calving.


 * I've added a short statement on the physical differences between caribou and reindeer and a note on loss to wild herds. Deirdre 01:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"The numbers of Russian herders have been drastically reduced since the fall of the Soviet Union." Can anyone explain why this is the case? --babbage 19:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Reindeer refers to both wild and domesticated animals here in Norway. We distinguish between "villrein" (i.e. wild r.) and "tamrein" (i.e. domesticated r.) - the ending "rein" is of course the Norwegian word for "reindeer" (the word is a Scandinavianism). Norway is the only European country with wild reindeer. --Carl 21:05 9 January 2007 (UTC+1)

The only difference between reindeer and caribou is that reindeer are domesticated. That, and they fly. The distinction is pretty obvious and well-known.+1baka 18:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In Iceland, the reindeer (icel.: hreindýr) are *not* domesticated. And they do not generally fly. (130.243.131.65 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

In my region of Canada caribou is only used to refer to these animals. Reindeer pull Santa's sleigh. I'm always wary when I see "in North America". North America is made up of quite a few different countries. Some people seem to think it just means "Canada and the US" and then go further to lump the two together as sharing the same naming base all the time. Celynn (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

North America consists by definition of Canada and the US; Mexico belongs to Central America as do all the other Hispanic countries north of Columbia. Eurasian Rangifer species are referred to as reindeer regardless of whether they are "domesticated" or not, and have been so named long before Europeans encountered "caribou". Wild tundra reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus, the ancestors of the "tame" reindeer of the Sámi (Lapps) and Santa Claus) exist in Norway and wild forest reindeer (Rangifer tarandus fennicus) that have never been "tamed" in Finland and northwestern Russia; the short-legged subspecies native to Spitzbergen are reindeer and there are further subspecies in Siberia. As regards Santa's reindeer, the QI panel was right: ALL draught reindeer are castrated males; uncastrated stags would be impossible to control especially during the rut, and they lose a large portion of their reserve body fat during the rutting season so they are in poorer shape in the winter than the geldings that obviously do not compete for females. Females are smaller than males and thus weaker, in addition to being pregnant during the winter and having to care for their calves in the spring and summer, so they are not used as draught animals or mounts. Reindeer are also used for carrying loads and in Siberia (where they also pull sleds over the summer tundra) for riding, so their use as beasts of burden is not limited to the winter. --Death Bredon (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Question on species names
I read in an obituary from 1937 that R. tarandus granti -- "Grant's Caribou" -- is named after eugenicist/conservationist Madison Grant. Is there any way to confirm this for sure? It's somewhat interesting to me, since Madison Grant was a pretty nasty guy, and I'd like to know for sure that this was named after him specifically. I'd also be nice to know when it was named after him. But I don't know where to get information like that. --Fastfission 16:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Threatened Woodland Caribou
It is not correct to say that the only unthreatened woodland caribou herds are in Quebec/Labrador. The Yukon and Alaska also have a number of flourishing herds (and a couple of threatened ones &mdash; the Chisana and the [www.taiga.net/projectcaribou/ pdf/casestudies/southern_lakes_study.PDF Southern Lakes herds]). The same is probably true of the northern part of the western Canadian Provinces and of the Northwest Territory. It is true that it has disappeared fromt he southern part of its range, but we need to look into this. Luigizanasi 08:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Distinctions from Moose
I was reading a book called Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer which is about a young man who goes into the Alaskan brush to live by himself (excuse the poor summary, google it). But anyway, while living in solitude, he shoots and kills what turns out to be a Caribou (which is concluded from remains from his campsite). However, the young man misidentifies the animal as a Moose in his journals.

Anyway this error sparked my interests and got me to thinking about what the actual difference between the two animals is. Perhaps someone with more time than myself could write a little section on distinguishing characteristics of the Moose from Caribou. From my quick scanning, all I could find was the greater size of the Moose.

Perhaps I might be getting ahead of myself in thinking that this is important, but I'm sure that if I was to identify a Moose or a Caribou, I would be lost.

I hope I'm not being redundant by posting this in the Talk:Moose too.

Thanks in advance!

Teimu.tm 21:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A moose is much larger, the weight is several times that of a reindeer. And, the moose lives in the forest, while the reindeer thrives in the alpine tundra. The reindeer (caribou) often lives in large herds (can be more than a hundred), not so with the moose. The reindeer can travel large distances in a year. Orcaborealis 22:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Living in the Yukon and having seen both caribou and moose many times, the differences are immediately obvious. By the way, Caribou does not only live in the tundra. Barren-ground caribou usualy migrate to forested areas during the summer, and both moose and woodland caribou live in the boreal forest.


 * 1) Moose are much larger.
 * 2) Only bull (male) moose have antlers, while they are present in box sexes in the caribou/reindeer.
 * 3) Moose are almost always uniformly brown, while the Caribou tend to be lighter on the belly and a more greyish colour
 * 4) Moose have a "beard" and a large hump, (more obvious in the male),
 * 5) The largest feature on the antlers on bull moose is a large "palm" from which most of the points radiate. The caribou have two small palms, one at the bottom and one at the top.
 * 6) the snout is completely different and immediately obvious. Moose have a rounded droopy snout, while the caribou resembles that of other deer in being more pointy.
 * Luigizanasi 03:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please do not add a paragraph to reindeer explaining how to distinguish it from a moose! Next thing, we'll need a note under elephant explaining how it differs from a rhinoceros ... Hugh2414 08:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

63.26.213.191 (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)eric
 * That is a rude and stupid statement that deserves one in kind. Wikipedia has several articles that do distinguish between types of animals. Most notibly leopards and jaguars, leopards and cheetah, rabbits and hares so the list goes on. Both Caribou and Moose are in the deer family, a rhino is not in the same family as an elephant. If you're gonna make a statement at least use proper analogy and back it up with precident, not some half ass statment


 * Right you are! Or a cow and a horse (well, we have the song "Seven drunken nights" - The Dubliners, but...).   Carl S Bj 21:10 9 January 2007

Other differences:
 * 1) Very long legs, which means the body of an adult moose goes right through the window of a car when hit, which is quite dangerous. It happens often in Sweden and Norway. The long legs are necessary since moose are pretty much aquatic animals, in the sense that they spend alot of their time in lakes feeding on water plants on the bottom, sometimes pretty much disappearing under the water while feeding, only to pop up when they raise their heads.
 * 2) A rather ungainly gait. They simply look awkward, with back legs that bend in an odd manner, while reindeer are just like other deer species, with a much more gracious and lively gait.
 * 3) Moose can be quite aggressive and dangerous, just like elk and red deer. They may well attack, especially if they have young. It's best to keep one's distance and have large trees and rocks near by. Reindeer only flee, even when cornered, and they prefer to flee uphill, which means one can't pursue them, they are simply too fast with their strong back legs. They do use their antlers against each other (especially males in rut), but not against humans.

I don't know how curious moose are, but reindeer (especially young and inexperienced ones) can be very curious, and I have shot several because their curiosity was simply too great. When they get closer than ten meters and watch you while you're field dressing another shot reindeer, the temptation is too great to resist. Why hike around in the Greenland mountain wilderness kilometer after kilometer, when your food walks right up to you? Such reindeer never become experienced. The older ones are much more cautious.

You can read more about them in my new article - Reindeer hunting in Greenland - and the comments on the talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Animals in Diet
Uh, how exactly does a reindeer catch a bird??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.230.154 (talk • contribs) 23:45, December 14, 2005
 * Good question. And voles?  I'll add a  tag.  --Rschmertz 08:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I know a scientist with USGS that documented white-tailed deer eating nestling songbirds out of the nest (caught it on film). I just read about a cow that was eating chicken chicks at a farm, and they thought it was crazy, sick or something. I bet it's normal for a wild animal, and this one domesticated animal was more curious or smarter than we wanted it to be. I have also heard that research marking goose nests in the tundra had to stop marking at the next (with flagged stakes) because the caribou were going from flag to flag eating the eggs. So, curiousity does sometimes help get high protein food. Paddling bear (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

Sentence on teeth
I've removed the following sentence from the article:
 * An unusual feature of the reindeer is that it has front teeth only on its bottom jaw; there are molars on both the top and bottom.

for the following reason: as far as I'm aware, this is a characteristic of all deer (and so perhaps should be added to the deer article...  The thing that struck me as the worst offense in the sentence, however, is that this is characterized as an "unusual feature"...  Having grown up with goats (no, not like Romulus and Remus with the wolves :-p  cute tho... ;-) ...and yes, I know that goats aren't deer! ), I can authoritatively say that reindeer having only bottom teeth and molars on both the top and bottom is hardly "unusual". I'm guessing that the 3/4 of the world's population that's familiar with goats will concur that this doesn't really qualify as an oddity. Tom e rtalk 09:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

All ruminants have that, without exception. Surely you've seen a cow? :-)

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 23:01 CEST | 2006/5/13

Cultural insensitivity
Calling an active, everyday customary measure used by an indigenous people "Trivia" in the section title is frankly beyond the pale. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 20:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, come off it. Nobody was insulting Laplanders, and the amount of use something sees is irrelevant. It's as much a piece of trivia as any other local word/etymology is, regardless of who uses it. If you have such a problem with it, you can find a better way to integrate it into the article. --Xanzzibar 20:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fix it, then. Show us, by doing it, where it is best placed. Though I frankly don't see it as being insensitive at all. -- 204.69.40.7 21:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It also seems insensitive to refer to these noble people as Caribou rather than Inuits.--195.93.21.97 23:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This particular bit of information, the length of travel before needing to take a pee break for the deer, really fits more into a reindeer/caribou husbandry article. Re referring to a "noble people" (what are we doing here, talking aristocracy? noble savages? what's with this term?) as caribou, I don't see where that was done in the article. The Gwich'in refer to themselves as "people of the caribou", or of the deer, as they are descended from the caribou per the tribal tradition/history/mythos (not sure of the details, but the people are related to caribou). I don't know that Sami are Inuit--the latter term is used in Canada to refer to First Nations People, and therefore encompasses a broad range of language groups and tribes from different migrations and origins. 'Spose I could look some of this up. Deirdre 19:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I looked it up. Sami are definitely not Inuit; the latter term refers to Inupiat, Yup'ik, etc.; culturally similar peoples in the Arctic ranging from Greenland to Canada to Alaska to Siberia. At least, according to Wikipedia. Deirdre 19:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong image
The animal in "Caribou from Wagon Trails.jpg" cannot possibly be a caribou, it looks like an albino young male wapiti (elk). The shape of the antlers is far from that of a caribou, as they would not have two daggers on the front but more branched ramifications, and the back branches should point forward sensibly and be more branched. It also lacks the small branch that males develop on the forehead: http://www.8wwc.org/images/credits/caribou%20horizontal%20hart.jpg http://www.wyomingoutdoorsradio.com/hauck%20caribou%20horns%20ready.jpg Compare with the wapiti: http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2004outwest/Projects/ReynoldsJ/Images/Elk%2002.JPG http://www.txt.btinternet.co.uk/photo/Elk.jpg The muzzle shape is that of a wapiti too, the nostrils of a caribou should point sideways and the head should be overall thicker: http://www.all-creatures.org/aw/caribou-001.jpg Also the fur is so short, especially on the ears and muzzle, that in order to be a caribou or reindeer it would have to be a completely sheared one, ears included. --Scale 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Avalanche kills 200 reindeer
I am not sure abouth if this should be included in the main article, but some of you wikis might be interested. An avalanche in Dovre National Park in Norway caught aprox. 200 reindeers, maybe more. Most of the dead seems to be pragnant females, which only ads to the tragedy. The link is in Norwegian, but the pics speak for them selves.. --Njård 10:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Famous reindeer
It's interesting to note that all of these animals are fictional. I don't know whether or not we should mention this in the article, but I think it says something about Wikipedia. --Smack (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. They're also only famous in a couple of cultures. Deirdre 00:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think this section should either be deleted, or retitled as something like Reindeer in Fiction. Deirdre 19:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Reindeer husbandry
I have corrected erroneous information about reindeer husbandry; the claim that reindeer have been traditionally bred in captivity is nonsense. Moreover, I also deleted the following passage:


 * "The Laplanders, who use trained reindeer extensively to pull sleighs, use a measurement called poronkusema which loosely translates into "reindeer piss". This is because a reindeer cannot urinate when it is pulling a sled and is prone to urinary tract clogging if it is not allowed to urinate with regularity. A poronkusema is generally 10 to 15 kilometers or about 30 minutes of riding."

First, it makes no sense to include completely peripheral information such as this when the discussion on the whole topic is little more than a stub. Second, in reality the concept of poronkusema is not Sami ("Laplandish"), and even the cited word is actually Finnish and not Sami. --AAikio 09:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Local names
Local names

''In Sami, the male is called sarve, a castrated bull (which in old time was performed by a bite) hierke and the female sex is called vaya. The name Caribou is thought to come from a Mi'kmaq word that means "one that paws (the ground)".''

Where is this taken from? What Sámi language? Does the reference to castrating reindeer bulls through biting them off really belong in this article? How does this differ from how other animals have been castrated before?

If someone would truly like some actual names for reindeer in Northern Sámi, try Magga's Powerpoint presentation or this vocabulary.

And no, the names are not the same from one Sámi language to the next, just as they are not the same from one language to the next in Alaska and Canada and from one dialect to the next: http://www.livingdictionary.com/search/viewResults.jsp?language=en&searchString=caribou&languageSet=all

-Yupik 10:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. I deleted the sentence about Saami names, as it was absolute nonsense. The word sarve is South Saami, but it means "elk". The word hierke refers to North Sami heargi "reindeer bull" or one of its cognates (but South Saami hierkie, at least, means "horse"). The word vaya does not exist in any Saami language. --AAikio 12:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Add-on to March 2011 edit: The forms tuttu (tuttuk, tuttuq) do occur in the eastern dialects (Labradorian, Kalaallisut). But the non-geminated tuktu is definitely the "standard" form. Lucy2424 (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The practice of castrating reindeer by biting does not refer to "biting their balls off", which would be achieved much more quickly and easily with a knife. What happens is that the testicles are carefully chewed to a pulp inside the unbroken scrotum and are eventually absorbed by the metabolism. Since the skin is not broken, there is no danger of infection. --Death Bredon (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Subspecies of the wild reindeer in southern Norway?
I was reading trough this article, and at reading the "subspecies" section, I realiced that I could not find out what subspecies the previously mentioned wild reindeer in southern Norway belongs to. It is my opinion that this is somewhat important, as it is the last remaining wild reindeer in Europe. I am hoping someone who knows will add the information to the article.Neltah 22:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

christmas
Hi, I was going over this article which explains the physics of Santa Claus with my middle schoolers (I teach algebra), and I came here to find out what kind of payload reindeer can bear. What's the horsepower? And what's the maximum payload for a reindeer or reindeer team? If anyone know, could they please add the info into the article, and come to my talk page to tell me about it. THANKS!--Ioshus (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

New article: Reindeer hunting in Greenland
I have finally gone public with my new article:


 * Reindeer hunting in Greenland

-- Fyslee/talk 07:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Subspecies
What is about the other Eurasian subspecies like the Siberian Forest Raindeer (R. t. valentinae) or the Nowaya Zemlya Raindeer (R. t. pearsoni). Is it shure, that they are now included in R. t. fennicus and R. t. tarandus, as it is written in the article?--Altaileopard 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

South Dakota?
Excepting Bear Country USA (a captive population, not wild ones), where can we find evidence that the current mention of South Dakota is true? I'm going to tag it and if it doesn't get backed up by a citation pretty quickly, it should be deleted. -- Fyslee/talk 09:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don´t know anything about a todays occurence in South Dakota and changed that part.--Altaileopard 17:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How to create a good lead
We need a decent lead for this article. I have a rule of thumb that ensures proper coverage in the WP:LEAD:


 * If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead.

Here is a table we can use to help in creating and managing the lead. Just add the headings and create short summaries of the entire contents of the sections. The final result is created by placing all that content in one big paragraph in the order it is found in the table. Then make appropriate paragraphs out of it, and make appropriate changes so it flows as brilliant prose. Have fun! -- Fyslee/talk</b> 19:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Each item should contain no more than one or two sentences that sum up the basic idea of each section in the article that has a heading. The whole thing can then be lumped together and divided up into two to four paragraphs.

There should not be anything in the lead that doesn't refer to specific content in the article. There should not be any elaboration or detail in the lead. Elaboration should be in the body of the article, not in the lead. Sum each section up in two to four sentences, and use them in the lead. Keeping references out of the lead makes the lead easier to read. The explanatory and more detailed text with the refs are found in the article. I don't know of any policy or guideline regarding including refs in the lead, one way or the other, so it's a matter of taste....;-) Since refs are used to document specific content, and since the lead is a short summation in a generalized format, I would see the use of refs in the lead as a duplication of effort. If there are any refs in the lead, they should be kept to a minimum. If a ref is required in the lead, then that might be a symptom that something is being introduced there that is not in the body, which would be improper.

Because articles change and grow, the lead should reflect those changes and be revised accordingly.

Otherwise I think the lead should prepare the reader for whatever is in the body of the article. When they read the article they should not encounter any significant information that was not alluded to in the lead, IOW they should not be totally surprised. If they are then it should be mentioned in the lead.

Wikipedia articles should cover all notable aspects of a subject. When our readers have read an article and then talk to others about the subject, they should be able to always answer "Of course, I already read about that at Wikipedia." They should at least have a basic knowledge of all aspects of a subject, enough to discuss it and not be totally surprised by what someone else tells them. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 19:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A question in need of a quick answer
How fast can a Reindeer run (km/H please)


 * It's in the article. Of course non-North American reindeer may have a different speed and the figure given may not even apply for all North American reindeer. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but it's pretty fast, and irritatingly enough for a hunter they often flee uphill when they can. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 08:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the value given in the article is a little on the high side! I flagged the value as un-referenced recently, and then noticed that somebody (CambridgeBayWeather?) supplied one, but I wonder if this is a reliable source. Perhaps we can verify the reliability of the value? Anyway, in an attempt to address this issue, I came across a study by the Finnish College of Vet. Med. (Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol 267:1209-1216, 1994) which is certainly a reliable source for reindeer studies.... First, I will just mention their findings: They say that 11 to 12 m/s is "near maximal" and 13 m/s is "the speed of the fastest reindeer" measured on a short, straight sprint race. These values (top speed = 46 kmph) certainly sounds a lot more realistic than the 60-80 kmph quoted in the article (at least to my ears!). However, I did not change the article (yet) since there are some key differences in this study; 1.they are studying N. Europe variety of Rangifer tarandus tarandus L. - as noted above, the N. American variety (or wild) varietys maybe different. 2. these reindeer are specifically bred and exercised for racing - but one would expect this to give a higher speed than in the wild. 3. the speed is measured pulling a skier - but since the track is straight and flat and since the skier uses the best equipment and is chosen for his lightweight, i don't think this would make a big difference (i.e. it doesn't account for 46 kmph instead of 80).  I didn't change the article primarily for these reasons - but as I said at the beginning, I do feel that the present estimate is rather high, and I cannot judge the reliability of the reference. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? maybe a good compromise would be to add both sources to the article? (i.e. I could write something like "whilst some estimates give the speed to be as high as 60-80 kmph, a study of Finnish racing reindeer suggests that a top speed around 46....). I appreciate anyone's input on this matter! Quantum.wells 18:22 on 29 Oct. 2009.  —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC).


 * I'm not sure about the reliability of www.ultimateungulate.com. I know it is used in other articles but that doesn't mean it's any good. Howeverm it appears that they got most of the information on speed and distances from and the Red List is a reliable source. I re-wrote the section to drop the ultimateungulate and to only use the Red List source. It still doesn't explain why the they were only able to get 46 km/h for the reindeer in Finland. One possibility is that originally the Finnish domesticated reindeer were bred for pulling rather than speed. I did see that the Red List says that "...but in Europe reindeer are more sedentary." which may account for it. Of course that is all speculation on my part and can't go in the article. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Kerguelen
The article on Kerguelen mentions that reindeer were introduced there also. It might be worth adding to the text seeing as Kerguelen, like South Georgia, is a sub-Antarctic island. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 15:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment
I have assessed this as B Class, although it requires much better referencing and in-line citations, and of low importance, as I do not feel that the subject of this article is essential to understanding Canada. Cheers, CP 17:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

the Map
Is slightly incorrect. In Finland, there are no reindeer to the south from Rovaniemi (approximately). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.253.208 (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wild reindeer in the Northwestern Europe
There are two subspecies of wild reindeer in the Fennoscandic peninsula: "tunturipeura" (Finnish), the 'mountain reindeer' and "metsäpeura" (Finnish), the forest reindeer. As the article says, there are wild mountain reindeer in the large mountain areas of southwestern Norway. There are also forest reindeer in some areas in Russian Karelia and some areas in southern Kainuu in Finland, and also in the northwestern parts of the Middle Finland, the latter having been transferred from the stock of Kainuu during the 1970's or slightly after. The forest reindeer appeared in Kainuu during the 1960's or 1970's, apparently driven by large logging operations in the Russian Karelia.

I don't know of the present situation of the wild mountain and forest reindeer in the Russian side, either in the Russian Karelia or in the Kola Peninsula.

I would also like to comment the comment "The Map". In fact, the reindeer keeping in Finland extends almost to the northern end of the Gulf of Botnia in the west, and the southern border of that area stretches roughly towards south-east, so that the northern part of Kainuu belongs to the reindeer-keeping area. So many Finnish farmers keep reindeer over 200 km south of the latitude of Rovaniemi (which lies approximately at the Polar Circle).

-Tuomas Räsänen 12.01.2008


 * The article suggests that there are no wild reindeer in Europe except in Southern Norway, but the above comment says they are in Finland as well. Are we sure that all the reindeer in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia are domesticated? All of them really? Paddling bear (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC).


 * I really doubt that they are all domesticated. Many places they are free ranging and some will no doubt establish an existence independent of any original keepers they may have had. I suspect they are the ones which are hunted. I have seen them in the forests in Norway, Sweden and Finland. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course there are wild reindeer in Finland. The article describes them in the subspecies list: Finnish Forest Reindeer (R. tarandus fennicus). --Surfo (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "with a singular herd of approximately 50 reindeer living around the Cairngorms region in Scotland" should be removed from the sentence about wild reindeer, and added to the next sentence, which is about domesticated reindeer. 50 should be changed to 150. The word "singular" should be deleted, or changed to "single", or explained. It is hinted that the herd has been split into 2 herds. http://www.cairngormreindeer.co.uk/History/history_1.htm Repagers (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Go for it. I checked out the website and would love to visit the place and hand feed them. I have only hunted them in Greenland (see "my" article Reindeer hunting in Greenland). Two were very curious and approached me very closely (8-10 meters). They pretty much never attack humans. When wild bulls are in rut, and a human comes between them and their harem, problems can ensue, but that's pretty rare, unlike with some other deer species, which can be very aggressive and dangerous. Normally they will always flee, even if they're chased into a corner, rather than attack. One can walk up to them and rope them from very close without fear of being gored. They'll follow...grudgingly! If they are tame, they'll follow like a dog. That's what I've seen when watching them being handled and rounded up. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

More info
There needs to be a section(s) on the ecology, lifestyle, reproduction ect of the reindeer. Bobisbob (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Iceland
Hello little wikibuddies. Our article on Iceland mentions reindeers in iceland but the map in the article leaves the island white. Should something be done about that? Cheers. Ton. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Reindeer in Iceland are by no means domesticated, and never have been, even though they are the descendants of domesticated reindeers from Norway. As a matter of fact it is strictly forbidden to catch and keep wild animals in Iceland at home. Wouldn´t some truth loving person alter this? 157.157.184.170 (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Þorvaldur Sigurðsson

Isle Royale
Hi there. I will delete "and still lives on Isle Royale in Michigan" from the following in the Distribution and Habitat section:

"In the 19th century it was apparently still present in southern Idaho, and still lives on Isle Royale in Michigan."

There are no caribou on Isle Royale, and haven't been since 1925. There are lots of moose, though.

Reference this History of Isle Royale Mammals

Have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.tenharmsel (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I grew up in Northern Idaho and most media for the region have frequently claimed there that the last herd of Woodland Caribou in the United States exists in the Selkirk Mountains near Bonners Ferry. They are now being re-introduced into the region according to the following:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/research/caribou/caribou.htm#cariboufunding

I made a minor edit and put Idaho (in addition to Washington, which is already mentioned) as one of the two states with these animals on the woodland caribou section.--Felt (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Turinate bones
As with the teeth, this paragraph on turbinate bones in the nose warming and moistening air is true for just about all animals, including people. Perhaps it's more important for animals in the far north, but it's hardly a specialization. I suggest dropping it, or at the very least noting that this common feature helps animals such as reindeer that live in cold climates.... I haven't edited wiki articles in some time, so instead of editing it, I'd rather someone more experienced decide. :) "Reindeer have specialized noses featuring nasal turbinate bones that dramatically increase the surface area within the nostrils. Incoming cold air is warmed by the animal's body heat before entering the lungs, and water is condensed from the expired air and captured before the deer's breath is exhaled, used to moisten dry incoming air and possibly absorbed into the blood through the mucous membranes." Paddling bear (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

Anatomy
How do we know this is an adaptation for anything, versus a product of something else? (do the clicks help the reindeer in some way or is it neutral to them?) "The knees of many species of reindeer are adapted to produce a clicking sound as they walk." Paddling bear (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC).

Reindeer husbandry section
I think the article needs a dedicated and accurate section for husbandry (ie. make sub-chapters 3.2-3.3 into a seperate and extended section) because of all the myths and misconceptions that are abundant in countries where the reindeer isn't a native species, but is instead closely related with Santa Claus. I, of course, mean stuff like this.

The fact is that reindeer meat is one of the most ecological and ethical meats for human consumption around with the animal living practically free for its entire life and consuming vegetation that is mostly incapable of sustaining human life as is. The skin of the animal also makes for a good clothing material (carpets, jackets, etc..) - G3, 14:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Importance rating raised
The importance rating was raised for this article SriMesh | talk  03:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why a low rating? Considering its importance in the history of hunting and survival for the human species, it should rate very highly, and the article as well. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Buck or bull?
"Bull" is the common term for a male reindeer/caribou. Here's a good search on an expert site. Another interesting search shows a clear preponderance in favor of "bull":


 * reindeer + bull - 688,000 hits
 * reindeer + buck - 420,000 hits

And a glossary entry:


 * bull

A Google search can give many false positives, but expert sites do use "bull". I don't know the history behind the terminology, but reindeer are more like cows than one would think, and especially their muzzles. I have shot many of them and have been amazed at how the muzzle can be broad and even slimy like a cow's muzzle. There are some variations depending on the species, but that's the type I shot. Very delicious! -- Fyslee (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Reindeer hunting and domestication reconciliation
The comment that leads off the section on Hunting, 'Reindeer hunting by humans has a very long history and caribou/wild reindeer "may well be the species of single greatest importance in the entire anthropological literature on hunting."[15]' is also found in the Wikipedia article on The Upper Paleolithic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Paleolithic) 'Hunting played an important role, and caribou/wild reindeer "may well be the species of single greatest importance in the entire anthropological literature on hunting."[4]' So far, so good. However, the comment in the section on Hunting: "Humans started hunting reindeer in the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods..." is at odds with the comment in the Wikipedia article on the Upper Paleolithic calling the Upper Paleolithic the "Reindeer Age."

The comment: "It is believed that domestication started between the Bronze and Iron Age." is at odds with the date given in the article on The Upper Paleolithic, which dates the domestication of reindeer to about 14,000 B.C.

It seems to me that reconciliation is in order.

I am not an expert, and I am not good at giving references, but this article seems to contradict information I've read elsewhere. For example,in "The Nature of Paleolithic Art," R. Dale Guthrie mentions that there are Paleolithic sites with more reindeer bones than other animals',indicating that reindeer were, indeed, hunted in the Paleolithic. This is more in line with what I've read elsewhere.

I'm new to this. Please be gentle.

AnnDeeQ (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC) AnnDeeQ


 * I don't know about the Mesolithic/Paleolithic issue, but reindeer have not been domesticated. Semi-domestication means that they are not kept confined, but controlled by other means, much like bees. --Vuo (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

wolves as predators
Before I begin, I would like to note that this is my first time trying to add on a comment, so if I screw up, I apologize.

To get onto the point, I have recently read Never Cry Wolf by Farley Mowat for a project in biology. He states in the book that wolves hunt caribou/elk that are in some way disabled because a healthy one can easily outrun them. I stumbled upon this article while looking for something that would tell me about what would happen to caribou if the wolves were wiped out, then I noticed that the article said something about wolves being the most efficient hunters of the species, and it bothered me. Just wanted to say that. Kaira.bear0924 (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You should put the four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your post rather than the start, other than that you're doing just fine :)
 * Wolves are quite efficient hunters, at least on the barren lands where chases can be long and the weaker caribou will fall behind the herd. Grizzly bears are also effective in woodlands and chasing down calves. Be careful with Farley Mowat, he has admitted that not everything he wrote was stuff he actually saw. He is a great writer though, and I loved that book.
 * As far as wolves being wiped out completely, all predator-prey relationships form a complex web. In many cases, removing the "crown" predator results in an increase in the population of the prey species, which then eats all the available food and begins to starve (caribou don't know about family planning); and other species which depend on the same food will suffer as well.
 * And as to being "disabled somehow", there are many factors which can make caribou vulnerable: age (very old or very young); injury (stuck their foot into a groundhog hole, fought too much with another male); parasite load (too many intestinal worms, too many blood-eating flies). Any of these will make a caribou vulnerable. Wolves work in packs, which makes them particularly effective at isolating the weakest member of the herd. Hope that helps! Franamax (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, Kaira. I moved your sig for you. To learn more about the interrelationship between reindeer and predators, and its effect on their survival, you can read the article Reindeer hunting in Greenland, which I authored. It has since been edited by many other editors and still contains much useful information. In Greenland, wolves are not a significant factor in controlling the reindeer population, with them being absent in most of the country, so humans fill that very essential need, with controlled harvesting (hunting) doing the job.


 * While we can't use youtube.com as a source in articles, this one is interesting: BBC Planet Earth - Wolf Caribou Hunt. A wolf or wolves will seek out any animal they can catch, healthy or not. That automatically makes the old, very young, or sick as obvious targets. As you can observe at the very end, the wolf begins to eat the calf without killing it. Dying from a hunter's bullet is a much more merciful way to die. On that topic, here's something I've experienced on reindeer hunts. The calf is obviously alone, its mother no doubt dead. It cannot survive the winter alone, so it would be perfectly ethical to shoot it. Life is tough in nature. -- Fyslee (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A good friend of a relative of mine recently spent several hours poised above a seal breathing hole in the ice, spear in hand, waiting. Nothing happened, he gave up, then noticed that not thirty feet away was a caribou with her calf. Not wanting to come home with nothing, he decided to spear the caribou instead. However, the caribou didn't run away, so instead he walked up to it and slit its throat, then did the same for the calf (which by all accounts was very tasty). From the Inuit point of view, the caribou offered herself as food. Life and death are different concepts when you live on the land. And a bullet or a knife are much more merciful than almost any other death for wild animals. It's a hard concept to understand when living in a city. Franamax (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The map
The map is inaccurate. As you can see, it places at least the southern limit of the European range way too south. The entire Finland is marked in there, although reindeer are only found in Finnish Lapland and in the northern parts of the Oulu province, or the Scandinavian peninsula part of Finland. It's not found in the peninsula of Finland as the map suggests. Similar reasoning can be applied to the rest of Scandinavia. In Russia, the range covers territories as far south as Ingria. --Vuo (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are this map removed from article? Highly relevant, the unaccuracu I think is acceptable due to small scale. (Do not return it to page as I'm afraid of making havoc to the page layout...)Carl S. Bj (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Image bloat
We need to severely limit the number of images. There shouldn't be any that are remotely similar to each other, and they should illustrate significant aspects of the subject. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I removed some images, enlarged the map and the box image and moved some of the others. I think that if some more were removed then those that remain could be enlarged as well. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A big improvement! Thanks. We could even get rid of some more: the "southern-most"; the herd should be replaced with a larger one with more detail; better image of Santa's reindeer; the one "using antlers" is nice, but duplicates an even better one above of a large bull. It could be replaced by one from the hunting article; the one showing moulting antlers is more appropriate for the antlers article. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of images here:


 * Commons

Brangifer (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Milked but not bred in captivity?
This seems confusing to me. Unless there is some fundamental difference between reindeer and other mammals (including cows, which are fully domesticated), a reindeer doe must have a fawn in order to produce milk. How exactly would a tame reindeer doe be kept to produce milk, if reindeer were not bred in captivity? I'm not following the logic here. 75.202.106.209 (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a fine line between what is controlled and what isn't. In reindeer, there was little control beyond hearding and occasional taming of individuals. If I captured a semi-wild reindeer and milked it, I wouldn't have been involved in the breeding in any way. This stands in contrast to cattle and other fully domesticated animals, which have had every aspect of their life controlled, including breeding (as evident in the existence of numerous cattle breeds). For now I have made a slight modification, but mainly because it could be misunderstood (reindeer are now commonly bred in captivity in zoos and alike). Whether further modifications are needed is something I'll leave for others. 212.10.95.14 (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent study on reindeers show they see "UV rays". But which section is suitable in the article?
A study in 2011 revealed that reindeer in the Arctic region are able to see in the UV spectrum, an ability considered useful for finding food or detecting predators in the cold regions where detection in the visible spectrum would be inhibited by snow blindness.

Here is the research summarised from the article, but I'm struggling to find a heading suitable enough to add this information to. Could anyone propose a suitable (existing) heading? Cheers. Eug.galeotti (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Free range area of Caribou / Reindeer in North America
In the map and possibly in the article as well, The free range of the Caribou (Reindeer) is marked as Canada and stops at the line without coming down into the northern United States in the Pacific Northwest region. This is Inaccurate. I have personal seen wild caribou in Washington state while hunting deer and elk in the Randie and Packwood area between Mt Rainier and Mt St. Helens. Caribou are also listed in the Laws and Clearly Marked in our hunting pamphlets with a very strong warnings of their "Protected Status" in our areas. I think the map needs to be properly marked with green down the spine of the Cascades at least as far as the Gifford Pinchot National Forrest extends... which is almost to the Oregon border where the Columbia River makes a natural barrier that may possibly check their migration habits. Moose have also been seen around Mt Ranier from time to time although they are more regularly seen in the northern part of the state. — Preceding comment added by Mr Maranatha (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC) 14:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Mr Maranatha (talk)

Map introduced by The Emirr

 * The Emirr commented on my personal talk page, but since this discussion belongs here, I've moved it and replied. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What makes you say "inaccurate" for this work. The source is IUCN. What about the other's? Have a good day.

 The Emirr  Disscussion   19:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC+3) 


 * I wrote (on Commons):


 * "Just a few glaring inaccuracies are Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland. The actual spread of reindeer in these lands is barely represented in this map. It's so inaccurate that the file itself should be deleted."


 * "The copyright notice also appears to have been doctored by the submitter."


 * You have not responded there, but you can "also" do it here (but should also do it there). Can you explain why these areas, which have reindeer, aren't properly represented on the map, and why the copyright notice seems to have been doctored to make you the copyright holder?


 * As to the IUCN, I have no idea why they have left out so much. Maybe the map is designed to serve some special purpose? I don't know, but it doesn't accurately show the current range of all reindeer species. Even Greenland is woefully misrepresented. The whole Nuuk/Godthåb/Good Hope (capital) region isn't shown, and I've shot 16 reindeer there!


 * Reindeer thrive in Sweden, and the IUCN states they are "regionally extinct", which is BS. They exist and can be quite large. They thrive in most of Norway, central to northern Sweden, and northern Finland.


 * Keep in mind this article is for all reindeer/caribou, whether wild, domesticated, native, or imported. The ones in Greenland have been imported after the last ones died out. I'm certainly willing to hear your arguments, but just citing the IUCN as a RS isn't good enough when the image is patently wrong and doesn't cover the full subject matter of this article. The image we were using is much more accurate. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * These two images seem to represent two different concepts. Current image shows the extent of the permanent populations, whether wild, domesticated or introduced by the man to the wild. The new IUCN image (apparently) attempts to portray the original (pre-human) wild population minus areas where herded population has replaced original population, which is not very specific to our modern day, where reindeer have been herded by men for millennia. I can repeat your above concern by saying that I have visited Finnish Lapland and there were so many reindeer there you really wouldn't believe, but the map claims Rangifer tarandus range does not reach Lapland, which strikes as incorrect to me. Cf. cattle, which lists most of Earth as its "range", although originally Bos primigenius ranged only in parts of temperate Eurasia. The older image is more correct without a question. --hydrox (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have specific information about R. tarandus and it's range. I mainly prefer IUCN as source. And my licence banner completely clear. The source is IUCN, and I'm the creator. It's clear. Let's go back to our main theme. I did it because my work has a source. But the other one didn't attribute to the source. So, how can I trust it? How could you trust it? Show me the source, and I'm going to accept.

 The Emirr  Disscussion   19:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC+3) 


 * http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Artiodactyla/Rangifer_tarandus.html is very similar and lists its sources. --hydrox (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That map is essentially identical to the older one we've been using, but it leaves out Iceland, which means the one we've been using is even more accurate, and is backed up by all the sources which describe the range of reindeer/caribou.


 * The Emirr, do you work for IUCN? Unless you created the image, you cannot claim copyright ownership, yet you have doctored the copyright notice to add your name. I see you've done this with many (if not all) of the images you have downloaded at Commons. Unless I'm mistaken, IUCN retains copyright on those images.


 * Here is the copyright notice from IUCN:


 * 2. Copyrights and ownership The IUCN Red List contains copyrighted material and/or other proprietary information and thus, IUCN Red List Data are protected by intellectual property agreements and copyright laws and regulations worldwide. IUCN and/or their collaborators are the sole and exclusive owners of all rights, titles and interests, including trademarks, copyrights, trade names, trade secrets and other intellectual property rights, contained in the data and software of The IUCN Red List.  You agree to not alter or remove any copyright symbol or other identification concerning authorship of any of the materials contained on or otherwise made available to you in The IUCN Red List. Source: IUCN
 * You have violated the last paragraph and that's a serious thing. You risk getting banned from Wikipedia, so I suggest you immediately fix this matter on every single image. We have permission to use their images, but not to "alter or remove" the copyright notice. If you will replace the images at Commons with the original images (unaltered) and the original copyright notices (unaltered), that might be enough to save your skin. I'm going to copy this information and my comments to Commons, so I expect you to follow up on the matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I just did some more investigation and I discovered an error I made. I thought the copyright notice was originally from IUCN, but it's not. It uses the name of Cypron, a company which makes computer games, but is probably unrelated to them. I'm guessing it's his own copyright notice, so he's apparently on safe ground. Therefore I'm going to drop this whole thing and apologize to him for my error. Otherwise, I still stand by my position (and the position of others), that the original map we've been using here is better than this one. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

typo perhaps
Article currently reads in part The George River reindeer herd in the tundra of Quebec and Labrador in eastern Canada, once numbered world’s largest 8-900,000 animals, stands December 2011 at 74,000 – a drop of up to 92%... but the ref http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/7967 timed out when I tried it. I will try again later... suspect it might read 8,900,000 rather than 8-900,000. Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... a little arithmetic leads me to believe it's no typo, just not very well phrased... Andrewa (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Time span of the species
The infobox says the animal originated only 18.000 years ago, which would make it one of the youngest species in all of the animal kingdom. It's also noteworthy that, if it were that young and presumably first appeared in Siberia, it would have spread a few thousand miles west to Europe and east to America within maybe a few thousand years after the ice sheets receded. Before around 10000 BP there would have been no way they could have reached Norway and Lapland, historical key habitats, from the east/southeast. They don't cross big ice sheets.

The note about the age of the species is unsourced and there's nothing at all in the article itself about the evolution of the actual species, fossils or ancestors. Unless someone can provide something better and scientifically sound the time range note should be removed.83.254.151.33 (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I will have a look to see what is the time range in sources.-- cyclopia  speak!  10:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ : Found a source that pushes it at least to the Günz glaciation, apparently 620,000 years ago. It's a bit of an old book, so it is conceivable older fossils could have been found meanwhile, but I found nothing else so far. -- cyclopia  speak!  10:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)