PDA

View Full Version : Its a wolf eat wolf world- Informative article



DragonicWolf
June 12th, 2013, 09:12 AM
It's a Wolf-Eat-Wolf World in the Wilds of Alaska
Tim Mowry / Fairbanks Daily News-Miner / February 19, 2009


FAIRBANKS - For all the controversy and headlines that Alaska's aerial wolf control program generates, the real killer of wolves in the Last Frontier escapes the spotlight.


Wolves - not hunters, trappers or government-permitted sharpshooters in Super Cubs - kill most of the wolves that die in Alaska each year.


"Intra-specific strife is common," is how Fairbanks wildlife biologist Craig Gardner puts it, after 22 years studying wolves and other critters for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. "Wolves kill wolves."


Gardner, who also traps, estimates that about half the wolves that die each year in Alaska are killed by other wolves.


According to estimates from the Department of Fish and Game, there are anywhere from 7,000 to 10,000 wolves roaming Alaska. In an average year, about 1,250 are killed through hunting, trapping and predator control.


Fellow biologist Tom Meier, who studies wolves in Denali National Park and Preserve, figures that "at least" 60 percent of the wolves that die in Alaska's most famous national park are killed by their canid cousins.
"That, by far, is the most common cause of death," he said.


The number would probably be higher than 60 percent, Meier said, but biologists have a hard time determining how some wolves die because "by the time we get to the carcass, there's not enough left to figure out how they died," he said.


"Some of those are probably killed by wolves, too," Meier said.
The park service tries to keep radio collars on at least two wolves - usually the alpha male and female - in each of park's 18 wolf packs, which enables biologists to track different packs for research. The packs in Denali Park range from three to 20 wolves, and the total population is about 100 wolves.


"We have to put out 20 (collars) a year because so many do get killed," Meier said.



Fang wars
Wolf packs in Alaska may be a symbol of true wilderness to many people, but in some respects they resemble inner-city gangs.
Each wolf pack has a pair of leaders, the alpha male and female. Each pack has a territory, or turf, it marks and defends. Fights between packs are common - and often deadly.


In the past two years, Gardner has documented several fights between wolf packs on the Tanana Flats south of Fairbanks while tracking roughly a dozen wolf packs as part of a study examining lice on wolves in the area. Gardner didn't actually witness the fights, only the aftermath in the form of dead, radio-collared wolves he picked up or injured wolves he spotted from the air.


"There have been some pretty good rumbles," Gardner said.
The latest brawl occurred in October between the Clear Creek Butte and Tatlanika packs. Judging from what he can piece together from his tracking flights, the Tatlanika Pack traveled more than 40 miles out of its territory to end up where it did.


The alpha male and female in the Clear Creek Butte Pack, both of which were wearing radio collars, were killed in the fight, Gardner said. While it's impossible to say how many wolves were killed in the fight, it appeared both packs suffered significant losses. There are six wolves unaccounted for in the Tatlanika Pack, Gardner said.


"All we know is they left with 15 wolves three or four days before the fight and they came home with nine," Gardner said of the Tatlanika Pack.
The Clear Creek Butte pack, meanwhile, had decreased from 13 to nine wolves, he said.


"It looks like a bomb went off in both of them," the biologist said. "I've never seen it where it looked like a hockey fight. It looked like they all just dropped their gloves and went at it."



Bite to kill
More often than not, it's the alpha males or females that are killed "because they're the ones out front doing the fighting," Meier said.
Danny Grangaard, a former wildlife technician for the Department of Fish and Game in Tok who is considered one
of the state's most expert wolf trappers, agreed.


"You rarely see anything but the dominant male or female dead," he said.
Big wolf packs pick fights more than smaller packs, too, Grangaard said.
"When you get a big pack they're a lot more aggressive than a small pack," he said.


Big packs have more big wolves and it's typically the big males that do much of the fighting, Grangaard said.
"If you've got a small pack, you won't have two big males," he said. "But if you get a pack of 16 or 17, there's going to be two or three 120- or 130-pound males."


Typically, wolves that are killed in fights are not torn to shreds.
"They're not all ripped apart, but if you skin them there's all kinds of hemorrhaging (from bite marks)," Meier said.


Both Meier and Grangaard have found dead wolves with teeth holes in their skulls as a result of fights. Nearly all the male wolves Grangaard has found dead from fights have holes in their skulls from canine teeth.
"It's always just one bite in the head and a skull fracture," he said. "There ain't no bite marks on the necks or shoulders.


"Their intention is to kill, not get in a fight," Grangaard said. "When they bite, it's some place that's going to do damage."
Grangaard has come across the aftermath of several wolf fights over the years, both while trapping wolves and tracking them for the Department of Fish and Game. The fights don't appear to last long, he said.


"You look at the tracks in snow and I'll bet that fight lasts two minutes," Grangaard said. "There's very few tracks and a wolf laying there dead."
Defending their turf
It's all about territory.


Fights between wolf packs usually occur when one pack trespasses into another pack's territory, which happens often, according to biologists who track wolves.
Most of the time, wolf packs do what they can to avoid each other, which is why they continually mark their territories, Gardner said.
But sometimes wolf packs get so big they tend to make large movements out of their territories, he said. They go on a one- or two-week foray - or "holiday," as Gardner put it - and end up bumping into another pack. Most fights happen on the edges of territories, he said.


At the same time, Gardner has seen packs of wolves almost deliberately cross into another pack's territory.
It doesn't appear their movements into other territories is driven by a lack of food. Even wolves with plenty to eat in their own area will pack up every now and then and explore a neighboring pack's territory, he said.
Independent wolf researcher Gordon Haber, who has studied wolves in Denali Park for more than 40 years, calls them "extraterritorial forays." Haber said wolves are constantly "probing" adjacent territories and it doesn't take them long to pick up on vacancies, which they are quick to take advantage of.


"It doesn't take them more than a few weeks or even days for them to pick up on that," Haber said.
Neither does it take long for wolf packs to detect intruders in their territories.
"I've always been impressed by how fast resident wolves can detect it and from how far away," Haber said.


He has seen instances where a neighboring pack crosses into another pack's territory and the resident pack picks up on it from 10 miles away, even though the wind is blowing in the wrong direction to pick up their scent.


Several years ago, Haber witnessed two wolf packs meet on the Denali Park Road in what he was sure was going to be a fight as he was tracking wolves in an airplane.
"They just milled around each other all huffed up," he said. "It was the strangest thing. We figured we were going to see fur and blood fly everywhere."



Hungry country
Cannibalism among wolves is not uncommon, either.
While Meier has never seen wolves kill members of their own packs, he has seen wolves cannibalize pack mates after they are killed by other wolves or die for other reasons. He recalled an incident several years ago in which 6-month-old pups ate their parents after the older wolves were killed in a fight.


It's not unusual for trappers to find wolves they've caught eaten by other wolves, especially when they are caught in snares, Grangaard said. Surprisingly, that's not the case with wolves caught in leg-hold traps, Grangaard said, perhaps because the trapped wolves are still alive when other wolves arrive on scene.


"I've had a lot of heads hanging in snares, where the whole body has been eaten," he said, recalling one winter when he lost nine trapped wolves to cannibalism.
Once, Grangaard said, he interrupted a wolf eating another wolf he had snared.
"When he heard me coming he took off and hit another snare," he said.
In recent years, Meier said, he has seen more wolves being eaten after they are killed.


"Last winter, just about every wolf we went to check out was eaten," he said. "I don't think they're killing them to eat them. They're killing them for the territory."


(And here il just add some nice pictures)

http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Wolf-Packs.jpg

Sephiroth-ac
June 12th, 2013, 10:55 AM
An interesting read, informative.
I read this article in 2010 and, just as then, I have to ask the obvious question: Would this 'wolf-wolf killings are higher than trapper/hunter killings' not simply be taken as justification by those that it's fine to continue, if not increase, this activity?

Rail Aybara
June 12th, 2013, 01:39 PM
Wow, I've actually never heard of anything like that before.
Killing for territory seems very important to wolves in nature, yes, but has it always been this bad as for the cannibilising and such? Or had it just recently gotten to this level?
-Roan

hotdogwolf
June 12th, 2013, 02:14 PM
Thank you for posting that Dragonic Wolf. I never seen that happen on any wolf Documentary before. New insight on wolf behavior.

cheetah
June 12th, 2013, 03:31 PM
It's a good way to make up for the lost energy. When you think about it, if there's not that much food, and there's a fresh dead body... hell, if I were a wolf I'd eat it too. Humans are probably unusual in that if we kill each other we won't eat the dead body.

Natsilani
June 12th, 2013, 03:44 PM
Cheetah's probably right about that, heh. Humans tend to be the exception to many of the rules.

I also read this before, last year I think. Not brand-new news, but it's still enough to throw a crutch into the flaming wolfaboos out there and maybe PETA both (cuz they're so against hunting/trapping).

Seph- yeah probably. "Well they be killin eachother anyway so dang-nabbit why can't I shoot a couple dozen from a helly-copter?"

The reasonable person would realize that if they're killing eachother so much, then one needs to cut down on how many lives humans take or else the species will be in trouble. They maintain the balance because they have no real natural predators (bears are more of a rival than a predator). They can afford to kill eachother because noone else is. Once you introduce a predator, such as humans, they might not be able to take the strain. They might change their habits of killing eachother off much too slowly to save themselves.

cheetah
June 12th, 2013, 03:46 PM
Actually, PETA would probably just try to convince the wolves to go vegetarian.

Natsilani
June 12th, 2013, 03:59 PM
XD rofl
That sounds about right. Not for the first time I wish this site let you "like" posts. That one's a keeper.

Cloudfoot
June 12th, 2013, 07:10 PM
Wolves are quite territorial... but I agree with Solomon in that it's not a reason for humans to hunt them more. Wolves are intelligent, but I don't know if they'd change their basic behavior enough to save themselves. Humans are even having trouble with changing their behavior enough to keep it compatible with the planet, and we're supposed to be the smartest of creatures.

Natsilani
June 12th, 2013, 07:32 PM
Humans do the same thing. We have no natural predator ( and if we ever did we killed them off or evolved past them long ago).

So what do humans do? We kill eachother for territory too, we call it war. But if we were suddenly threatened, for example say by an extra terrestrial predator, we would probably forget about our petty tribal warfare to combat a common evil.

But wolves aren't so intelligent. In this scenario, We humans would be the alien race with superior technology, but they don't have the capacity to band together or to forget their nature as easily as humans can. They'd be at war with us and eachother. If humans did that when faced with a superior predator, we would perish all the sooner. The same with wolves.

hotdogwolf
June 12th, 2013, 07:45 PM
Humans do the same thing. We have no natural predator ( and if we ever did we killed them off or evolved past them long ago).

So what do humans do? We kill eachother for territory too, we call it war. But if we were suddenly threatened, for example say by an extra terrestrial predator, we would probably forget about our petty tribal warfare to combat a common evil.

But wolves aren't so intelligent. In this scenario, We humans would be the alien race with superior technology, but they don't have the capacity to band together or to forget their nature as easily as humans can. They'd be at war with us and eachother. If humans did that when faced with a superior predator, we would perish all the sooner. The same with wolves.
Human beings may not have a natural predator but we did have competition from another human species the Neanderthals. Homo-Sapien most likely cause the Neanderthals to go extinct. As for more modern Humans killing each other for territory is no longer true. Only in the past has human beings killed each other for territory. Now its all politics. As for the wolves. If man so wished it. We could destroy every wolf and every other animal on the planet. Man kind has in its past as well as in the present made so many animals go extinct and some to go endangered.

Natsilani
June 12th, 2013, 07:52 PM
It was true only seventy years ago, don't kid yourself, in the course of a species that is a mere eye-blink. It only seems like a long time because we're so finite. And just because there aren't world wars going on doesn't mean there is no fighting going on at all. Politics has become the new battleground yes, but politics lead to action eventually. Look at the middle east for example; the US invaded not for territory, but to secure influence. That is a type of invasion. Wars are still going on, most of them civil. This is because there is no more land to conquer so we have to fight over what we have now, and that's where the struggle of politics comes in; which civil faction is "correct" by means of majority favour? I wager the wars of the far future might literally be space wars, if we ever get that technologically advanced. We can't escape our nature, only suppress it.

And yes we did have rivals, but a rival is not a predator. We eventually absorbed or eliminated them.

hotdogwolf
June 12th, 2013, 08:01 PM
It was true only seventy years ago, don't kid yourself, in the course of a species that is a mere eye-blink. It only seems like a long time because we're so finite. And just because there aren't world wars going on doesn't mean there is no fighting going on at all. Politics has become the new battleground yes, but politics lead to action eventually. Look at the middle east for example; the US invaded not for territory, but to secure influence. That is a type of invasion. Wars are still going on, most of them civil. This is because there is no more land to conquer so we have to fight over what we have now, and that's where the struggle of politics comes in; which civil faction is "correct" by means of majority favour? I wager the wars of the far future might literally be space wars, if we ever get that technologically advanced. We can't escape our nature, only suppress it.

And yes we did have rivals, but a rival is not a predator. We eventually absorbed or eliminated them.
True but what wolves fight over and for are vastly different then what a human will fight for. Humans fight for power and greed. Wolves fight over territory and food. Plus humans have a god complex and think they can rule over everything. Wolves only think about protecting there pack from rival packs and getting food. So I ask you. Which is more civil. Man or wolves.? As for the rivals not being predators. I don't know, Isn't man a predator to his fellow man. So in some way, Maybe not as see it, But that other human species could have been a predator to us in the past just in a different way.

Natsilani
June 12th, 2013, 08:26 PM
A predator is something that kills you to sustain itself, broadly speaking. A rival competes with you for resources. For example, a trout and a tuna may be rivals, but the shark is the predator. Humans are rivals to eachother. I suspect that other humanoid species in the past were also rivals, not predators, but it is irrelevant. We survived, therefore we "won".

I think civility is an illusion, a completely manufactured human thing that has no place in nature. Lions and lambs do not have tea and cookies, as Darwin taught us. Nature doesn't allow for it. Could it happen? Sure. But it's not the way things are set up. Be careful not to romanticize wolves; that's what this thread is trying to warn against, afterall.

Most of what humans fight for is what they think is ethical. It used to be about food and resources, but that day is mostly gone. Will still compete, but it went from the field of battle to the stockmarket. Our way of battling with eachother has evolved with our technology and our social setup. We are now a global village, for example. That changes things.

Wolves fight because it's their nature and they have to. Humans do it because it's our nature too, and because we think we're doing the right thing. But how many kids die from starvation in a year? I would say that humans kill their own population just as nonchalantly, without even realizing it. Or caring. Not through battle, but through politics, through poverty and social class. And we think it's all okay because we love our capitalism so much.

Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked.

I do agree that humans have a god complex. But that just comes from being the top predator around.

DragonicWolf
June 12th, 2013, 09:19 PM
An interesting read, informative.
I read this article in 2010 and, just as then, I have to ask the obvious question: Would this 'wolf-wolf killings are higher than trapper/hunter killings' not simply be taken as justification by those that it's fine to continue, if not increase, this activity?


That is exactly what I was thinking. There would be no need to control the wolf population as they have a natural inclination to keep each other at bay.

I think it mainly would have to do with protecting wild game for hunters. Or if they did tours, people might get upset if they didn't see moose as much as wolves. I dunno, I don't know much about the area the article is mentioning.



I do agree that humans have a god complex. But that just comes from being the top predator around.

Hehe, humans also have a judgemental complex. "I have the capability to see the truth, and the truth is that humans suck and puppies/kitties are the best!"

hotdogwolf
June 12th, 2013, 09:38 PM
A predator is something that kills you to sustain itself, broadly speaking. A rival competes with you for resources. For example, a trout and a tuna may be rivals, but the shark is the predator. Humans are rivals to eachother. I suspect that other humanoid species in the past were also rivals, not predators, but it is irrelevant. We survived, therefore we "won".

I think civility is an illusion, a completely manufactured human thing that has no place in nature. Lions and lambs do not have tea and cookies, as Darwin taught us. Nature doesn't allow for it. Could it happen? Sure. But it's not the way things are set up. Be careful not to romanticize wolves; that's what this thread is trying to warn against, afterall.

Most of what humans fight for is what they think is ethical. It used to be about food and resources, but that day is mostly gone. Will still compete, but it went from the field of battle to the stockmarket. Our way of battling with eachother has evolved with our technology and our social setup. We are now a global village, for example. That changes things.

Wolves fight because it's their nature and they have to. Humans do it because it's our nature too, and because we think we're doing the right thing. But how many kids die from starvation in a year? I would say that humans kill their own population just as nonchalantly, without even realizing it. Or caring. Not through battle, but through politics, through poverty and social class. And we think it's all okay because we love our capitalism so much.

Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked.

I do agree that humans have a god complex. But that just comes from being the top predator around.
Ok I disagree with what you said about it being in mans nature to fight. I think that human beings have so far removed themselves from nature. That man now fights because he wants too. Not because he needs too. Animals fight because they need too. Humans fight because they now have a need to want something and it is no longer just food and territory. As for what you said about humans kill there own population and that how many kids die from starvation. I think that has to do with a lack or a lower feeling of empathy. People know that they can not save the world or the people who live in it. That some people have poor living conditions. So they just make small donations or they just stop caring. As for humans having a gad complex. I don't think it really comes from being the top predator because for the most part humans need weapons for that. You take away the weapons and what you are left with is a prey animal. That has no claws or fangs. the only reason man survives today is because our brains have gotten bigger and they for have helped us manage to survive. I know I left out a whole bunch of stuff on that but I really don't feel like typing it up.

DragonicWolf
June 12th, 2013, 11:40 PM
@HotDogWolf

Thing is, how can anyone really know the things you have claimed about humans? Unless of course one has extensively studied the evolution of human psychology and cultural evolution AS WELL AS animal behaviour and evolution, it isn't really fair to judge any animal , including humans , about how they really work.

You may learn that a lot of your immediate judgement based on wolf love/human hate is actually wrong when you learn more about how the world works, and maybe looking into different philosophies.

And our (human) brains and our weapons ARE our strength. What we don't have is not relevant to what we are capable of. Whether anyone likes it or not, humans are the most dangerous animal on the planet. We can kill absolutely anything when armed with the right tools. Our tools are our natural weapon. We are created by nature. We are nature. We as nature created tools (which are natural) from nature.

A human without a weapon or tool is a tiger without its teeth, claws and maybe muscle. I can just as easily say "A tiger is a prey animal and is weak without its weapons."

There is a lot more complexity and hidden elements in the world that have to be learned and recognized.

It just seems that a lot of your judgement on wolves vs humans are based on the emotional feelings you have for either one.


To say that wolves can get away with 'bad behavior' because they have instincts , and that humans do not have instinct and therefore all their behavior is evil seems pretty biased.

hotdogwolf
June 13th, 2013, 01:04 PM
@HotDogWolf

Thing is, how can anyone really know the things you have claimed about humans? Unless of course one has extensively studied the evolution of human psychology and cultural evolution AS WELL AS animal behaviour and evolution, it isn't really fair to judge any animal , including humans , about how they really work.

You may learn that a lot of your immediate judgement based on wolf love/human hate is actually wrong when you learn more about how the world works, and maybe looking into different philosophies.

And our (human) brains and our weapons ARE our strength. What we don't have is not relevant to what we are capable of. Whether anyone likes it or not, humans are the most dangerous animal on the planet. We can kill absolutely anything when armed with the right tools. Our tools are our natural weapon. We are created by nature. We are nature. We as nature created tools (which are natural) from nature.

A human without a weapon or tool is a tiger without its teeth, claws and maybe muscle. I can just as easily say "A tiger is a prey animal and is weak without its weapons."

There is a lot more complexity and hidden elements in the world that have to be learned and recognized.

It just seems that a lot of your judgement on wolves vs humans are based on the emotional feelings you have for either one.


To say that wolves can get away with 'bad behavior' because they have instincts , and that humans do not have instinct and therefore all their behavior is evil seems pretty biased.
Just look at human history on how humans have treated animals both the good and the bad. Human beings think that just because they are smarter then every other animal on earth. That they think they can treat all other species as if they are just things to be used and thrown away. To your other question on human hate and wolf love. Maybe I do but I do know that there are some humans out there who hate wolves just for the sake of hatting them. Yes I know there are good humans who try and do everything they can to save wolves. So it is pretty much 50/50 on how human beings see and treat wolves. To your other too questions on human brains and humans having weapons. No matter how smart a human is and if you take away a humans tools and weapons they will always be prey even more so then that tiger because a tiger if it lose it claws and fangs that it can still grow its fangs back. To your other question on wolves and bad behavior. I don't believe wolves have bad behavior. It may seem that way to us but I think its more to do with wolves being run by there instincts then by behavior. As for humans not having instincts is not true but the way I see it. Is that humans have evolved beyond the point of being run by there instinct and more by emotions. Which is a bad thing I think because human beings have a very bad habit of going to more the bad side of there emotions then any other. We all know that humans go to the bad behavior more because we all live with them. We see how they react and act with each other on TV and in the news.

Khamaseen
June 13th, 2013, 02:21 PM
Just look at human history on how humans have treated animals both the good and the bad. Human beings think that just because they are smarter then every other animal on earth. That they think they can treat all other species as if they are just things to be used and thrown away. To your other question on human hate and wolf love. Maybe I do but I do know that there are some humans out there who hate wolves just for the sake of hatting them. Yes I know there are good humans who try and do everything they can to save wolves. So it is pretty much 50/50 on how human beings see and treat wolves. To your other too questions on human brains and humans having weapons. No matter how smart a human is and if you take away a humans tools and weapons they will always be prey even more so then that tiger because a tiger if it lose it claws and fangs that it can still grow its fangs back. To your other question on wolves and bad behavior. I don't believe wolves have bad behavior. It may seem that way to us but I think its more to do with wolves being run by there instincts then by behavior. As for humans not having instincts is not true but the way I see it. Is that humans have evolved beyond the point of being run by there instinct and more by emotions. Which is a bad thing I think because human beings have a very bad habit of going to more the bad side of there emotions then any other. We all know that humans go to the bad behavior more because we all live with them. We see how they react and act with each other on TV and in the news.

Tigers do NOT grow their fangs back. I don't know where you heard that, but it's blatantly untrue. Humans, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of crafting a new spear within the hour if theirs breaks.

Humans are animals. Most of our behaviors ARE motivated by the emotions and instincts (which are not separate things as you seem to be trying to imply, emotions evolved as a motivation tool-they are nearly synonymous with instinct, basically, because an emotional reaction is instinctual and is what causes the animal/human-animal to exhibit the instinctual behavior in the first place) we evolved to survive, anyone who takes the time to research anthropology knows this. (I am at uni with a concentration in animal science currently, and was an anthropology major at my former university two years ago, so that's my point of reference here.)

I am in agreement that many humans are arrogant enough to think that all of nature exists for their own benefit alone and can be used and abused as they see fit, but humans are animals who came from nature and are a part of nature.

I agree with DraconicWolf that your perspective is a bit warped in favor of the wolf and against the human.

hotdogwolf
June 13th, 2013, 03:33 PM
Tigers do NOT grow their fangs back. I don't know where you heard that, but it's blatantly untrue. Humans, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of crafting a new spear within the hour if theirs breaks.

Humans are animals. Most of our behaviors ARE motivated by the emotions and instincts (which are not separate things as you seem to be trying to imply, emotions evolved as a motivation tool-they are nearly synonymous with instinct, basically, because an emotional reaction is instinctual and is what causes the animal/human-animal to exhibit the instinctual behavior in the first place) we evolved to survive, anyone who takes the time to research anthropology knows this. (I am at uni with a concentration in animal science currently, and was an anthropology major at my former university two years ago, so that's my point of reference here.)

I am in agreement that many humans are arrogant enough to think that all of nature exists for their own benefit alone and can be used and abused as they see fit, but humans are animals who came from nature and are a part of nature.

I agree with DraconicWolf that your perspective is a bit warped in favor of the wolf and against the human.
Yeah I don't know where I got that too. I should read up on animal anatomy. What I was saying is that no matter if they have tools and are using them that human beings will always be prey animals. Scientists even said that prehistoric humans have been prey for animals like sabertooth cats and other animals. Tell me that's not true. They also said that if it where not for our brain growing that the human race would have gone extinct. Yes humans come from nature, But there is a point in human history that we have moved away from the animals and that humans have started to see themselves as being separate to nature. As for my perspective of wolf against humans. I don't see it that way. If you see how people really feel about wolves you will know what I mean. People who live near Yellowstone lot of them really hate wolves because they think the wolves will ruin there livelihood on there farms because they think a wolf will, ( Yes wolves have killed there animals ) take the easy way out of hunting an animal. the easy way is a ranchers cow. That is not always true, It is mostly sick wolves who can not hunt right that will kill a cow. First of all. I don't think a ranch or a farm should be any where near a national park if a farmer is worried that a wild animal is going to kill there livestock.

Khamaseen
June 13th, 2013, 03:39 PM
Yeah I don't know where I got that too. I should read up on animal anatomy. What I was saying is that no matter if they have tools and are using them that human beings will always be prey animals. Scientists even said that prehistoric humans have been prey for animals like sabertooth cats and other animals. Tell me that's not true. They also said that if it where not for our brain growing that the human race would have gone extinct. Yes humans come from nature, But there is a point in human history that we have moved away from the animals and that humans have started to see themselves as being separate to nature. As for my perspective of wolf against humans. I don't see it that way.

Humans are predators AND prey. We are omnivores, we evolved to fit both roles. Our predatory traits can't just be off-handedly denied, such as our forward-facing eyes, or the long history of cave paintings depicting the hunt.

I still see your perspective as warped and rather uninformed if you don't even know basic animal anatomy like tiger teeth not growing back...

Alliana
June 15th, 2013, 05:47 PM
Yeah, I also agree with DraconicWolf and I think such kind of thinking should be nipped in the bud due to how utterly unrealistic it is in regards to humanity being evil and whatnot. That'd be like saying all the people here are evil since we are all human, whether we like it or not and that's just not fair to stereotype.

It's also true that we are both predators and prey, developing tools to offset our natural weaknesses in order to get the meat that we desired.

Natsilani
June 15th, 2013, 08:50 PM
Well, we are prey untill we use our weapons: our weapon is our mind. Without tools, yes we are prey. But armed with them, we are the apex predator on earth. No other animal on earth can make a bomb; our power of tools makes us the top of the foodchain. It"s certainly true that we can be prey or predator, but that relies entirely on if and how we use tools.

Somnia
June 16th, 2013, 08:59 AM
Moving this over to the Werelist Media Section. Once I have time to read through the rest of the thread I'll put in my own thoughts.

Somnia
June 16th, 2013, 09:37 AM
Look at the middle east for example; the US invaded not for territory, but to secure influence. That is a type of invasion. Wars are still going on, most of them civil. This is because there is no more land to conquer so we have to fight over what we have now,...

I would disagree that humans no longer fight for territories. Hell the Iraq war was mostly fought for the big oil industry. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz). In the news article, General John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007, openly admitted " "Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that." There are tons more information about oil playing a big factor in the war it's not even funny. The information is out there, you just need to research and follow the politics and see who all had to gain from the war.

We fight each other over natural resources all the time which includes whatever territory that resource is in. I definitely agree politics plays a huge role in these wars as well but to say we no longer fight each other for territorial reasons is not true. You have to look at the big picture and how everything fits together.

Khamaseen
June 16th, 2013, 11:04 AM
I would disagree that humans no longer fight for territories. Hell the Iraq war was mostly fought for the big oil industry. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz). In the news article, General John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007, openly admitted " "Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that." There are tons more information about oil playing a big factor in the war it's not even funny. The information is out there, you just need to research and follow the politics and see who all had to gain from the war.

We fight each other over natural resources all the time which includes whatever territory that resource is in. I definitely agree politics plays a huge role in these wars as well but to say we no longer fight each other for territorial reasons is not true. You have to look at the big picture and how everything fits together.

I agree with Somnia. Humans are extremely territorial. Other human behaviors which exhibit these territorial tendencies would include all the US drama about border patrol when you look into some of the reasoning behind it. Another interesting account worth considering would be the actions of our closest relatives - the bonobo - who will wage war on neighboring groups for access to fruit-bearing trees. The bonobo's motivations and the human's motivations in Somnia's above example about oil are very similar. We are not very far removed from our non-human cousins, animals we remain.

hotdogwolf
June 17th, 2013, 01:38 PM
I been watching a lot of wolf documentary on P.B.S and Discovery. I been noticing that they really do not focus on a lot of what wolf pack is which is a family group. The wolf Documentary mostly focus on wolves fighting other wolves as well as hunting. Do you guys think that these nature Documentary that are about wolves leave to much of the information out about how wolves interact with each other as a family.? I been reading on what you guys have posted in the past about how wolves are not just random strangers that form into pack but are more like how a human family is set up.