Wolves evil?

[Sharona]

Wolves have preyed on livestock and are unfairly punished because people think that their lives will be horrible if they just let their animals get killed and eaten.

So... then, you're of the opinion that people who have livestock don't make profit off of them?
.

Let me guess, everyone here is going to jump on me now, right?

Letting wolves kill livestock is NOT okay when people make their living off of their animals.

Am I saying that wolves should be shot? No. Am I saying people should be afraid? No. All I'm saying is allowing wolves to kill livestock is a serious problem. Truthfully, if a wolf went after something of mine, I'd shoot it too.

Nope, not me......

I believe that livestock owners have the right to be compensated for loss due to Wolf depredation. DOW has been a blessing with their Predator Depredation Program, or many more Wolves would have been killed.

I'm with you Koz! ......

If a Wolf or Wolves were going after my Horses or Dogs, they'd be history!

My problem is with the overgrazing on 'Public lands' that destroys the grasslands. It's a darn shame.....
Here's just one Example Of the abuses.

Sharona

[Nazaar]

I don't care what the bible says: lamb = tasty.

Basically I think all the old stories with "evil" wolves come about because of fear, and because they used to be our competitors (a la "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

Lamb of God is also a decent band if you like that sort of music.

True. Lamb is EXCEPTIONALLY delicious. I like it. Especially in gyros...i LOVE Greek food.

Good point. It's just stigma. From the Bible, as well as ranchers/livestock drivers. Wolves occasionally killed livestock, precious gold to ranchers and cattledrivers alike.

Lamb of God is a good band.

[wolfworshipper]

*has the words of Lamb of God stuck in head* No. Not the band. THe song from church when we have communion. Gah! I hate it when that happens!

[opferte]

I hear these arguments, but there are some things I have learned from observing and learning from wolves that I can interact with.

1. Their emotional structure is eerily similar to our own. They don't have the social boundaries that humanity has, but they have the spectrum of emotions that we have. I have simply seen, witnessed, and experienced far too many extraordinary things around them to deny this.

2. They often know more about an unfamiliar human who approaches them than those person's friends. I believe before the garden of Eden was taken from humanity, that we could talk to the animals. (This is actually in the Bible) I don't believe it was verbal communication, but rather something sensed, and I also believe many people retain this ability today. Just because you can't tell what a wolf is thinking doesn't mean he can't tell what you're thinking.

3. To a dog, you are a god-to be respected, adored, and looked up to. To a wolf, you are an equal. If you offend the wolf (And aren't aware) it is up to the individual wolf if you will be disciplined like a wolf. A side note of this-most wolves realize how slow and weak humans are and will not discipline you like a wolf. Some, however, do not care.



Now take the above items and compare them to people in carried wagons who had little food (And what they did have was predated on by wolves). If wolves were dumb predators with no resemblance to humanity, I don't believe they would have been wiped out like they were. Many people don't like to see themselves in the mirror.

Think about this, too: If wolves weren't connected with humanity in a more intimate way than other animals were, why would people have spent so much time domesticating them to create dogs today? And just what are dogs today? They are our friends, our companions, and our comforters, our protectors, etc. Coincidence????

P.S. where did my avatar go????

[GTX]

Nicely put, Ops. And I still see your avatar...?

Wolves are generally placed as evil because it allows people to shift blame on something they don't understand.

Now, what's really ironic about that statement is that any anti-wolf person will come back stating that we, as "wolf lovers", as being sometimes labeled (although I hate that, really), are not understanding of the situation those who suffered because of wolves are in. Again, this leads back simply to blindsided scapegoating.

Yes, wolves DO cause descrution on some level, and they do kill livestock and things like that. So we have to look back and analyze WHY.

So, in taking an un-biased view, we have the following:

Wolves kill things because they can. They are powerful creaters with an instinct for survival. They are VERY territorial and have been known to kill even other wolves who've strayed to the wrong area. With that, survival also means nourishment. Thus, they hunt. Simple as that. Being carinverous in nature, wolves will devour just about anything containing meat, although plant sustinence will suffice in some cases.

A hungry wolf does not think of the disaster of killing a cow (let's say), but rather, sees the other animal as prey. Domesicated or now, a cow's a cow to a wolf. Plus, with the expansion of the human population, in most cases, the cow is part of a field that once was part of a pack's territory. That said, the cow is fair game.

However, the human is a threat to the wolf. Over years of mistreatment, this conditional novelty has been genetically picked up by each wolf generation. Thus, even newbord pups see humans as threats. So, when a human strays onto the unmarked (as far as humans can tell) territory of a wolf, the wolf percieves the threat and will defend to the death. People are unaware of this and can easily be injured or killed.

Right. So, a wolf defending his home. We, as humans, however, have a right to that land no matter what, correct?

As most any anti-wolf person would say, yes. Humans 'own' the land, thus have a right to expand onto it and remove anything that poses a threat. As sentient beings, we have a right to choose what is right or wrong for any other living creature.

However, the fatal flaw in this whole discussion is that humans are identical wolves when the tides turn. Imagine a nation that simply flys a plane into the United States (or whatever country you may be from) without warning. Now, the pilot of that plane speaks a totally different language and will not turn around or leave. Guess what? Well, in the U.S., the plane is either seen as hostile and shot down, or escorted and taken into custody, most likely to be thrown back out, SOMETIMES unscathed.

Another human from another country tries to come into our territory, we take action to prevent it and protect the land.

Aren't wolves doing the same?

I guess looking into the mirror is a frightening aspect for some.

[Shade]

However, the human is a threat to the wolf. Over years of mistreatment, this conditional novelty has been genetically picked up by each wolf generation. Thus, even newbord pups see humans as threats. So, when a human strays onto the unmarked (as far as humans can tell) territory of a wolf, the wolf percieves the threat and will defend to the death. People are unaware of this and can easily be injured or killed.

According to who?

Everything I've ever read on the subject says they are shit-scared of people and will run away from them, attacking only if they are sick/starving/etc.

Possible exception for protecting young, but I haven't seen that addressed before.

And where the hell did the genetic memory thing come from?

[Sharona]

First off...... What happened to DH's reply on this thread

His information on the "Domestication of Wolves" was interesting & he did nothing to merit the deletion of his post

Sharona

[Dark-Hyena]

First off...... What happened to DH's reply on this thread

His information on the "Domestication of Wolves" was interesting & he did nothing to merit the deletion of his post

Sharona

That was me, I thought I'd gone off topic. However, recieving such a compliment from YOU was such a treat, so I'll try and re-write it.

Think about this, too: If wolves weren't connected with humanity in a more intimate way than other animals were, why would people have spent so much time domesticating them to create dogs today?

Current theories actually point to wolves, not humans making the first move in the creation of the dog. In his book Dogs: a Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution, Ray Coppinger writes that rather than being the descendants of kidnapped wolf cubs, dogs originated from wolves who abandoned hunting in favour of scavenging near human villages or encampments. At first they were tolerated as "garbagemen" and sentries, though as the wolves got increasingly more docile and less shy, they were gradually accepted.

Everything I've ever read on the subject says they are sh*t-scared of people and will run away from them, attacking only if they are sick/starving/etc.

Possible exception for protecting young, but I haven't seen that addressed before.

It depends on a number of factors which have doubtlessly been repeated hundreds of time here.

There are however two others which I feel have not been adressed yet;

*The age of the humans involved;

"A number of common patterns emerge from these Fennoscandian cases. Firstly, victims were almost entirely children under the age of 12 indicating that wolves were avoiding adults (Fig. 2). In 85% of cases no adult was present, and the children were generally alone (Table 1). In those few cases where an adult was killed it was almost always a woman. It should be remembered that during this period children were commonly employed as farm-workers and shepherds, which routinely brought them into wolf habitats and into contact with wolves. Secondly, there was no clear seasonal pattern of predation (Fig. 3). Thirdly, the attacks tended to be clustered in space and time. This indicates that human- killing was not a normal behaviour for the average wolf, but was rather a specialised behaviour that single wolves or packs developed and maintained until they were killed."
Link

Five wolf packs have created problems in 63 villages. 80 child casualties occurred from April 1993 to April 1995 and only 20 victims were rescued. All the children were taken from settlements primarily during March to August between 17.00 and 19.00 hrs. There were more female victims (58%) than males and 89% were 3-11-yrs old.
http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/Wolves_So ... _child.htm

In Uttar Pradesh during a 2-year period (1996–1997), a wolf or wolves killed or seriously injured 74 humans, mostly children under the age of 10 years (Mech 1998). This may sound like a tabloid headline, but the attacks were well documented by wolf authorities. Several factors may have led to the attacks including a lack of available wild prey, domestic livestock that were well protected, and many small children playing in the vicinity of the wolves.
http://www.sinauer.com/groom/article.php?id=24

*The subspecies of the wolf;

[i]"Most of the stories we hear of the ferocity of these animals... come from Europe. There, they are dangerous because they do not fear man, since they are seldom hunted except by the lords of the manor. In America, the wolves are the same kind, but they have found to their bitter cost that practically every man and boy carries a rifle..."-“The Yellowstone Nature Bookâ€

[opferte]

That theory is interesting-about the garbagemen wolves.

However, I have noticed something about the wolves. They almost always and universally tolerate people-it is ultra rare for a wolf to show agression towards a person it does not know (That is-I have never seen it, and what has been said about it may be heresay).

There is almost always a specific wolf that approaches visitors to the pens, and the funny thing is-that it is rarely the alpha. In other words, some wolves are predominately more human social than others. HBow they were treated when they were young has almost no bearing on how they act when they are older, with respect to how they greet visitors..

Duh, right?

Well, the most docile, kindhearted, accepting and loving wolf WMS has ever had came from a druglab. His parents had to be shot on spot because they were raised by drug manufacturers, and Apache was going to be put down himself.

He was growling when the owner of WMS found him. He turned out to be the sweetest wolf-going to schools and interacting with kids, for wolf education. Mishomi, the wolf that I love, was isolated supposedly because he tried to kill some of his packmates.

I see it in him, sometimes he just gets angry for little to no reason, but he snaps out of it when I show him no fear, and that I love him even though he is acting like a jerk.

Now, take into account the Russian man who bred foxes-he would breed all of the human nonagressive foxes in one area, and all of the agressive foxes in another. After as little as 3 generations, the docile foxes began to change in appearance-markings on the fur mostly.

The agressive ones-if my memory serves me right-had little to no changes in appearance.

My theory is-that if it was scavenging wolves who first came to human camps, then maybe perhaps these were wolves who were more prone to having positive interactions with humans-i.e. the "nice" wolves. Maybe the wolves that decided to get close to the humans saw things they liked in some of the people.

As tree hugging as that sounds, it's just the truth. I know it sounds disney, but the wolves will single out and select people, go up to them, and saw "you're a good person, I like you, so here's a kiss", knowing full well that the person has no treat, and has nothing to offer that wolf. Who's to say this didn't happen all those years ago?


I also like how that document says that killing people wasn't seasonal-in other words it wasn't a thing where the wolves just decided to up and start doing it. It was probably territorial.

Also, from the Christian perspective, it says in the Bible that all animals know better than to harm a human. But like people, some of them choose to do what is wrong even when they know better. I find it interesting, and wonderful, that here in the United States, wolves have an excellent track record as far as hurting people go.

I mean, even squirrels have attacked more people than wolves have here in the United States. Deer have also injured FAR more people, intentionally, too. And I am fully aware that the Bible has many metaphors about "Wolves in sheeps clothing"... However having to get to know the wolves that I have personally, I realize that wolves did prey on shepherds sheep in those times.

Loss of sheep=bad. Was it evil of the wolves to kill the sheep? Is it evil of people to kill other people in wartime, or in self defense? If wolves were evil, then dogs simply would not mean to us what they do today, it's as simple as that. From a Christian perspective, I don't think God created any one animal to be "evil".

I think that a wolf could make decisions that would influence how it grows up, it chooses to be cranky and angry, or it chooses to go see the people. I am talking to someone right now who is a Bible scholar, and she says that animals naturally don't have a conscience. So I asked her about times I have seen the wolves do things, and then physically and outwardly feel "bad" about it.

She says, it is because they learn from us, and they emulate us-which makes a lot of sense to me. That is probably why when I see wolves in the wild with no human interaction, they almost look like different creatures than the wolves I am used to. If you have ever seen Mireya flirt with someone, you will know exactly what I mean. She acts just like a human, with all the movements of a flirty human, but overexaggerated, like someone in a play, or a musical.

Possibly some wolves watched humans from afar, and emulated them, drawing closer to the camps. Maybe the people in the camps felt that it was amusing, and fed the wolves. I just could see a wolf emulating some of the things it has seen the people do, and the people taking it in, feeding it, and loving it.

Sorry this was so long.

[Dark-Hyena]

There is almost always a specific wolf that approaches visitors to the pens, and the funny thing is-that it is rarely the alpha.

Am I right in guessing that the more affectionate wolves are usually Omegas (scapegoats), who having failed to recieve the affection they yearn from their fellow species, end up searching for another outlet?

EDIT;

I am talking to someone right now who is a Bible scholar, and she says that animals naturally don't have a conscience.

I mean no offence to you, but how many animals has she interviewed in order to reach that conclusion?

[opferte]

There is almost always a specific wolf that approaches visitors to the pens, and the funny thing is-that it is rarely the alpha.

Am I right in guessing that the more affectionate wolves are usually Omegas (scapegoats), who having failed to recieve the affection they yearn from their fellow species, end up searching for another outlet?

EDIT;

I am talking to someone right now who is a Bible scholar, and she says that animals naturally don't have a conscience.

No offence, but how many animals has she interviewed in order to reach that conclusion?

Well, one of the most affectionate wolves is the omega (I'm not sure how it got mixed up, it goes alpha, omega, beta, but it seems that people have got the last two mixed up when it comes to wolves, but whatever). The omega in that particular pack is actually very shy, but he is a loving and good creature.

In another pack, from what I have seen, the omega is often the one to come up to people, although the alpha also enjoys a lot of attention. You made a VERY good point however, about the wolves wanting attention. Some wolves absolutely CRAVE human affection and acceptance, while others could not care less.

The ones who enjoy contact with people are usually the ones who will greet the people, those wolves have made more of a conscious decision to interact with people. For all of my experience, the more aloof wolves have gotten the same attention as the more outgoing ones, but just are wary of their pack structure changing (i.e. a human becoming alpha) or just simply have no longing for human interaction.

However, all of the wolves see us giving them meat, and ALL of the wolves have expressed affection for people, some for a few people, some for almost every person they seee. No wolf has totally shunned people. Put simply, some of the wolves simply "like" people more than others.



None taken. She bases her opinion on what she has seen of animals-how you can teach dogs certain things, and how they learn, and begin to act like people. For example, in the wild, wolves won't bring animal hides over to their friends and cover them up because they think their friends are cold.

However, one night I was thinking "it's getting cold", before going in and spending time with Mishomi. I like to keep a stinky shirt of mine in his pen so he can use it as a security blanket when I am not there. So I go in and lay down, and Mishomi trots over, grabs the shirt, trots back to me, puts the shirt on my back (It is soaking wet, btw), and uses his mouth and his paws to stretch it out on me, so that it is more effective as a blanket.

People can think that I am lying, or exaggerating, or that maybe I was high, but that is the truth. That is what happened. He didn't learn that on his own..

Other times, LaughingWolf here got a play-nip from one of the wolves, and he wasn't happy about it. The offending wolf ran away... The next day LaughingWolf came back into that pen, and the offending wolf, with ears back and a submissive attitude, came up to him and licked where she had nipped him. She was saying "I am sorry!".

[Shade]

Alpha, Omega, Beta? What kind of farked up alphabet did you get that from? Omega is the last letter.

And where the hell did the genetic memory thing come from?

The wolf trust website does offer quite a good explanation which I think is somewhat more honest than the complete dismissal of historical attacks.

"The really fierce wolves were more prominent so were among the first to die, leaving for the most part relatively shy wolves who kept away from people - natural selection in action."

That definitely makes more sense than them just randomly picking up that humans = threat.

[Dark-Hyena]

I find it interesting, and wonderful, that here in the United States, wolves have an excellent track record as far as hurting people go.

Although it has little to do with wolves, I thought some people here would find the following information interesting. Although it seems European/Asian wolves may be more aggressive toward people than wolves in North America, the exact opposite is true for brown bears.

Brown bear is one of the most widespread, well-known and popular animals in Russia. Generally considered the national symbol, it was almost unanimously voted a mascot of 1980 Moscow Olympics. Big and peaceful bear is a favorite character of fairy tales and cartoons. Few people realize that it is the very same species as the much-feared grizzly bear of North America. Although on average bears kill ten people per year in Russia (much more in the years of poor pine nuts crop in Siberia), it is not unusual to see tourists routinely using bear trails, or village girls gathering berries almost side by side with brown bears. If such an idyllic scene happened in America, the bear would almost certainly be shot, and the girls would have to endure a three hour-long safety talk by park rangers.
http://dinets.travel.ru/russianbears.htm

Aggression towards humans varies; in North America, bears tend to be more aggressive than bears in Europe, because the European bears tend to be more heavily persecuted.
http://www.lioncrusher.com/animal.asp?animal=88

The bear is often regarded as a bloodthirsty beast. It seems that this bad reputation has come from the North American Brown bear, the Grizzly. The latter is less shy and much more aggressive than the European subspecies. Biologists suspect that the Grizzly acquired its aggressiveness in the treeless cold steppes of the ice age in order to be able to defend its young from Smilodon and Cave lion attacks.
http://www.euronatur.org/Bears_A-Z.64.0.html

[blueyedwhitewolf]

*turns head uneasily*

wolves aren't evil at all. We may have "evolved" (sorry i still need proof about a missing link) from the chimp but our social structure is all wolf!

the problem with farms and prey is simply that life is hard in the wild and well us humans are trapping prey for them. They don't know its wrong or even that we might come back to kill them for it. But who know's how to solve such a thing?

[Dark-Hyena]

*turns head uneasily*

wolves aren't evil at all. We may have "evolved" (sorry i still need proof about a missing link) from the chimp but our social structure is all wolf!

We did not evolve from "chimps", we evolved from an anscestor in common with the chimp.

Our social structure is "all wolf"? That would be an easy claim to make if you knew little about chimpanzee behaviour.

I'm not going to discuss evolution, merely point out that we do seem to have more in common socially with chimpanzees than wolves. So what if we do? There is no shame in it. It doesn't have to necessarily prove evolution any more than saying that the legend of Ergenekon proves that we came from wolves.

It would be impossible to list every intricate detail of primate/canid social behaviour without dragging, so I'll limit myself to writing what the two animals DON'T have in common.

There is a distinct linear dominance hierarchy in male chimpanzees, and males are dominant over females (Goldberg & Wrangham 1997).

With few exceptions, the majority of primitive human civilizations in the past and today (masai, korowai, etc.) are male dominated. This differs from wolves, where females are generally treated no different to the males and can readily become alpha just as easily.

Meat is social currency used to develop and maintain alliances between adult males; it is usually shared reciprocally and non-randomly (Mitani & Watts 2001).

Meat was, and still is considered a food source of greater value than vegetable in the majority of primitive human civilizations, not just as a form of nutrition, but as a form of currency. Providers of meat were/are higher on the social ladder due to the amount of risk involved in a hunt. Wolves have no choice in the matter, whereas primates show a great deal of willpower to risk their lives for an alternate food source which is more difficult and more dangerous to catch than the more easily aquired vegetables.

Hunting is cooperative, with multiple males involved in cornering and capturing prey.

Whereas the gender of hunters is disregarded in wolves (females are apparently considered better), it is almost universal for human tribes to have solely male hunters.

During the juvenile period, from about six to nine years old, chimpanzees remain close to their mothers but play independently and have greater social interactions with other community members.

Young wolves become fully independant at a mere age of 2-3 years. I think it's obvious who we have more in common with here.

Adolescent females spend some of their time moving between groups and are supported by their mothers during agonistic encounters, while adolescent males spend more time with adult males in social activities such as boundary patrols and hunting parties (Bard 1995).

I've never heard of wolf cubs deliberately sticking to groups of their own gender. As with hunting, s£x is of little consequence to the wolves. Human children on the other hand, like chimps, more commonly associate with members of their own gender.

Highly distinctive behavioral differences between populations of chimpanzees have been observed and documented. These behavioral differences between communities include 39 different patterns of tool-use, grooming, and courtship behaviors and are classified as cultural differences (Whiten et al. 1999). Behaviors are classified as culture if inter-generational transmission of behavior occurs through social or observational learning to become a population level characteristic. That is, these behaviors are not linked to genetic differences among subpopulations nor are they related to ecological differences between study sites. While some behaviors are species typical, such as nest building, others are far from uniform across chimpanzee populations. Termite or ant fishing, which may be the most famous examples of chimpanzee tool use are seen only in some populations while nut cracking behavior is seen only in West Africa (McGrew 1994; Whiten et al. 1999).

Differing wolf "cultures" are usually classified by genetics and morphology. With chimpanzees, it is behaviour and habits, just like in humans. Each culture specialises in something different from the other, with the level of tool use varying in advancement (eg. West African chimpanzees crack nuts, despite being the same species as the rest of the population on the continent). These skills are not instinctive, and are passed down through generations. Human civilization was and still is teaming with a diversity that goes deeper than simple skull proportions and protein sequences.

Apologies if I went off topic.