wolves - your opinon?

[Winstalgia]

You should also understand, while I get your point and etc , We should always remember that people built their homes here, while wolves, a territorial predator/carnivore were being overrun by the human population. I'm not trying to make a point or get anything across to people but I'm perfectly fine with someone defending themselves but wolves kill to defend themselves and eat. Humans do the exact trying but hunting them for sport isn't appropriate for any animal.

[MagicSpyglass]

Wolves are beautiful, just a s a tiger is beautiful or a dolphin is beautiful.

Because only the "pretty animals" are important. I know that wasn't what you were meaning but omg this irks me so bad. People only want to save animals they think are cute or cuddly or pretty or related to our own pets. And while some need our help, people never mention the "lesser" liked animals.

That person who posted the Condor, that bird is one of the most endangered animals on the planet. Or sharks, 70+ species are either Vulnerable, Endangered, critically or extinct. Their species as a whole are some of the most critically endangered species of animal in the world, but dozens upon dozens of countries want them to go extinct or want to kill them solely for their fins. Nothing more. They haven't had humans to coddle them when people realized they needed help, like wolves did.

Or another fish, bluefin tuna, where all 4 true species are Vulnerable +, but people can't eat another fish and would rather hunt them to extinction. That is an animal that would literally recheck its population if we would lessen how much we eat of it.

But people would rather protect the animal related to their dog that doesn't even need help anymore. Honestly it gets depressing after awhile.

This is a list of all Critically endangered animals that are close to extinction and will be within 10 years or so.
Yeah a lot aren't pretty, and a lot are seen as "useless" like fish, insects and the animals everyone overlooks, but in some cases if just one animal goes extinct the whole ecosystem can crash.
Also, notice what isn't on there? Wolves.

I know this is a older post on this thread, but it supports my claim on my previous post.

[Winstalgia]

I thinks all animals are important. Not just the wolf.

[MagicSpyglass]

I thinks all animals are important. Not just the wolf.

Exactly. All animals are important, including Snakes, spiders, Elephants, Vultures, and any other animals not deemed cuddly.

[Winstalgia]

Yes, I know but this is called wolfchat which is why I was referring to wolves and no other animal for the current topic

[MagicSpyglass]

Yes I know. However, I am not going astray from the topic. I am stating that many people focus on wolves when there are many other species to love.

[Crossflare]

I need to point out that wolfdogs aren't just referring to wolf/dog mixes the Saarlos wolfdog is actually a breed not a mix it's full domestic dog. So when you say wolfdog and you put Saarlos in front of it that means your are talking about wolfhound which is not a wolf/dog mix. Several other breeds are also called wolfdogs but do not have wolf in them as they are wolfhounds. Also the Czech wolfdog is also a breed of dog. None of these breeds are wolves or have wolf in them. All are domestic.


Anyway my opinion on wolves is that we need to preserve them but we also need to control their population as wolves don't really have any predators mountain lions don't really prey on them and there are far more wolves than mountain lions. I mean look at yellow stone they've had large packs fall apart for many reasons. but the point is without some kind of balance we risk elk herds getting too low and wolves starving because there aren't enough elk. Ecosystems are fragile and sometimes man has to come in and control it. Even relocating wolves doesn't help they find their way back. Plus relocating wolves could result in fractured packs or individuals not getting along upon relocation. having studied some animal behavior to understand why you can't just relocate a pack you must first understand the the social structure of the pack. Wolves do not have a set social structure, the whole alpha beta and omega stuff was the result of study done with captive wolves that they named Alpha beta and omega. The wolves weren't wild and were not ranked by dominance, scientists do not support the rank theory as it is flawed and has been proven to be untrue. If you do not believe me the information can be found online, I also happen to have spoken to zoologist who works for my college on this. He hates it when people ask about the rankings of a wolf pack because the study is flawed and no longer a valid conclusion for wolf pack social structures due to the experiment looking at captive not wild wolves.

In fact the study can be found here it is now considered outdated http://www.davemech.org/schenkel/index.html

SO before you go saying I am wrong I encourage you all to realize that Schenkel's study is not only wrong but also very outdated wolves do not fight for dominance in a pack at all.

[rootspring]

Yes, there's no such thing as alphas in wolf packs- even the scientist who originally proposed that idea realized he was wrong. For ages scientists have been trying to get the public to shut up about pack dynamics when it comes to dominance theory, but it's such an attractive idea to people that they won't let it lie.