Wolves attack people

[Arctodus]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091026125539.htm

ScienceDaily (Oct. 27, 2009) — Although most wolves in Yellowstone National Park live to be nearly six years old, their ability to kill prey peaks when they are two to three, according to a study led by Dan MacNulty and recently published online by Ecology Letters.

The study will appear in the journal's December print issue.

The finding challenges a long-held belief that wolves are successful predators for their entire adult lives. It now appears that like human athletes, they are only at the top of their game for about 25 percent of that time. It also shows that physiology can limit predation.

"Wolves are not perfect predators," says MacNulty, a postdoctoral researcher in the College of Biological Sciences' Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior. "They lack physical characteristics to kill prey swiftly, so they rely on athletic ability and endurance, which diminishes with age. They're like 100-meter sprinters. They need to be in top condition to perform."

By comparison, mountain lions, with their short snouts, powerful muscles and retractable claws, are designed to kill, MacNulty says. Not surprisingly, they live and hunt alone.

In Yellowstone, wolves, who hunt in packs, depend on elk for survival. The finding is timely because the park's elk population is shrinking and wolves are being blamed. Wolves were hunted out of the area in the 1930s and re-introduced in 1995. But the study shows there isn't a strong correlation between the number of wolves in the park and the number of elk killed.

MacNulty says that number fluctuates based on the age structure of the wolf population at any given time. The higher the proportion of wolves over age three, the lower the rate at which they kill elk. For every 10 percent rise in the proportion of wolves older than three, the kill rate declined 10 to 15 percent. He notes that the drop in the elk population is also attributable to drought and to Grizzly Bears.

"Wolves are not the sole factor limiting Yellowstone's elk population," MacNulty says.

When older wolves can no longer hunt successfully, younger wolves share their kill with them, in what MacNulty describes as a lupine version of Social Security. While a high ratio of old-to-young wolves may benefit elk, it could strain the wolf population because there aren't enough workers to support retirees.

Montana legalized hunting wolves after they were removed from the endangered species list in 2007. Although hunting is prohibited in the park, packs wander beyond it boundaries and radio-marked wolves have been killed. MacNulty says hunting won't put the species at risk, but it actually skews the population towards younger wolves, which could mean more deaths, not fewer, for the elk.

MacNulty became a field biologist at Yellowstone after graduating from the University of Colorado in 1995, the year wolves were reintroduced, and focused his doctoral studies on their predatory behavior. He has continued tracking Yellowstone's wolves as a University of Minnesota postdoctoral researcher for Craig Packer, the world's foremost authority on lions.

MacNulty's next step is to create mathematical models to study the long-term effects of fluctuations in the age structure of Yellowstone's wolf population on the elk population. His collaborators include Douglas Smith (Yellowstone Center for Resources); John Vucetich, Michigan Technological University) David Mech (US Geological Survey); Daniel Stahler (Yellowstone Center for Resources) and Craig Packer (University of Minnesota).
Adapted from materials provided by University of Minnesota.

 

[RyanX]

Re: Wolves Lose Their Predatory Edge In Mid-life, Study Shows

I don't have Without Conscience in front of me at the moment, but didn't Hare say similar things about psychopaths in that their behavior tends to mellow out sometime around mid-life? Maybe this was just the violent/criminal psychopath types? That would be interesting if this trait is shared among certain psychopaths and their symbolic 2D brethren - the wolves.

 

[1984]

Re: Wolves Lose Their Predatory Edge In Mid-life, Study Shows

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091026125539.htm

ScienceDaily (Oct. 27, 2009) — Although most wolves in Yellowstone National Park live to be nearly six years old, their ability to kill prey peaks when they are two to three, according to a study led by Dan MacNulty and recently published online by Ecology Letters.

Thanks, Arctodus - it's now posted on SOTT: http://www.sott.net/article_previews/show/59260-Wolves-Lose-Their-Predatory-Edge-In-Mid-life :)

 

[Voyageur]

Re: Wolves Lose Their Predatory Edge In Mid-life, Study Shows

The following is a strange reaction to a post and how sacred cows were employed to a degree by me until the very last moment when a Cherokee legend was found crystallizing the original intent – left the thread as it evolved;

RayanX

…psychopaths and their symbolic 2D brethren - the wolves.

Where did the “symbolic” connection to wolves come from; did I miss this somewhere other than myths and legends?

I have been around wolves for a long time and I don’t necessarily see this as a descriptor. Wolves seem to have gotten a Bad Rap, especially from farmers who decide to set up shop in wolf traditional territory; however a 2 year old male Black Bear most defiantly shows heightened predatory behavior, in fact, they can be quite strange and unpredictable, and humans are, unlike wolves, part of their predatory equation. Some bears, will size a human up in predatory fashion and weigh them within their minds as being take-able or not. The male species of Bear, black or grizzly will play all kinds of havoc on females and their cubs in behavior more reminiscent of psychopathic traits.

Psychopaths in Sheep's Clothing, By George K. Simon, located here; http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopaths_in_sheeps_clothing.htm, does discus overt-aggression and covert-aggression and personalities within. The bible does discus wolves in the negative connotation, but I am not sure that was not part of an edit by a scribe to demonize?

I recall wolves in the Yellowstone as being a very charged issue as bounties were launched and a slaughter ensued and a lot of complaining by all sides as to the causes and effects of wolves in the areas has continued with no real resolve; how can there be with such opposite perceptions? Perceptions that make it just too bad if you are a cow, chicken or a wolf pack respectively.

Elk population wan and wax depending on snow pack (feed source), predator conditions (inclusive of other species), timber canopy densities and even human policies. In respect to the latter, farmers noted a decrease in ungulate species and as that food source depleted, their livestock became at risk. The government biologists in conjunction with recreational hunting managers have made some rather poor decisions. In some areas things like opening the season to cow/calf kills was in vogue and the result was/is that the old traditional female genetics was decimated with the results being that the younger population did not know what to do with the herds, no historical roots of where they should lead them. In a herd of strong genetic female leadership, the females would take the herd into the back mountain drainages, out of the valley bottoms and sometimes to very high altitudes, feeding off fir lichen and such. Because of these genetic interruptions, the herds stagnated in the valleys and were prayed upon until their numbers fell.

The result of this was to vilify the wolves and the culling has been going on since.

Gerry Foster in his ‘Lexicon’ discusses wolves or more appropriately Werewolves in conjunction with Vampires

Werewolves. (Slav). Those born with a crescent-shaped birthmark, wofish tufts of hair or a caul over their head, were thought to be werewolves. The caul was usually kept as an amulet or stitched into the person’s clothing. This was believed to bring luck and keep the evil animal spirit at bay. The Slavs believed that children born with these things possessed magical powers such as second sight and ability to change into a variety of animals. However, they were thought to much prefer metamorphosis into the savage and bloodthirsty wolf.

and

Vampire lore had its strongest hold over the Kashub Slavs who lived east of the Vistula and their southern cousins. In the south Slav states, vampires and werewolves became so entwined that the modern term for them is Vukodlak (wolf’s hair), but, unlike werewolves, vampires are manifestations of the revenant unclean dead.

Actually, thank you RyanX for posting that little symbolic relationship because perhaps this is a factual statement or at least a duality as you will see from this most amazing Cherokee legend that I found as a result of your post – thank you again, I think this may indeed resonate with people as it does show the predator mind and the wolf is being used within as the symbol.

A Cherokee Legend

http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/TwoWolves-Cherokee.html

An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life.

"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.

"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

Here is the same story, but it is called "Grandfather Tells" which is also known as "The Wolves Within"
An old Grandfather said to his grandson, who came to him with anger at a friend who had done him an injustice, "Let me tell you a story.

I too, at times, have felt a great hate for those that have taken so much, with no sorrow for what they do.
But hate wears you down, and does not hurt your enemy. It is like taking poison and wishing your enemy would die. I have struggled with these feelings many times." He continued, "It is as if there are two wolves inside me. One is good and does no harm. He lives in harmony with all around him, and does not take offense when no offense was intended. He will only fight when it is right to do so, and in the right way.

But the other wolf, ah! He is full of anger. The littlest thing will set him into a fit of temper. He fights everyone, all the time, for no reason. He cannot think because his anger and hate are so great. It is helpless anger,for his anger will change nothing.
Sometimes, it is hard to live with these two wolves inside me, for both of them try to dominate my spirit."

The boy looked intently into his Grandfather's eyes and asked, "Which one wins, Grandfather?"

The Grandfather smiled and quietly said, "The one I feed."

 

[Z...]

Re: Wolves Lose Their Predatory Edge In Mid-life, Study Shows

Ahm, when did the wolves become "psychopaths symbolic brethren" and why?!

Most predatory animals could be symbolic representatives of psychopaths, especially members of felidae family, as much as any animal could be symbolic representative of almost any human psyche archetype.

IMO it is a big mistake to get entangled in this, animals live in the world so different then ours, their reality is based on entirely different laws then ours, therefore it seems to me - searching some deeper meaning in similar comparisons is just a dead end.

If we are going to play with symbols- don't forget wolves have always been the Nemesis of shepherds and this is why humanity declared war until extermination upon them.

There is a number of zoologists who spent their life times studying behavior and social structure of wolves. The results were fascinating, shattering many misconceptions we have about wolves.

___http://www.livingwithwolves.org/project.html

just my five euro cents ;)

 

[Nienna]

Re: Wolves Lose Their Predatory Edge In Mid-life, Study Shows

Ahm, when did the wolves become "psychopaths symbolic brethren" and why?!

Most predatory animals could be symbolic representatives of psychopaths, especially members of felidae family, as much as any animal could be symbolic representative of almost any human psyche archetype.

IMO it is a big mistake to get entangled in this, animals live in the world so different then ours, their reality is based on entirely different laws then ours, therefore it seems to me - searching some deeper meaning in similar comparisons is just a dead end.

If we are going to play with symbols- don't forget wolves have always been the Nemesis of shepherds and this is why humanity declared war until extermination upon them.

There is a number of zoologists who spent their life times studying behavior and social structure of wolves. The results were fascinating, shattering many misconceptions we have about wolves.

___http://www.livingwithwolves.org/project.html

just my five euro cents ;)

This is so true. As much as I hate to see anything killed, I still remind myself that these animals do it to eat. They don't go out hunting and killing for sport as man does. To link these animals with psychopaths, especially when they do show compassion for others in their pack, is, in my opinion, wrong.

As CM says, they have been linked as bad by humans who have no idea what they are talking about - which is the usual case.

Thanks for your input on this CM.

 

[RyanX]

Re: Wolves Lose Their Predatory Edge In Mid-life, Study Shows

As CM says, they have been linked as bad by humans who have no idea what they are talking about - which is the usual case.

I'm sorry, but this statement is rather blunt. I recall last spring that the farmer who I purchase a large portion of my meats from had a problem with wolves attacking his goats and sheep. They organized a hunting party to track down the offending wolf from what I recall. I think it would be difficult to argue that they are anything but a nuisance for farmers and shepherds. They might attack other animals to eat, but we are competing for the same food sources it seems.

I also recall several stories of wolf attacks on humans as well. Here is some info:

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans

[quote author=Wikipedia]
Under normal circumstances, wild wolves are generally timid around humans. Wolves usually try to avoid contact with people, to the point of even abandoning their kills when an approaching human is detected,[1] though there are several reported circumstances in which wolves have been recorded to act aggressively toward humans.

Compared to other carnivorous mammals known to attack humans in general, the frequency with which wolves have been recorded to kill people is much lower, indicating that though potentially dangerous, wolves are among the least threatening for their size and predatory potential.

...

During the First World War, starving wolves had amassed in great numbers in Kaunas, Vilna and Minsk and began attacking Imperial Russian and Imperial German fighting forces, causing the two fighting armies to form a temporary truce to fight off the animals

...

A hypothesis as to why wolves in Eurasia historically acted more aggressively toward humans than those in North America is that in the past, Old World wolf hunting was mostly an activity for the nobility, whereas American wolf hunts were partaken by ordinary citizens, nearly all of them possessing firearms. This difference could have caused American wolves to be more fearful of humans, making them less willing to venture into settled areas.

...

Though most Native American tribes revered wolves, their oral history confirms they were attacked by wolves on occasion, long before the arrival of European settlers. Woodland Indians were usually most at risk, as they would often encounter wolves suddenly, and at close quarters. An old Nunamiut hunter, in an interview with author Barry Lopez, said that wolves used to attack his people, until the introduction of firearms, at which point the attacks ceased.

When settlers began colonizing the continent, they noticed that while local wolves were more numerous than in Europe, they were less aggressive.[11] In Canada, an Ontario newspaper offered a $100 reward for proof of an unprovoked wolf attack on a human. The money was left uncollected.[3] Though Theodore Roosevelt considered the large timber wolves of north-western Montana and Washington equal to Northern European wolves in size and strength, he noted they were nonetheless much shyer around man.

In modern times, as humans begin to encroach on wolf habitats more contacts are being recorded. Often the contact is because the person is walking their pet dog, and the wolf pack considers the dog a prey item, inciting an attack.[13][14][15][16] Retired wolf biologist Mark McNay compiled 80 events in Alaska and Canada where wolves closely approached or attacked people, finding 39 cases of aggression by apparently healthy wolves, and 29 cases of fearless behavior by non-aggressive wolves.

Traditionally, Hindus have refrained from killing even man-eating wolves, due to the superstition even one drop of wolf blood spilled could result in a bad harvest.[20] During a 2-year period (1996–1997) in Uttar Pradesh, wolves killed or seriously injured 74 humans, mostly children under the age of 10. The attacks were well documented by wolf authorities.[21] One of the worst cases ever recorded occurred in 1878 in British India. During a one year period 624 people were killed by man-eating wolves.[22] A series of guidelines on avoidance of wolf attacks were written by Yadvendradev V. Jhala and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, both of the Wildlife Institute of India. Vulnerable-aged children, according to Indian researchers, are those between ages 2–10 living in areas where huts are scattered and where vegetation can conceal predators.

Attacks due to provocation have occurred, usually involving shepherds defending their flocks, though none recorded fatalities.[2] Unprovoked attacks by non-rabid wolves are rare, but have happened. The majority of victims of unprovoked healthy wolves tend to be women and children.[2] Historically, attacks by healthy wolves tended to be clustered in space and time, indicating that human-killing was not a normal behavior for the average wolf, but rather a specialized behavior that single wolves or packs developed and maintained until they were killed.[24] Records from the former Soviet Union indicate that the largest number of attacks on children in areas with high wolf densities occurred in summer during July and August, the period when female wolves begin feeding their cubs solid food. Sharp falls in the frequency of attacks were noted in the Autumn months of September and October, coinciding with drops in temperature which caused most children to remain indoors for longer periods.

Habituation is a known factor contributing to some wolf attacks which results from living in close proximity to human habitations, which can cause wolves to lose their fear of humans and consequently approach too closely, much like urban coyotes. Habituation can also happen when people intentionally encourage wolves to come up to them, usually by offering food, or unintentionally, when people do not sufficiently intimidate them.[2] This is corroborated by accounts demonstrating that wolves in protected areas are more likely to show boldness toward humans, than ones in areas where they are actively hunted.

...

Seven stages leading to predatory attacks

Ethologist Doctor Valerius Geist of the University of Calgary, Alberta outlined seven hypothetical stages which lead to wolf attacks on humans based on historical and modern accounts.[28]

* The first outlined stage is scarcity of wild game, be it due to poaching, habitat loss or seasonal migration.
* Wolves begin approaching human habitations, though limit their visits to nocturnal hours. Their presence is usually established by barking matches with local dogs.
* After a certain amount of time, wolves begin to frequent human habitations in daylight hours, and observe people and livestock at a distance.
* The wolves begin acting bolder by attacking small livestock and pets during daylight, sometimes pursuing their prey up to verandas. At this point the wolves do not focus on humans, but will growl and act threateningly toward them.
* The wolves begin attacking large-bodied livestock and may follow riders, as well as mount verandas and look into windows.
* People begin to be harassed, usually in a playful manner. The wolves will chase people over short distances and nip at them, though will retreat if confronted.
* Wolves begin attacking people in predatory fashions.
[/quote]

So while wolves may be less of a predator than some other animal species, I think there is still some evidence that wolves can still be quite dangerous. I feel that the stereotype of the predatory wolf is justified to some extent based on this.

 

[Z...]

Re: Wolves Lose Their Predatory Edge In Mid-life, Study Shows

Hi RyanX - I am not sure I understand what your point is.

Nobody argued wolfs are not dangerous. Of course they are, but not more then any other wild animal. As the matter of fact wolfs will hunt humans only in extreme circumstances, otherwise they like to keep as far as possible. Most of the wolf attacks on people in Europe happen during extremely cold winters when there is no other food around.
There have been at least two recorded instances when wild wolfs adopted abandoned human infant and raised it as one of their kind.
I never heard of this happening with big cats or bears.

From the tone of your reply It seems to me you misunderstood Niena's post and took it personally. My point was simply that we cannot declare wolfs to be human psychopath's brethren- at least not for any other purpose but entertaining theories for our amusement.
Well at least this is the way I see it.

 

[Hildegarda]

Re: Wolves Lose Their Predatory Edge In Mid-life, Study Shows

I think there is still some evidence that wolves can still be quite dangerous. I feel that the stereotype of the predatory wolf is justified to some extent based on this

IMO there's no doubt in that. The question is, is it appropriate to symbolically equate psychopaths and wolves. What I want to point out is that this is a sizable emotional and identificational component in both this comparison and its denial, as this discussion has shown.

From the data given IMO there is an important difference between psychopaths and wolves and probably all other large animal predators: animal predators tend to act in a balance with the ecosystem, they have self-reservation instincts, and and they show social support to each other within the group and sometimes to strangers. Psychopaths, on the contrary, would engage in predation to the point of destruction of everything around and themselves, and they don't care for others, psychopath or not, unless they need something from them.

That being said, for a sheep a wolf is a pretty good symbol of a psychopaths; and since psychopaths often are "wolves in sheep clothing", on some level there's justification in using the comparison for us too. As long as, while talking about the actual wolves, their habitat and their role in the ecosystem, we can do it without preconceived notions.

OSIT

 

[RyanX]

Re: Wolves Lose Their Predatory Edge In Mid-life, Study Shows

Hi RyanX - I am not sure I understand what your point is.

Nobody argued wolfs are not dangerous. Of course they are, but not more then any other wild animal. As the matter of fact wolfs will hunt humans only in extreme circumstances, otherwise they like to keep as far as possible. Most of the wolf attacks on people in Europe happen during extremely cold winters when there is no other food around.
There have been at least two recorded instances when wild wolfs adopted abandoned human infant and raised it as one of their kind.
I never heard of this happening with big cats or bears.

From the tone of your reply It seems to me you misunderstood Niena's post and took it personally. My point was simply that we cannot declare wolfs to be human psychopath's brethren- at least not for any other purpose but entertaining theories for our amusement.
Well at least this is the way I see it.

In Nienna's post she raised the point that people make the association of wolves as being "bad", which I think is justified in a number of ways. Maybe I misunderstood her post, but it seemed to imply that if one were to consider the wolf bad, then one has no idea what they are talking about. The fact that they predatory towards humans makes them bad, but as you pointed out, not all wolves are like this and they are obviously a complex species. I was merely pointing out the other side to Nienna's argument that just because they show compassion towards others at times, clearly they can be quite lethal in other situations.

I understood the point you were trying to make in your post, although I didn't really respond to it in my last post. You are correct, it's not fair to judge all wolves in the manner I described as being the "psychopath's 2D bretheren". I appologize for making the statement in an absolute way as opposed to a question, clearly I was incorrect. The stories you describe about wolves raising children are fascinating and I think it shows how complex a species can be psychologically.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that is the common stereotype to see wolves as predatory in a symbolic way though, especially in stories and fables. Maybe that stereotype is wrong, but it is still a strong one among people. Maybe it would be better to use a bear or a wild cat of some sort? I don't know. I'm not trying to defend a theory here, but point out a potential connection between certain psychopaths and wolves. Maybe this same connection is true of other predatory species as well? Maybe there is no connection, but I don't feel that it is dangerous to bring it up or at least to ponder the question.

 

[Beau]

Re: Wolves Lose Their Predatory Edge In Mid-life, Study Shows

Maybe I'm wrong, but that is the common stereotype to see wolves as predatory in a symbolic way though, especially in stories and fables.

Their is a difference between being predatory, and being psychopathic. I may be wrong, but didn't the C's say that psychopathy is a distinctly human trait? Animals, on the other hand, rely solely on instinct and are hard-wired for survival. It is difficult to fault any animal for doing what it needs to survive in the wilderness. That's a difficult life out there. And why is there such a big deal made out of animals attacking humans? Are we not also edible? They are hungry, we are meat. What other considerations does a predator need to make? I guess the only other factor would be the possibility that their prey could attack them, which is why predators avoid humans for the most part. Not an easy catch, but sometimes hunger overrides everything else.

 

[Voyageur]

Re: Wolves Lose Their Predatory Edge In Mid-life, Study Shows

Very Strange, although not wolves, but along the lines of this discussion, this came out today which is very sad and something that is not common.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/10/28/ns-coyote-attack-died.html

Edited this post to add photos of Taylor Josephine Stephanie Luciow, the 19 year old singer killed yesterday afternoon by two coyotes sometime just before the time this subject post was being initiated.

Oh cosmic mind, may she have a clear path to you.

 

[Nienna]

Re: Wolves Lose Their Predatory Edge In Mid-life, Study Shows

As CM says, they have been linked as bad by humans who have no idea what they are talking about - which is the usual case.

I'm sorry, but this statement is rather blunt. I recall last spring that the farmer who I purchase a large portion of my meats from had a problem with wolves attacking his goats and sheep. They organized a hunting party to track down the offending wolf from what I recall. I think it would be difficult to argue that they are anything but a nuisance for farmers and shepherds. They might attack other animals to eat, but we are competing for the same food sources it seems.

Yes, my bad, I did not use concise language, once again, my apologies.

I thought that since we were talking about wolves being seen as the same as psychopaths, that what I wrote would be understood. What I was trying to convey is that wolves have been given a bad wrap as far as I am concerned. And, once again, I will say that I hate to see anything killed, but I also realize that predators have to eat, too, and until we are out of this density, this is the way things are going to be.

You state that wolves have preyed on domesticated animals. Well, yes they have. But maybe you should also ask yourself why.

I live in the U.S. so am unfamiliar with how things work in other countries. But here in the U.S. when the cattle and sheep ranchers decide to let their animals graze on land, they like to get rid of the animals that they think compete with what their domesticated animals eat. This means that many of the wolf's natural prey are killed to make room for the domesticated animals.

Also, you have humans killing more of the wolf's prey simply to be able to go out and kill it. True, there are a lot of hunters who kill deer, elk and such for food, but there are a LOT who just do it for the thrill of it and all they keep is the head as a trophy. :(

Either way, the food that the wolf usually eats is in far less numbers so the wolf will have to travel a lot more distance to find its normal prey.

Then, you have the fact that most domestic animals are not as fast as the wolf's natural prey. And sometimes they are kept in little pens so that it is much easier for the wolf to catch it. So why run miles and miles to catch a deer when you can get into a pen and have your choice?

So, of course, the human's solution to this is to demonize the wolf and go out and kill it and its pack.

However, all the wolves are trying to do is fill their bellies. They are not "acting" psychopathic. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

I also recall several stories of wolf attacks on humans as well. Here is some info:

Yes, and did you read what you pasted in there?

Under normal circumstances, wild wolves are generally timid around humans.

Compared to other carnivorous mammals known to attack humans in general, the frequency with which wolves have been recorded to kill people is much lower, indicating that though potentially dangerous, wolves are among the least threatening for their size and predatory potential.


During the First World War, starving wolves had amassed in great numbers in Kaunas, Vilna and Minsk and began attacking Imperial Russian and Imperial German fighting forces, causing the two fighting armies to form a temporary truce to fight off the animals

Yes, wolves have killed humans, but they are not the only predatory animal to do so. And, in fact, do so less than other predatory animals. I would say that the only time a wolf would kill anything is if there was a legitimate reason according to the wolf. Food, injury, territorial conflict.

This is nothing like a psychopath who kills, or destroys in one way or another, anything he/she wants to for the sheer pleasure of it and because it wants to.

So yes, wolves are predators, cougars are predators, tigers are predators, but I don't agree that they are psychopathic. That's all I was trying to say.

fwiw

 

[Biomiast]

Re: Wolves Lose Their Predatory Edge In Mid-life, Study Shows

Hi everyone,

On a side note, Clarissa Pinkola Estes associates the wolves with wild women or wild self in a positive way. She praises their life-style throughout the book. There is a passage I have came across a few days ago. The context is about soul-starvation, how society or our families decline to feed our wild nature and supress it, thus starve our souls. I don't know if it is relevant, but here it is:

We can better understand the woman who dives into excesses-the most common being drugs, alcohol and bad love- and who is driven by soul hunger by noting the behavior of the starved and ravening animal. Like the starved soul, the wolf has been portrayed as vicious, ravenous, preying upon the innocent and the unguarded, killing to kill, never knowing when enough is enough. As you can see, the wolf has a very bad and unearned fairy-tale and real-life reputation. In actuality, wolves are dedicated social creatures. The entire pack is instinctively organized so healthy wolves kill only what is needed for survival. Only when there is trauma to an individual wolf or to the pack does this normal pattern loosen or change.

There are two instances in which a wolf kills excessively. In both, the wolf is not well. A wolf may kill indiscriminately when it is ill with rabies or distemper. A wolf may kill excessively after a period of famine. The idea that famine can alter the behavior of creatures is quite a significant metaphor for the soul-starved woman. Nine times out of ten a woman with a spiritual/psychological problem that causes her to fall into traps and be badly hurt is a woman who is currently being starved or who has been critically soul starved in the past.

So I was thinking, maybe those wolves who attacked humans or killed excessively had a reason to do so, and I thought I should share this bit.

 

[Adaryn]

Re: Wolves Lose Their Predatory Edge In Mid-life, Study Shows

So yes, wolves are predators, cougars are predators, tigers are predators, but I don't agree that they are psychopathic. That's all I was trying to say.

fwiw

I agree with this. I mean they don't kill "for pleasure", unlike psychopaths. Wolves "bad"? I'm sure that wolves (and a lot of animals) would deem humans as "bad" too. That's really a matter of perspective :)
Actually (and purely for the sake of the game), if I had to pick up an animal who for me would represent a symbol of psychopathy, I'd rather choose sharks than wolves: solitary, cold predator, no sense of solidarity, a perfect killer. And truly monstrous!

NB: Thanks Biomiast for posting this extract from P. Estes -- I thought about her too while reading this thread.