Quote:

Jennifer Marshal wrote in part: but just because a small pack is technically a "family" does not mean there is no order or hierarchy.

Mech point was not that there was no hierarchy but that leadership, for the most part, was held by the parents. As the article points out,"I (Mech) had lived with a wild wolf pack on Ellesmere Island near the North Pole for many summers witnessing firsthand the interactions among parent wolves and their offspring.” Therefore I would not so casually dismiss these assertions.

Norman, I can read, but thank you for the reminder of that detail. I do believe I mentioned that geography has an affect on pack structure. While subspecies of wolves are the same species just as different breeds of dog, region and prey type help determine pack structure and behavior. Wolves in the far northern regions of the world are different from more southern subspecies as determined by where they live and what they hunt. Just because until more recently the only truly wild wolves were to be found up north doesn't mean that all wolves subscribe to the same behavior patterns. No more than to say all dogs are like the German Shepherd.

Of course the parents are the leaders... by default. They are the mature pair. Whether or not that leadership is contested depends on many factors, hence my previous posts.

I'm not a "wolf biologist" but I'm not an idiot and have more personal experience with feral, captive, and wild wolves and wolfdogs than most "dog people."

Jennifer Marshal wrote in part:"I'm not a "wolf biologist""

I realize that, but Mech is.

Semantics.

It could be that he was necessarily brief in his little exercise in term usage, but I can find several holes in his stated template.
And he admits as much when he wanders into Yellowstone.

Randy

Norman,

I greatly respect Mech, I have most of his books. This is like anything else in life, just because someone has been doing something for x amount of years does not mean they are the only person on the planet with knowledge or experience regarding that thing and thus are the only good source of information.

I wanted to be a wolf biologist, but I was not willing to bend to the rules and regulations of the government, I'm not diplomatic enough to kiss a** all the time and play to the tune of politics.

What I found most interesting with this series of studies is that leadership, which Dr. Mech defines as a situation where 'the behaviour of one wolf governs or directs the behaviour of others', is dynamic. While males often led sorties pertaining to hunting and travel and females led activities pertaining to pup care and protection, this was not universally the case (e.g females sometimes led hunts and males were more active in provision of food for pups as they got older).

Personally, I think these studies are an important contribution to our understanding of wolf and even broader wild canid behaviour in social groups. This study (spanning 12 years)was the first in which it was possible to gather quantitative, and not simply anecdotal, observations. Because the Ellesmere wolves have so little exposure to humans Dr. Mech was able to habituate the pack to his presence and thus gather his data.

In cases where multiple pairs breed (even though a review of the literature suggests that these are often daughters of the primary breeding female paired with an unrelated male), he asserts that it would be appropriate to use the 'old' terminology of 'alpha' and 'beta'. However, packs with multiple breeders occur less than 10% of the time, and appear to involve unusual ecological conditions. Due to their relative rarity, comparatively little is known about differences in the biological and social roles of individuals of such packs. I would suggest that it is likely that these young pairs would eventually (e.g. with their yearling) choose to leave and form their own packs, particularly in light of the fact that few wolf packs contain more than one mature male.

I suspect that the analogies drawn between wolf packs and human families in the initially posted article stem from the fact it was written for the popular literature--these comparisons are not present in his original peer-reviewed articles.

Ohh-and for those of you who've humoured my little essay to this stage--

 Quote: Jennifer Marshal

I wanted to be a wolf biologist, but I was not willing to bend to the rules and regulations of the government, I'm not diplomatic enough to kiss a** all the time and play to the tune of politics.

...as an ecologist specializing in northern and arctic wildlife and ecosystems, I can assure you that things are not quite that bad http://leerburg.com/forums/images/icons/default/wink.gif

Heck, I would have given my right arm (and probably leg, too) to be a research associate on that Ellesmere study...

Quote: I suspect that the analogies drawn between wolf packs and human families in the initially posted article stem from the fact it was written for the popular literature--these comparisons are not present in his original peer-reviewed articles. end quote
Seems odd to me that someone trying to change the terminology as well as the popular notion of wolf society would liken them to any human activity at all. It helps not in the least.
As to his thought that the popular idea of wolf society as a bunch of snarling roiling mass fighting for domination is so far fetched it's laughable. Even the most casual musing would bring to mind that the pack wouldn't survive in that environment. He's still in the same mind set that led people to kill the wolf almost to extinction. The salvage beasts. lol

He may well have contributed to the study of wolves as a whole. But talking down to the people who have an interest serves no ones benefit at all.
If we are to call the leaders 'the breeding pair' now (I think he must have stock in an ink factory) what are we to call the rest of the hierarchy within the pack. Friends 1 and 2? Does friend 1 take over if one of the 'breeding pair' becomes maimed or worst in a hunt or other circumstances? Or now is it the family equivalent of flipping a coin?

I've no doubt that the Dr. reported factually what he observed for the packs he was studying. But he admits the frame he's constructed breaks down in other areas.
Contrary to your speculations Isabelle, the Dr. never suggests a percentage outside of his range of study. That being said, even if it is as you say only a 10% deviation, for the small population of wolves left in the world that is still significant as there is such little habitat left for them any number means something of import.

I think his little (continuing) tirade on semantics is a waste of space and of his energies.

Randy

Randy,

 Quote: randy allen

Quote: Contrary to your speculations Isabelle, the Dr. never suggests a percentage outside of his range of study.

To clarify your comment, yes, he does, in his 2000 publication (the link to which was posted earlier) "leadership in wolf packs". I am not speculating.

Regards,

Isabelle

Interestingly, as an officer of the student chapter of The Wildlife Society at my university, we are bringing Dr. Mech as a guest speaker in April.

From Dave Mech's website:

"The concept of the alpha wolf is well ingrained in the popular wolf literature at least partly because of my book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species," written in 1968, published in 1970, republished in paperback in 1981, and currently still in print, despite my numerous pleas to the publisher to stop publishing it. Although most of the book's info is still accurate, much is outdated. We have learned more about wolves in the last 40 years then in all of previous history.

One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf. "Alpha" implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle. However, most wolves who lead packs achieved their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then became their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that's all we call them today, the "breeding male," "breeding female," or "male parent," "female parent," or the "adult male" or "adult female." In the rare packs that include more than one breeding animal, the "dominant breeder" can be called that, and any breeding daughter can be called a "subordinate breeder."

Here is a link to a real paper, not something designed for the general public.

http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/resources/mech_pdfs/267alphastatus_english.pdf

My point is not that Mech is incorrect, only that a change in terminology only seems to be playing to those who wish for a PC world.

I have never thought that the term alpha meant the animal fought bloody battles of dominance over its pack mates to gain that special title. Alpha simply means leader.

Whether or not most pups mature and leave the pack, while there are numerous members there is a hierarchy. Whether or not the "alpha" pair are the leaders of the pack by default - being the parents - or not, they are the leaders. Where there is a leader, there is a follower, and social structure is inevitable else there would be mayhem. Aggression and violence is not a requirement of status.

My concern is that there has been a trend lately that people are choosing to ignore the fact that canids do have a social structure, a hierarchy system.