I, surprise surprise, disagree. The camera crew more than likely had no close contact with the animals at all. Unless you guys think that when wildlife is filmed the crew has to be right on top of them? Wouldn't be a very good idea when filming lions eating or cape buffalo. Ever heard of a thing called a zoom lens? Sound can be captured with various objects and doesn't require a boom.

Oh and for tolerance/friendly to humans simpy from human exposure, do any of you guys think that just because a wildlife biologist or researcher photographs, follows, and documents certain animals, that those animals just get used to people and don't care? They get used to individuals. If all animals generalized the way you guys are describing a lot of animals would have been extinct long ago. Human presence does not mean an animal becomes friendly.

Friendly, I almost spit my water out when I read that. Even captive wolves kept with humans, socialized with humans every single day of their lives are not friendly to all humans. They aren't even tolerant of all humans. Anyone new is met with suspicion and avoidance unless accompanying a human they have already accepted, or the alpha.

I'm done with this thread, it's become pointless. Just too bad that due to this thread I've lost respect for some people on the board. But don't you worry. I'm not going anywhere

 Quote: jennifer marshal

Friendly, I almost spit my water out when I read that. Even captive wolves kept with humans, socialized with humans every single day of their lives are not friendly to all humans. They aren't even tolerant of all humans. Anyone new is met with suspicion and avoidance unless accompanying a human they have already accepted, or the alpha.

This is absolutely true, and it should be obvious. Don't we all know that wolf hybrids are dangerous? Have we forgotten that it's because of the word "wolf", not the word "hybrid"? More dominant, more mouthy, and more likely to be handler aggressive, DESPITE being bred to a domesticated cousin, and being raised by humans.

But a pack of wolves is going to be friendly to humans because they see five people at close range a few times a week?

Silliness. Also, is it reasonable to question anthropological methods that have been around for decades, if not centuries? Look at Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey...if living with and observing animals at close range in their natural habitat isn't scientific...well...

Oh no, I'm losing stars now.LOL.

Here ya go Steve, have a star

Thanks Yuko. I owe you. LOL.

Nah... just ship me Andy and we'll call it even hahaha

Thats a little steep.

Just let me play with him for a few days. I'll put on a sleeve and let 'im bite me. I'll feed him whole rabbits. He can romp in the snow. He'll have a great time, I promise - and I'll send him back promptly


Hmm, I'd better say something about the actual topic. Um, yes, I'm sure that much can be learned about pack drive and wolf behaviour from the guy's work. Maybe he can even publish a study on pack drive for that Ben Colbert fellow who insisted on seeing "proof" :-)

It does seem more publicity-stunt-ish than your typical scientific study, but hopefully it will get the average pet owner to pay more attention to their dogs' pack drive.

I for one am curious to see how effective the wolf recordings are at keeping packs away from ranchers etc. Could be a very useful tool for conservation.

Edit: I don't have National Geographic channel, nor do I watch much TV anyway. I'd rather just read the published results of the guy's work and skip the whole "man playing around with wildlife" drama.

 Quote: Yuko Blum

Just let me play with him for a few days. I'll put on a sleeve and let 'im bite me. I'll feed him whole rabbits. He can romp in the snow. He'll have a great time, I promise - and I'll send him back promptly

If you can help with his tracking I'll ship him tomorrow.

Can't help you there. Still haven't managed to get my own dog to track properly.

Sigh. I guess that means no Andy for me then... oh well