Wolves and changing perceptions

I blame it on Elfquest.

Ed_Laprade said:

I blame it on Elfquest.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that nobody outside the geek community and less than 50% of geeks have even heard of Elfquest, so nah

you'd have more credibility blaming it on Dances with Wolves

I blame George R. R. Martin and the Starks.

I blame Mowgli, Rudyard Kipling and Baden-Powell

Dioltach said:

So where did this shift come from? Is it simply because people have forgotten what a threat a pack of wolves can pose, simply because there aren't that many of them? When Stephen Fry was in America, he visited a ranch in Wisconsin I believe, where the people were frustrated by the laws naming wolves a protected species -- apparently they'd regularly wake up to find that wolves had come right up to their house in the night and savaged and killed their horses. Not very noble or wise on the part of the wolves, I have to say.

Has anybody else noticed this?

Click to expand...

That ranch was in Wyoming. He visited the dairy/cheese industry when he came through Wisconsin. We may farm, but I would describe "ranching" in Wisconsin as rare.

By the way, we have our own protected wolves as well, though the packs are big enough that some culling is allowed. That's a big change from about 30 years ago when the population was a mere handful.

As far as the change in portrayal - I think it's probably a good thing to stop attributing evil motives or skullduggery to animals. They're animals. They do what they do and what they do isn't always pretty. They're dangerous and remorseless given the right situation. They're predators and that helps drive their portrayals. But it's a good idea to keep portrayals as characters in literature (or even hazards in literature) compartmentalized from them in real life.

As far as ascribing a certain romantic nobility, that is pretty popular here in the US - though admittedly perhaps not too much among people who depend on livestock for their living. Wolves and other wild animals symbolize a certain freedom or independence as well as, maybe, the majesty of the natural world - all of which are popular concepts.

I blame Chuck Norris - Lone Wolf McQuade

Dioltach said:

So where did this shift come from? Is it simply because people have forgotten what a threat a pack of wolves can pose,

Click to expand...

Not simply that, but it is a big factor. I'd bet many wolf supporters would sing another tune if where their kids traveled and played were oft frequented by coyotes, coywolfs and other canid vermin.

miniaturehoarder said:

I'd bet many wolf supporters would sing another tune if where their kids traveled and played were oft frequented by coyotes, coywolfs and other canid vermin.

Click to expand...

We are the ones who crow about how great our brains and opposable thumbs are. If we are not able to keep our kids out of the way of wildlife without killing said wildlife, it isn't the wildlife that's the problem.

I don't know how recent a phenomena this might be. I read Jack London's "Never Cry Wolf" back around 1972 and, at that point, the book had already been out for a decade.

These days the biggest problem with predation, in North America, comes from Coyotes and "coywolves", not actual wolves. Wolves tend to avoid civilized areas.

Anthropomorphizing? We humans do that because that is how we relate, fundamentally. It is how we first understand that the voice on the phone is Gramma or Grandpa. It is why, and how, we can hold video calls. We understand that the image on our screen, and the voice that goes with it, is (a representation, a perception of them from a certain point in space) our friend, relative, coworker, boss, or someone you accidentally misdialed.

It is how we care about stuffed animals, and (relevant to this forum), how and why we can care about numbers on a sheet, and view them as a (subordinate/imaginary/created) personality. It's why even an entire class of tough high schoolers will tear up watching Old Yeller.

But, ultimately, our dog is not human. This is not an insult. It is a statement of essential fact. When a dog looks up at you with what you see as adoration, perhaps might be rendered as (respect/consideration/devotion) due to The Alpha. Dogs, over many, many years, expect humans to be The Alpha. The simple fact is, a dogs' psychology does not match a humans'. And, while you are Anthropomorphizing your dog...Your dog is probably caninepomorphizing you.

Also, to address the human/animal question, or more properly, the sapient/animal question (although humans are the only known sapients, according to scientific consensus as far as I know), there are qualitative structures in the human brain not present in animals, and even entire parts of the human brain not found in any animal. An ape can be trained to use a keyboard, and will use it faster than a human, but aside from the human knowing more words...If you replace the ape's QWERTY keyboard with a DVORAK keyboard, they will have to start over, and learn how to use it from the basics. A human can adjust on the fly, because we consider each keypress as it's happening.

I am not addressing here the many questions of things that can negatively affect the brain and thought; those are outside the scope of considering an unimpaired (per medical terminology) human brain, or an unimpaired (also per medical terminology) animal brain. In addition, I do not here attempt to define myself, in any sort of general sense, what "an unimpaired brain" of any sort might mean.