Talk:Wolf

Suggested Correction to Behavior

Within the topic of "Behavior," under the subtopic "Social Structure," the final line of the section states: "one study concluding that 14–65% of wolf deaths in Minnesota and the Denali National Park and Preserve were due to other wolves." However, the study actually states that "39%—65% of total mortality" (Mech, 1998) was due to other wolves. The "14%" comes in the following sentences, in reference to human-caused deaths of wolves within the Denali population.

Additionally, the source referenced only refers to wolves in Denali, Alaska, stating nothing about wolves in Minnesota. Either an additional source should be added in reference to Minnesota, or it should be removed.

As the is a protected page, I cannot edit it myself. I suggest someone who can do so. BananaVendetta (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is with the final sentence in the "Social Structure" section, which reads: "Territorial fights are among the principal causes of wolf mortality, one study concluding that 14–65% of wolf deaths in Minnesota and the Denali National Park and Preserve were due to other wolves." The numbers are incorrect, and the claim is unsupported by the cited study. A correct statement utilizing the information from this study would instead be: "In wolf populations with a low rate of human-caused mortality, territorial fighting can be the principal cause of death among wolves. In a study performed at Denali National Park and Preserve, where the human-caused mortality rate among the total wolf population is less than 4%, it was estimated that 39%—65% of deaths amongst radio-collared wolves within the park were due to other wolves."

The source for this is the exact one already cited, which I've pasted below for convenience. The "14%" figure seems to have been taken from the amount of wolf deaths caused by humans, and the study was performed in Denali, Alaska, not Minnesota. The phrasing of "Territorial fights are among the principal causes of wolf mortality" is an assumption not supported by the study. It is also important to note that the study emphasizes that this population has a low rate of human-caused deaths, and that the various mortality rates were calculated using data from radio-collared wolves.

Mech, L. David; Adams, L. G.; Meier, T. J.; Burch, J. W.; Dale, B. W. (2003). "Ch.8-The Denali Wolf-Prey System". The Wolves of Denali. University of Minnesota Press. p. 163. ISBN 0-8166-2959-5. BananaVendetta (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello BananaVendetta, you are indeed right about the Denali National Park and Preserve proportion of wolf mortality due to other wolves. However, wolves in Minnesota, as you might know, are not as protected as in Denali because their studied populations are not all in protected settings, thus wolf-on-wolf killings sharply decrease in terms of %. Wolf-on-wolf killing is the primary mortality cause of grey wolves worldwide that is natural, obviously human-caused wolf mortality is the highest death cause worldwide. In national parks, wolf-on-wolf killings, in terms of % and occurence, sharply rise as compared to this cause of death proportion outside the park, for various reasons. 1) Usually more wolves are concentrated in protected areas, thus competition for ressources and territories is higher, therefore increasing interactions between packs and logically, increasing the probability of a wolf being killed by another wolf or wolf pack. 2) As with protected areas in general, prey abundance is generally higher, therefore packs can carve inside smaller territories, and thus, there is a much bigger wolf density and wolf packs numbers inside an area. Young adult wolves, both males and females, often disperse from their natal pack to try to find a group or an unrelated wolf to start a new pack and build a family of their own. However, if the wolf density is higher and packs are crammed, it faces a much more challenging ordeal than a wolf dispersing from a pack outside of an protected area with a stable population. They each faces challenges of course. One must navigate thru many pack territories and avoiding conflicts from usually bigger packs (pack size is usually larger inside of protected areas than outside) in high stakes area. The other must thrive on its own and moved significantly while avoiding being killed by humans. They both have the problem of not knowing the area they disperse (or at least, they rarely do). 3) Wolves lifespan is short. In national parks, for instance Yellowstone, the mean age at death for a wolf is 4.4 years. Outside of this park, in the neighboring areas, it is only a tad over 2 years (2.2). It's very problematic and exemplify the complexity of wolf-human coexistence and breaks the line between "natural untouched ecosystems" and "a landscape of fear and stress". Wolves in North America comes to breeding age at 22 months (1 year 10 months), with extremely rare occurrences of pup reproduction (at 10 months)...

Many newly formed packs outside of national parks just can't go pass their first 3 years, because humans kill one or both breeders too fast for pack numbers stabilization...

My reply could be repetitive and unhelpful, but I think dissecting the conditions in which wolf populations of both regions lives and their protection status help understand why the natural mortality causes are very high in Denali and not in Minnesota. Gimly24 (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Including a note about a paper reporting a lone wolf that ate 181 grasshoppers

I attempted to include a sentence about a report that a lone wolf may have consumed 181 grasshoppers in a single night, but it proved controversial: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolf&curid=33702&diff=1244457753&oldid=1244416467 May I add it to the article? citation: https://trophiccascades.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/Barton_et_al-2019-Ecology.pdf it's a short read, 4 pages Nagging Prawn (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Why? What use is it? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 22:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's an unusual example of the dietary breadth wolves can exhibit, thereby bolstering the point made by the sentences preceding the one I wrote. Additionally, there is precedent in Wikipedia for the inclusion of detailed information regarding animal diets, e.g. this article on golden eagle diets: Dietary biology of the golden eagle . Multiple references to single-occurence observations — like the one I intended to add to the wolf article — were even added to this Wikipedia article on golden eagles. Nagging Prawn (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This dietary detail is not limited solely to articles dedicated to diet either. The article on bald eagles, which is a featured article, no less, contains an extensive survey of bald eagle prey species: Bald eagle#Diet and feeding . Nagging Prawn (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The article states that wolves will eat some types of insects when these are plentiful. I cannot see a reason why the volume of consumption should not be included. 14.2.206.29 (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems this still elicits pushback: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolf&action=history Can you provide more substantive reasons why this shouldn't be in the article? @Moxy Nagging Prawn (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Can't believe this is a serious considered addition to the article. There is zero context here.... calorie wise is this a lot or a little? Is this comparable to eating a squirrel or a cow? Is this abnormal or normal behavior? Sounds to me like a trivial fact.... was this in the wild or in captivity. Moxy🍁 21:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

These are questions covered in the paper being cited. Should I simply add more detail from the paper in my edit? Regardless, Wikipedia is a summary of available knowledge, not a site of post-publication peer review. This paper is a peer-reviewed publication with little apparent scientific controversy, going by the citations on google scholar, so I don't understand the resistance against its inclusion. Nagging Prawn (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Please stop referencing this page in your edit summaries when there is no agreement to adding the grasshopper information. Should you repeat your behavior, I will request action against you. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And just so you know silence ≠ consensus. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Project banners

Would someone like to reveal what Wikiprojects this article falls under, please. 14.2.206.29 (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you now click the [show] link in the banner? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Largest extant Canidae Claim

This is factually incorrect: Several domestic breeds of dogs outweigh and are larger than wolves. The English Mastiff outweighs the wolf by an average of 50kg ( 110 lbs.), and both the Irish Wolfhound and Great Dane stand taller than the wolf at the shoulders. The wolf stands at an average of 80 to 85 cm (30 to 32 inches) at the shoulder; but for Great Danes and Irish Wolfhounds, these are the minimum heights with the average being 90 cm (35 inches).

Before attempting to edit, I wanted to bring this to discussion. 91.21.30.93 (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Domestication

I agree with the recent addition of the passage on domestication. A summary of this material should be present here, together with a link to the main article. But the copied text could be shortened a bit more, we probably don't need all these specifics with their attendant references. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"The material is from a non-FA article"...? Getting a little grotesque in our gatekeeping criteria, are we? Anyway, correct re duplication, as the Evolution section does do a good job of covering the ground here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Grasshoppers in Diet

Should the following sentence be included in the article, in the Diet section, immediately following: When such foods are insufficient, they prey on lizards, snakes, frogs, and large insects when available.

One wolf was even known to have eaten 181 Payette's short-winged grasshoppers in a single sitting.

? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The scientific article cites two other previously documented consumption of grasshoppers in grey wolves as well other canids. The article opens the possibility for new areas of research, as most wolf studies have focussed on large ungulate kill sites. If nature does not heed to taxonomic boundaries imposed by ecologists, is worth exploring and worth a mention in Wikipedia. Rigorousmortal (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Survey

Please enter Yes or No with a brief explanation. Please do not reply to the statement of other editors in this section. That is what the Discussion section is for.

• No As others have said, that is trivia. SilverTiger12 (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. It already says that they will sometimes eat large insects, so this is somewhat redundant, and unless there is reason to believe that this number of grasshoppers is typical, I'd say it's not very illuminating, possibly misleading, and generally trivial. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Similar one-off dietary observations are included in other featured articles, such as the Bald Eagle article. Nagging Prawn (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• No somewhat redundant and has zero context. Is this a lot or little is this even a sustainable diet.Moxy🍁 02:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• No A case of a single specimen cannot be considered representative of the entire species. We will need much more than this in order to find relevance. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have no strong feelings; I understand the argument that it verges on WP:TRIVIA, but I admit it is interesting and does show the dietary diversity of wolves—it'd be a good fact at DYK :) I do however have a nitpick on the wording. Reading the source, it says Only one scat sample contained grasshopper parts, but the presence of 362 forewings revealed that this wolf had consumed at least 181 grasshoppers in a short amount of time (i.e., quickly enough to be deposited as a single scat). I don't think that supports the "single sitting" wording. While I understand that "single sitting" is an English turn of phrase (and a fun and evocative one at that), I rather doubt the wolf ate them all at once, or that it was sitting, given that the paper elaborates on how hard it would be to catch that many grasshoppers. It seems more accurate to keep the original wording of the source and say One wolf was even known to have eaten 181 Payette's short-winged grasshoppers in a short period of time. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  A reasonable suggestion! Nagging Prawn (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Seems more on the trivial side. I've found information in a tertiary source that dogs have eaten: '40 starfish, fiberglass insulation, drywall, part of a home foundation, light bulbs, and glass', but I didn't feel the need to include it in Dog. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)