Talk:Never Cry Wolf

Untitled

4 sentences of overview plus 4 paragraphs of criticism does not an article make. Perhaps someone who has recently read the book could summarize it.69.19.246.23 (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is a lot wrong with this article in its present condition. One has to wonder why so much space is given over to trying to tarnish the man's reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.23.60 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Really

The criticisms are presented as coming from different, independent experts, but in reality it is not quite so:

The only source given for the prominently displayed quote attributed to L. David Mech is an article by Dr. Valerius Geist.

Dr. Valuilubvk Geist is the editor of Will Graves' book.

Both of them are avowed hunters.

The article by John Goddard in Saturday Night has already pre publication been claimed to be biased by the facts-checker of its own newspaper - this is not mentioned in the criticism, and a comment which pointed this out was deleted.

The piece by Steve Burgess in Salon is based mainly on Goddard's article.

From the abundant criticisms on the page there remain only the quotes from Frank Banfield - they may be true, but are not substantiated, either.

I get the impression that the criticism on this page looks like a attempt of hunters to further their cause - disguised, of course. It is not a real attempt at criticism. This page is very widely quoted, so it makes sense for hunters to have their point of view presented as fact, especially regarding the actual legislation of wolf-hunting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.142.207 (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fact in the scientific sense is probable cause, meaning that it could be proven to be true i.e. the Earth is round; it spins in a 24 hour cycle while orbiting the sun. If you jump off a cliff, you will fall because of gravity.

An opinion is simply, just an opinion. It does not require evidences, it is simply an expression made by the person. For example, I think that blonde hairs are pretty, that guy is hot, and all wolves should be hunted as sports.

An opinion may be wrong, or it could be factual, and people may disagree with it, I think that blonde hair is pretty, but he doesn't think so. Therefore, an opinion by the Hunters on the book is neither wrong nor right, but it is a stretch to say that is factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.67.8 (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen David Mech advocate wolf hunting. He is defending a lifetime of reearch into wolf habits from a lazy bum who didn't do any research and wrote and published probaganda, albeit in a good cause. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assume that the only people who criticize Mowat's work are hunters? Hasn't it occurred to you that here are some people out there who care about wolves, but would rather not be lied to about their nature (even if it is sugar coating).

The previously posted John Goddard criticism was not specifically centered on Never Cry Wolf itself. Strangely enough, it did not even specify WHAT the inconsistencies within the Goddard article were. Whether or not Goddard is wrong about some of Mowat's workks does not change the fact that whatever claims he made specifically regarding Never Cry Wolf are corroborated by A.W.F Banfield, who was Mowat's field supervisor during the wolf expedition. You can check this out for yourself here, on page 281; http://books.google.fr/books?id=Lns9IirZN4cC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=Doug+Pimlott+farley+mowat+Never+Cry+Wolf+by+The+Journal+of+Wildlife+Management&source=web&ots=q4JBpjOMjF&sig=ahQSTidsyWHSeUFz5gpNIwBntzU&hl=fr&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA289,M1 The Mech quote came from his 1970 book "The Wolf", and I have modified it as appropriate.

If you're worried about a lack of positive reviews here, then by all means find and post them.77.196.50.55 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, if hunters wanted to spread propaganda on wolves, they'd do so on the wolf article. Never Cry Wolf is a work of fiction, therefore any condemnation of it will ultimately fall on Mowat and not wolves.

Besides, what the hell is it with this paranoia about the opinions of hunters? This attempted defamation ignores that the great hunter-led success of wildlife conservation, particularly in North America, that secured the biodiversity of the continent, led to a powerful grass-roots organization of conservation labeled the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. It was hunters that organized the basic system of continental conservation, without which, for instance, the endangered species legislation could not existDark hyena (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Why do you assume that the only people who criticize Mowat's work are hunters?" I just notice that the only people cited here as critics of Mowat's book _are_ hunters - who have their own agenda, which of course is threatened by the appeal of this book.

Thanks for the link to Ralph Lutt's book. On page 282 he writes: "... it appears that the information about wolves in 'Never Cry Wolf' was correct." He confirms that there is no "lying about the nature of wolves" in Mowat's book.

Hunter or no-hunter, everybody is welcome to criticize - but not to try to turn the facts around - which is happening here, for reasons which have got nothing to do with the book itself. Regarding being "worried about a lack of positive reviews": I'm happy with any review, positive or negative - provided it is valid.62.47.133.23 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the only people cited here as critics of Mowat's book _are_ hunters - who have their own agenda

You speak about these people as if they are hunters by profession. They are not. Valerius Giest is first and foremost an ethologist (studies animal behaviour), and has enough first hand observations with wolves in order to be a valid addition. David Mech is a biologist who spent 50 years studying wolves (compare that to Mowat's four weeks). Banfield is certainly valid, as he supervised Mowat's work. I don't know if he is a hunter or not.

He confirms that there is no "lying about the nature of wolves" in Mowat's book.

Here are a few of Mowat's "facts" presented in the book.

-Wolves actually subsist quite heavily on small mammals such as rodents and hares (even choosing them over caribou when available); this is not exclusive to lone wolves or pairs either, but to packs as well.

In his 1970 publication The Wolf and later in a compendium entitle Owls arent wise, Bats arent blind, L. David Mech comments that in all his (50 year) travels, he had never encountered a wolf pack which subsisted primarily on rodents. This is mentioned again in his compendium Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation which he co-wrote with Italian wolf biologist Luigi Boitani. Valerius Geist rejected the concept, having spent numerous years with deer herds arround the world. In all his studies in areas where deer and wolves coexist, the wolves fed heavily on deer. Wolves evolved on a completely different course from coyotes and jackals which DO subsist largely on small prey. Wolves, with their large bodies and the fact that they live in goups, would quickly starve to death on a diet of rodents.

However, the Arctic Wolves does feed upon Ox, Caribou, and small mammals such as rodents and hares. Whether or not wolves chooses small mammals over caribous and ox is questionable, but the author was not stating that wolves eats only small mammals as he does acknowledge that they eat caribou, therefore wolves that travel in pact would not starve to death as they do feed upon caribous and larger mammals if they are available.

The author was merely stating that the Wolves choose small mammals over caribous, nowhere in the quote did he stated that they eats ONLY small mammals. To claim that Wolves would starve to death because they feed on ONLY small mammals fails to disprove the author's point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Wolf

“Like all wolves they hunt in packs, preying mainly on Caribou and Muskoxen, but also Arctic Hares, seals, ptarmigan and lemmings, and smaller animals such as waterfowl.[7] Due to the scarcity of prey, they roam large areas— up to 2,600 km2 (1,000 sq mi), and they will follow migrating caribou south during the winter.”

Mr. Mech's book, he was correct in saying that he has never encounter a pack that eats only small mammals, the author does not disagree with that as he acknowledge that wolves does eat caribou but usually prefers small mammals.

In the second book, the quote is seems to have nothing to do with the author's point as the wolves that hunts deer are a different species from the Arctic Wolves. Arctic Wolves does not feed on deer, they hunt caribous (as the author acknowledge) and small mammals, deer rarely exist in the Arctic, and it is the Grey Wolves that hunts Deer.

The Arctic Wolves and the Grey Wolves are a different species, which is a fact. Mr. Mech was correct in stating that Wolves hunt deer, which is true, because GREY WOLVES does hunt them but deer rarely exist in the Arctic, therefore it is impossible for the Arctic Wolves to hunt a deer.

Grey Wolves: Arctic Wolves: fur is white on the lower section of body, but has grey hair on top and on the face

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=grey%20wolves&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1280&bih=641

Arctic Wolves: Body is cover entirely by white fur, only their pups are grayish but change to pure white when they become an adult.

http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=641&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=arctic+wolves&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.67.8 (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves do not obtain kills by lacerating the animal's hindquarters so that the prey will bleed out. This is an unnecessary risk as it would place the wolf in a very deadly position within range of the animal's powerful hind legs. The same goes for the supposed method of tearing the prey's abdomen open and eating its innards while still alive. While this method fits well with a nightmarish view of vicious wolves, it creates another unnecessary risk of injury and death for real wolves, who would rather avoid the flailing limbs of a caribou in agony. The actual killing method is for the wolf to run alongside the animal and broadside it, knocking it down and allowing the wolf to carefully bite the back of the animal's neck, killing it as quickly as possible.

If accounts are not convincing for you, then look at this video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-UvsJj5qgc The wolves are targetting a young bison calf, which is half the size of an adult caribou, therefore, supposedly easier to kill. Nowhere is the attack method mentioned by Mowat seen. One wolf grabs the animals nose, whilst the other two rip at its hindquarters. By the end of the video, the wolves go for a weak specimen, but they constantly go for its backside. They continuosly avoid its front end, the exact opposite of what Mowat said. Indeed, the narrator (Sir David Attenborough) states that killing quickly is not an option open to them. By the end of the vid, you can see one wolf already chewing at the bisons flank, while it is still alive.

Here is another one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb6Rke7jiTc&feature=related Here, the wolves attempt to catch a muskox calf, which again, is smaller than an adult caribou. They do not "broadside" it, they grab its perinium, and bite its nose, suffocating it. Never is the clean, back of the neck bite seen.

And another; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT_3QiWQh8M&feature=related The wolves harass an adult bison from behind, biting its perinium, even recieving a sharp kick at one point. Again, they do not broadside it, they pull it down from behind, with their jaws. By the end, the bison is fighting for its life with the wolves constantly biting its hindquarters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi0J3CFqiXo&feature=related Here, the victim is an elk, which has roughly the same physical conformation of a caribou. Again, it is attacked from behind, however, this time it is killed by a wolf which strangles it to death by hanging on its throat, whilst the other wolves eat it. Even that fails to kill the elk quickly, as shown by the fact that it repeatedly tries to stand.

However, these examples does not disprove the author's point that Arctic Wolves does targets their prey by running alongside then and then attack the neck. In Planet Earth, a documentary by BBC, a lone Arctic Wolf is shown running alongside caribous and attacking it's neck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0E6geAq1k8&feature=fvw

The author never stated that Arctic Wolves only has one way of hunting, only that it was a disadvantage to kill its prey by attacking from behind since the animal could kick it with its hind legs. Since Arctic Wolves travel in pack, the above videos proves that Arctic Wolves may be successful in attacking from behind when there other wolves to attack from the front and both sides. The above videos neither prove nor disprove that the author was wrong, only that wolves are successful in attacking larger preys when traveling in pack. Moreover, a lone wolf is more successful in running alongside its prey and then killing it by attacking the prey's neck.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3781522

This article will explain the advantage of killing alone versus traveling in a group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.67.8 (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wolves do not "surplus kill".

That is not true. This is corroborated by farmers, peasants AND scientists. Here are a (very) few examples;

a) In L. S. Khuraskin's and Rumyantsev's 1978 report New data on the mortality of the Caspian seal due to wolves, it was shown that in a three week period in February 1978, wolves were responsible for the wanton killing of numerous seal pups near Astrakhan. Between 17-40% of the seal pups in the area were estimated to have been killed, but not eaten.

b) A Conservation Officer for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources stated that during a spring snow storm, two wolves killed 21 deer, consuming only two.

C) Here is photographic evidence of wolves having killed 20 rams, of which only six were eaten. Note that this occurred in the wild. I should warn you that they are quite graphic. http://www.aws.vcn.com/alaska.html

This also fails to disprove the author's point, since Arctic Wolves usually travels in a group, why would it choose not to eat all of its prey. The 1 example fails to disprove the author's point, since it was first an isolated incident and because it was apparent that Wolves kill more than it can chew.

The second point also failed to disprove anything, only that once again the wolves fails to eat all its kill. It is also unclear if the wolves that attack was the Arctic Wolves that the author is talking about, since it would be rare for Arctic wolves to travel that far south but it is not impossible. Since it was only two wolves, it would be logical that it failed to eat all of its prey.

The Third one also fails to disprove anything, and it is questionable if the wolves were even Arctic Wolves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.67.8 (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-There is no evolutionary scenario in which mass killing would benefit wolves rather than leading to starvation later on, as a result of previously purged prey animals.

And yet the phenomenon has not just been reported in wolves. Dutch Biologist Hans Kruuk recorded two notable events; one in England involving red foxes in gull colonies (which was further corroborated by Dr. David MacDonald), and Spotted Hyenas in Africa (the latter of which killed 110 Thomson's gazelle in a single night in 1966 during a storm, and ate only a small proportion of the victims.)

So yes, Mowat is a good storyteller, but a crap biologist. His own colleagues during the wolf expedition attest to that.Dark hyena (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we have read different books called "Never Cry Wolf" by F. Mowat, but by my own recollection (rather dim by now) the major points of his book are: 1. Wolves do hunt the smaller prey as it is less dangerous to catch. 2. Wolves do not prefer to hunt or indeed feed on caribou only. 2. Humans tend to hunt caribou much more than they would admit. 3. Wolves do attack weaker specimens (younger/sick ones) to minimize the risks and effort needed, humans shoot stronger ones (no danger whatever, less effort to get the same amount of food). With a final conclusion of "wolves are needed to keep caribou healthy". But I am a biologist and as such may have spotted the points that are now a commonplace among us - in part, due to Mowat's (non-scientific) book.82.24.249.133 (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Try

Even after all this discussion, this page is still more of a discussion about the facts in the book, than a literary review and summary of a book, either fiction on nonfiction. I think the emphasis should be much more on the literary aspect and on the impact of the book Satrughna (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Never Cry Wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060111000538/http://www.salon.com/people/bc/1999/05/11/mowat/index1.html to http://www.salon.com/people/bc/1999/05/11/mowat/index1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Points and claims section

This section is not very accurate. Many of the points made here are not made in the book.

One of the key points made in the book is that wolves eat mice, but the Wiki article says "One of these animals may include mice."

Maybe this section should be completely rewritten, or deleted.

There is a nonsensical sentence in it that I will delete now:

It appears that the wolves would have started the declining of the populations. [which populations?]

Rkarapin (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point that wolves will eat mice can easily be confirmed by anyone who's ever had a dog. --2A01:260:4111:3:58EC:78DD:E64D:C098 (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed another unsupported claim:

* There are many local Eskimos, the majority of whom are traders.

Per the book (which I just reread), just a few Inland Inuit ("Eskimos") were left even then.

I'm also unsure if this section adds much to our article. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]