A Fundamental Misunderstanding of Carnivore Behavior
When searching for reasons to hate wolves, the destruction of elk is usually the number one complaint. Followed closely is the wildly popular belief that wolves kill for fun. People point to incidents of wolves killing many prey in one go as evidence. And in truth, there have been multiple times wolves have partaken in what scientists call "surplus killing", or killing more prey than is needed for immediate sustenance. In 2013, three wolves killed 176 sheep in in one night in Idaho. In 2016, a pack of wolves killed 19 elk - 17 calves and 2 cows- in Wyoming in a couple nights. "Spree killers" and "sport killers" are labels thrown onto the wolves after every incident. But wolf biologists, animal behaviorists, or anyone who knows the basics of carnivore biology point to simple explanations for these surplus killings- and it's survival, not fun. Read on to find out why- and at the end, I'll explain the aforementioned surplus killings from a wolf behavioralist's point of view to show why wolves are not sport killers.
(But people are.)
(But people are.)
Hunting is a bigger risk for wolves than you- by a lot
Outdoorsmen often talk about the dangers of their recreation/way of life. It's true that hunting carries it's share of risks. But modern hunters rarely, if ever, have to kill their prey by wrestling it to the ground and stopping its breathing. They shoot it from far away. Wolves and other predators don't have that luxury. When it comes to hunting, they have to embark in a one on one struggle with the large creatures they so prefer.
For any predator, each hunt is a careful calculation of risk and reward. Many times, predators hunt prey that are much bigger than they are. The average elk weighs in about 500-700 pounds while a wolf rarely tops 110 pounds. Yes, wolves often hunt in packs, but each individual hunter faces a huge risk. One kick from an elk can kill a wolf. Even if a wolf survives a kick or a mistimed bite from a pack mate, injuries are often even more vicious, painful killers than instant death. A wolf with a broken leg or infected cut no longer can hunt effectively or at all, and is at the mercy of the pack for food. If they can't provide, he'll starve to death.
This is where prey testing comes in. Have you ever seen a documentary on lion hunts? Many times, one lioness will jump at a selected zebra. But if that zebra becomes too much to handle- she may determine that the prey is too healthy or strong for her- or her pride mates are more successful at another zebra, she'll abandon the first target. Often, that first target will still sustain injuries, sometimes severe. When you see that zebra, you might think "the lions hunted it for fun; they chased it for fun; they injured it for the bloodthirst" when actually, the lioness was testing her prey to find the target with the least amount of risk and most amount of reward.
Same for wolves. People report elk, moose, even livestock, with injured, bloody haunches, long-lasting limps, and other wounds from a wolf attack. They believe that the wolves have attacked the injured animal for fun when more often than not, the wolves simply simply switched targets. Initially, a pack might be targeting a sickly elk cow. But if, during the chase, a healthy cow stumbles or shows weakness, the pack will switch targets.
Predators also stop hunts in the middle. This could be for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the predator determined that the prey was too much to handle. Perhaps a bigger predator or other threat was in the area that could prove a bigger risk of danger than the reward of a successful kill. A National Geographic study and documentary of African wild dogs dissected a hunt in which the pack- which needed to feed its hungry puppies- was about to successfully kill an impala when it suddenly pulled back. At first, one might think the dogs just chased the impala for fun, for sport. But a five minute discussion of the hunt demonstrated that lions had heard the commotion and approached the pack. Lions will kill wild dogs when they get the chance, and the dogs decided not to take the risk.
Same for wolves. And yes, wolves do have natural enemies that will kill them. Aside from humans, grizzlies, black bears, and cougars have shown to kill adult wolves and also puppies.
And wolves aren't killing machines either. They're not statistically likely to succeed in any given hunt. Usually, a pack has an 18% chance of making a kill. Even in the deep snows of winter, they have about a 28% chance. If they can kill more, then they will.
For any predator, each hunt is a careful calculation of risk and reward. Many times, predators hunt prey that are much bigger than they are. The average elk weighs in about 500-700 pounds while a wolf rarely tops 110 pounds. Yes, wolves often hunt in packs, but each individual hunter faces a huge risk. One kick from an elk can kill a wolf. Even if a wolf survives a kick or a mistimed bite from a pack mate, injuries are often even more vicious, painful killers than instant death. A wolf with a broken leg or infected cut no longer can hunt effectively or at all, and is at the mercy of the pack for food. If they can't provide, he'll starve to death.
This is where prey testing comes in. Have you ever seen a documentary on lion hunts? Many times, one lioness will jump at a selected zebra. But if that zebra becomes too much to handle- she may determine that the prey is too healthy or strong for her- or her pride mates are more successful at another zebra, she'll abandon the first target. Often, that first target will still sustain injuries, sometimes severe. When you see that zebra, you might think "the lions hunted it for fun; they chased it for fun; they injured it for the bloodthirst" when actually, the lioness was testing her prey to find the target with the least amount of risk and most amount of reward.
Same for wolves. People report elk, moose, even livestock, with injured, bloody haunches, long-lasting limps, and other wounds from a wolf attack. They believe that the wolves have attacked the injured animal for fun when more often than not, the wolves simply simply switched targets. Initially, a pack might be targeting a sickly elk cow. But if, during the chase, a healthy cow stumbles or shows weakness, the pack will switch targets.
Predators also stop hunts in the middle. This could be for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the predator determined that the prey was too much to handle. Perhaps a bigger predator or other threat was in the area that could prove a bigger risk of danger than the reward of a successful kill. A National Geographic study and documentary of African wild dogs dissected a hunt in which the pack- which needed to feed its hungry puppies- was about to successfully kill an impala when it suddenly pulled back. At first, one might think the dogs just chased the impala for fun, for sport. But a five minute discussion of the hunt demonstrated that lions had heard the commotion and approached the pack. Lions will kill wild dogs when they get the chance, and the dogs decided not to take the risk.
Same for wolves. And yes, wolves do have natural enemies that will kill them. Aside from humans, grizzlies, black bears, and cougars have shown to kill adult wolves and also puppies.
And wolves aren't killing machines either. They're not statistically likely to succeed in any given hunt. Usually, a pack has an 18% chance of making a kill. Even in the deep snows of winter, they have about a 28% chance. If they can kill more, then they will.
But Wolves kill so brutally!
Yes, wolves do kill brutally. So does most every sort of predator. In nature documentaries, the actual killing is usually cut. If you research or watch the real thing though, it's much bloodier, noisier, and seemingly cruel. But it's nature. The animals are not choosing to tear apart their prey because they're bloodthirsty or are fiendish demons. They're doing it out of necessity.
Take the case of the African wild dogs again. Unlike wolves, wild dogs often suffocate prey by clamping onto the nose, African wild dogs almost always tear into their prey alive. Literally, the impala or wildebeest is ripped apart from the haunches- the easiest, softest place to subdue and rip open skin. It is not a pretty picture. Why do they do it? Well, for one, the dogs' prey is huge compared to them. Even bringing it down brings the risk of hooves and horns. Eating them alive is a matter of safety. But more than anything, wild dogs eat their prey alive so that they decrease the risk of losing their meal. Kleptoparasitism is when one predator steals the meal of another. Wild dogs are physically much smaller and nimbler than other African predators like lions, hyenas, and leopards. Even a pack of twenty can only do so much for some of these bigger carnivores. Eating their prey alive means that the dogs have a bigger chance of keeping their meal and being able to feed the pack and the waiting puppies.
Wolves kill similarly brutally. First, they run their prey to exhaustion. Why do they do that? Isn't that cruel? Well, as much as it might seem like the wolves are playing with their food, wolves are coursing predators. This means they run them down to kill them, instead of ambushing or creeping up before employing a short burst of speed. Both African wild dogs and wolves are coursing predators. Lions, leopards, and cougars are ambush predators. So not only are wolves built for long chases, but like I mentioned, they're in constant danger of hooves and antlers. A fully energetic elk will have the strength to pose a deadly threat, but a run-down elk does not.
Then there's the actual kill. Watching a wolf kill is usually not pleasant. When the prey falls, the wolves fall onto it and start biting or tearing, especially around the soft haunch area. But wolves are not as big or as strong as cougars and bears. You don't want to be bit by one, but relatively speaking in the nature world, wolf teeth don't always easily tear into hide. And again, even a dying elk or moose will kick and put up a fight, which can injure or kill a wolf instantly. Engulfing the prey once it's exhausted is the best bet that the wolves don't suffer any more loss of energy or suffer a wound.
Take the case of the African wild dogs again. Unlike wolves, wild dogs often suffocate prey by clamping onto the nose, African wild dogs almost always tear into their prey alive. Literally, the impala or wildebeest is ripped apart from the haunches- the easiest, softest place to subdue and rip open skin. It is not a pretty picture. Why do they do it? Well, for one, the dogs' prey is huge compared to them. Even bringing it down brings the risk of hooves and horns. Eating them alive is a matter of safety. But more than anything, wild dogs eat their prey alive so that they decrease the risk of losing their meal. Kleptoparasitism is when one predator steals the meal of another. Wild dogs are physically much smaller and nimbler than other African predators like lions, hyenas, and leopards. Even a pack of twenty can only do so much for some of these bigger carnivores. Eating their prey alive means that the dogs have a bigger chance of keeping their meal and being able to feed the pack and the waiting puppies.
Wolves kill similarly brutally. First, they run their prey to exhaustion. Why do they do that? Isn't that cruel? Well, as much as it might seem like the wolves are playing with their food, wolves are coursing predators. This means they run them down to kill them, instead of ambushing or creeping up before employing a short burst of speed. Both African wild dogs and wolves are coursing predators. Lions, leopards, and cougars are ambush predators. So not only are wolves built for long chases, but like I mentioned, they're in constant danger of hooves and antlers. A fully energetic elk will have the strength to pose a deadly threat, but a run-down elk does not.
Then there's the actual kill. Watching a wolf kill is usually not pleasant. When the prey falls, the wolves fall onto it and start biting or tearing, especially around the soft haunch area. But wolves are not as big or as strong as cougars and bears. You don't want to be bit by one, but relatively speaking in the nature world, wolf teeth don't always easily tear into hide. And again, even a dying elk or moose will kick and put up a fight, which can injure or kill a wolf instantly. Engulfing the prey once it's exhausted is the best bet that the wolves don't suffer any more loss of energy or suffer a wound.
What about surplus kills?
Maybe this all makes sense when it comes to a single hunt. But what about when wolves have shown that they can kill so many animals at one time? Doesn't that prove wolves kill for fun?
No. Surplus killing is common in several predatory species. Why would the animals behave like this? Isn't it a continuous big risk to keep hunting animals that number too many at one time? Yes, it is. But that's when almost all surplus killings happen: when there's little risk and high reward.
Wolves, for example. Most often, surplus killings occur in the winter. Wolves are equipped with special padded feet that almost look like either snowshoes. They also have slightly webbed feet. All of this makes them excellent snow runners. Elk, however, are much better runners in open areas or snowless forests. In the winter, wolves have the advantage. Often, they can down more than one target in a short amount of period. But even a big pack can't eat that much food. Wouldn't you say that's going to waste? No.
No. Surplus killing is common in several predatory species. Why would the animals behave like this? Isn't it a continuous big risk to keep hunting animals that number too many at one time? Yes, it is. But that's when almost all surplus killings happen: when there's little risk and high reward.
Wolves, for example. Most often, surplus killings occur in the winter. Wolves are equipped with special padded feet that almost look like either snowshoes. They also have slightly webbed feet. All of this makes them excellent snow runners. Elk, however, are much better runners in open areas or snowless forests. In the winter, wolves have the advantage. Often, they can down more than one target in a short amount of period. But even a big pack can't eat that much food. Wouldn't you say that's going to waste? No.
- Wolves, like most predators, live a feast-and-famine lifestyle. They never know when their next meal will arrive. They could go a while without a meal, which is bad for hunger and also for their ability to hunt.
- The winter, despite the hunting advantages, still brings hardship for wolves. Prey is more scarce. Diseased wolves, especially wolves with mange, often die, leaving the pack smaller and less adept at hunting. Obviously, it's bitterly cold. In the winter, when wolves can get a meal, they will take it.
- Wolves will return to their kills - if undisturbed. In Yellowstone, packs were documented to returning to caches until the carcass was consumed or found by bears, up to ten days later. But wolves are inherently frightened of people. Human presence around the kill may deter their return. Even the wind changing direction, giving the pack a whiff of human, can change their minds. Messing with the carcass almost certainly guarantees that the wolves will reconsider the risk of a human encounter. And of course, grizzlies or a bold cougar may also chase wolves away from a kill.
- Wolves have a chase instinct. If something runs in a panic, they're likely to chase it. That's why you're not supposed to run from a wolf. Usually, wild prey like elk have an instinct of run very fast or if you cannot run, stand your ground or go into the river. Obviously, many don't, and those become targets. But elk that stand their ground have a much higher chance of surviving wolves. But young elk or livestock that have absolutely no common sense will either run around in circles which triggers the chase instinct even more, or run away from a herd when that just means certain doom.
studies of wolves and surplus killing
For the record, I am not making this up. There have been studies and studies and studies and studies. And more studies than that. And for everyone who wants to say, "I've seen this epidemic with my own eyes", I'm sorry but I'm going to take the work of scientists over you. At best, watching wolves, even 24/7 living in the woods, is biased observation. If your argument against wolves is "you do not live here" or "you're lying" or "I've seen it", then that means you lost and are trying to struggle up some sort of excuse.
"Human hunters are more ethical"
When trying to explain why humans should be the primary, if exclusive, hunter in wolf territory, many say "human hunters are more ethical than wolves". If you're talking about sport hunting, then you're wrong. I just showed you why wolves don't hunt for fun, while humans literally do it all the time. If you're talking about the suffering of the animal, then maybe. An arrow or a bullet that kills an animal instantly is less painful then being drug down by a pack of wolves (although science has shown that prey animals almost always go into shock and lose connection with pain receptors during the kill).
But that's assuming you make the kill shot.
Also, humans have an incredible advantage: guns and bows that can shoot prey from a far distance. No need to go up to the animal and kill it that way. If you really want to say humans are more ethical than wolves, give a hunter a simple knife and have him kill an elk. That means stalk it, chase it, and take it down with that knife. That also means risking those antlers and hooves. You're not going to be able to kill the elk quickly anymore, are you?
But that's assuming you make the kill shot.
Also, humans have an incredible advantage: guns and bows that can shoot prey from a far distance. No need to go up to the animal and kill it that way. If you really want to say humans are more ethical than wolves, give a hunter a simple knife and have him kill an elk. That means stalk it, chase it, and take it down with that knife. That also means risking those antlers and hooves. You're not going to be able to kill the elk quickly anymore, are you?
Two Model Surplus Killings
Back to those two surplus killings I mentioned before, the 176 sheep in Idaho and the 19 elk in Wyoming. Here's my own behavior analysis.
Idaho
It's important to note a couple things about this event.
Firstly, most of the sheep died from asphyxiation- tumbling into each other in panic. Only 10 sheep were actually killed due to bite wounds. According to one report, only 1 was partially consumed- but the ranchers returned the next morning (after they heard commotion during the night, by the way), so the extreme human presence likely deterred any return to the food.
Secondly, the rancher let the herd of over 2,000 sheep stay out overnight in the mountains. Alone. Does that seem like the smartest idea to you?
Thirdly, over 10 wolves had been shot in that area over the past couple months to try curbing livestock losses. If you know anything about my discussions or general knowledge of social disturbance then you know that when a pack is fragmented by culling, that often leaves 1) fewer wolves and 2) less experienced wolves. These stragglers now must go after easier prey- like livestock. So while people in the area thought that by killing the wolves they were saving their livestock, they were actually making things more difficult. This is my major topic for my research and thesis, by the way.
Wyoming
The majority of the elk killed in this attack were calves. Seventeen out of nineteen, in fact. Remember when I said that adult elk have a survival instinct against always running from wolves? Calves, not so much.
This attack occurred in March, in deep snow. More to the fact, that winter in Wyoming (2015-2016) was notably severe. Wolves in that area had taken over 70 elk in a short amount of time due to the high rates of snowfall and ease of catching prey.
The attack occurred at an elk feeding ground, where humans leave out resources for hungry elk. That draws a huge amount of elk to these areas, which not only attracts wolves, but makes it ridiculously easy to hop from one elk to another.
All nineteen elk caracasses were removed the next day by Fish and Wildlife officials. That's absolutely ridiculous. For one, you just wasted the wolves' kill. For another, you took their food so they're going to have to hunt more, kill more, and maybe partake in more surplus killing. Also, removing the caracasses means scavengers and other feeders don't get the advantages of a much-needed winter meal. Additionally, the removal of the feast meant that you could not prove that the wolves would have come back to the food - they may or may not have depending on how many people flooded the scene- so that just gives people all the more ammo to condemn them.
Idaho
It's important to note a couple things about this event.
Firstly, most of the sheep died from asphyxiation- tumbling into each other in panic. Only 10 sheep were actually killed due to bite wounds. According to one report, only 1 was partially consumed- but the ranchers returned the next morning (after they heard commotion during the night, by the way), so the extreme human presence likely deterred any return to the food.
Secondly, the rancher let the herd of over 2,000 sheep stay out overnight in the mountains. Alone. Does that seem like the smartest idea to you?
Thirdly, over 10 wolves had been shot in that area over the past couple months to try curbing livestock losses. If you know anything about my discussions or general knowledge of social disturbance then you know that when a pack is fragmented by culling, that often leaves 1) fewer wolves and 2) less experienced wolves. These stragglers now must go after easier prey- like livestock. So while people in the area thought that by killing the wolves they were saving their livestock, they were actually making things more difficult. This is my major topic for my research and thesis, by the way.
Wyoming
The majority of the elk killed in this attack were calves. Seventeen out of nineteen, in fact. Remember when I said that adult elk have a survival instinct against always running from wolves? Calves, not so much.
This attack occurred in March, in deep snow. More to the fact, that winter in Wyoming (2015-2016) was notably severe. Wolves in that area had taken over 70 elk in a short amount of time due to the high rates of snowfall and ease of catching prey.
The attack occurred at an elk feeding ground, where humans leave out resources for hungry elk. That draws a huge amount of elk to these areas, which not only attracts wolves, but makes it ridiculously easy to hop from one elk to another.
All nineteen elk caracasses were removed the next day by Fish and Wildlife officials. That's absolutely ridiculous. For one, you just wasted the wolves' kill. For another, you took their food so they're going to have to hunt more, kill more, and maybe partake in more surplus killing. Also, removing the caracasses means scavengers and other feeders don't get the advantages of a much-needed winter meal. Additionally, the removal of the feast meant that you could not prove that the wolves would have come back to the food - they may or may not have depending on how many people flooded the scene- so that just gives people all the more ammo to condemn them.
CONCLUSIVELY...
Wolves do not kill for fun. They kill to survive. For wolves, surplus kills are results of a high reward for a lower risk, and often occur during the winter when deep snows give them the advantage. They may test prey, injuring some in the process, when determining which target is the likeliest meal. Without disturbance, they will return to their kills.
Here's one thing I do find interesting, however. More often than not, the complaints about wolves being sport hunters come from elk or deer hunters. Many of these hunters in the West do, to some extent, hunt the animals for their meat and hide. But many do not. Even the ones who do hunt for food don't use the animal to the full extent that nature does. Elk hunters also usually hunt out of some sort of need, respect, or appreciation for the animal.
But wolf hunters hunt out of hate. If they don't hunt out of hate, they hunt out of sport. Trappers will leave dying, panicking, screaming wolves in traps and laugh at them. Hunters will purposefully shoot their stomachs so that the bleeding wolf suffers a horrific, painful death. Killing a pregnant wolf is considered a great accomplishment. If they can get away with it, many people would kill puppies in their den.
A study done on the opinions of sport hunting both ungulates and predators like wolves concluded, "“Many instances of wolf poaching … are wrong because they are primarily motivated by a hatred of wolves. These instances of poaching qualify as wrongful deaths, if not hate crimes. To legalize such killing does not make them any less wrong. Moreover, people who threaten to poach wolves unless wolf killing is legalized are engaging in a kind of ecological blackmail … .”
The very people who condemn wolves for killing for fun are often the very ones who would shoot a wolf just for the hell of it.
But wolf hunters hunt out of hate. If they don't hunt out of hate, they hunt out of sport. Trappers will leave dying, panicking, screaming wolves in traps and laugh at them. Hunters will purposefully shoot their stomachs so that the bleeding wolf suffers a horrific, painful death. Killing a pregnant wolf is considered a great accomplishment. If they can get away with it, many people would kill puppies in their den.
A study done on the opinions of sport hunting both ungulates and predators like wolves concluded, "“Many instances of wolf poaching … are wrong because they are primarily motivated by a hatred of wolves. These instances of poaching qualify as wrongful deaths, if not hate crimes. To legalize such killing does not make them any less wrong. Moreover, people who threaten to poach wolves unless wolf killing is legalized are engaging in a kind of ecological blackmail … .”
The very people who condemn wolves for killing for fun are often the very ones who would shoot a wolf just for the hell of it.
Header photo: Trent Sizemore (@trentsizemore on Instagram)