Of Wolves and Lefties

Not satisfied with force feeding their inane societal senselessness on humans, it now seems some from the party of Marx wish to expand their reign of fantasy into the animal community. To that of our brothers in spirit, the wolf.
We will return to this idea, but let us begin with this...

Brookfield Zoo officials call it a case of nature.
Animal rights activists are calling it neglect.
Whatever the case, zoo visitors recently got an eyeful as a pack of wolves violently turned on a new member, bloodying the animal in a mauling one eyewitness estimated lasted more than five minutes.
"It was really scary,'' said Bruce Pankratz of Barrington, who, along with dozens of other zoo visitors, saw five wolves attack a younger wolf on Saturday. "People were screaming.''
Pankratz, 41, a hospital executive, said a group of wolves were eating meat off a bone in a corner of their exhibit when one wolf suddenly ran down a hill and began attacking the newcomer. That prompted most of the other wolves to join in.
"Two of the dogs grabbed the back of his neck and another one grabbed his throat and dragged it about 20 yards,'' Pankratz said. "One was taking its head and twisting it.''
A man ran to the exhibit fence, threw wood chips at the fighting wolves and screamed "Stop! Stop!'' said Pankratz.
The animal is recovering from wounds to its ears and hind legs but suffered no permanent injuries, a zoo official said.
Cause of fight a mystery
The two-acre exhibit, a $2.5 million facility dubbed a "Hilton for wolves,'' opened in June 2004 with five adult Mexican gray wolves. About six weeks ago, zoo officials introduced three new animals -- each about a year old -- obtained from Ohio's Columbus Zoo.
Some adjustments were apparent while trying to blend the two all-male packs, including "test charges'' where the older wolves rushed at the younger ones, said Brookfield curator of mammals Ann Petric. The confrontations included "a couple nips every now and then,'' said Petric, who described the bites as a normal shakeout in a hierarchical social grouping.
"The yearlings all along have been acting submissive and showing the adult animals they would stay on the bottom of the hierarchy, which is the behavior we expected from them,'' Petric said.
While keepers kept a constant eye on the animals during the first two weeks, none were present during the Saturday attack, said Petric. Human contact is kept to a minimum because zoo officials hope to release some of the animals back into the wild in Arizona.
Petric said she did not know how long it took for keepers to get to the exhibit. When they arrived, the animals had separated and the injured dog lay motionless.
The two packs of wolves have been placed into different areas, and Brookfield intends to transfer the new pack to another zoo, Petric said.
"Although it was natural behavior for wolves, it was more intense than we expected to see this far into the introduction,'' Petric said. "We won't be putting these animals together again.''
What sparked the fight is a mystery: "Maybe the yearling was moving in a direction the adults didn't want it to,'' Petric said.
Activists request USDA probe
The animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which abhors zoos in general, has asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to investigate.

‘Cause of fight a mystery’? I am no expert in animal behavior, but I would predict even the average pet owner could easily decipher the ‘cause’ of this so called ‘mauling’. How about this tidbit...’a group of wolves were eating meat off a bone in a corner of their exhibit...when one wolf suddenly ran down a hill and began attacking the newcomer’? This obviously an issue of dominance. An alpha wolf asserting its dominance in no uncertain terms. This is basic canine dominant feeding behavior.
Sure, it may not be pretty. And it may not easily fit the nostalgic view of nature most PETA and Sierra Club members would like to see, but it surely is as much part of nature as are cute penguins on the march.
It is this dualistic aspect of the natural world that must be honored, or at the very least accepted, if one is to label oneself a lover and protector of nature. No matter the rose colored glasses, nature is just as horrifying as it is beautiful.
But now let us return to the wolves, and more pointedly, to the original premise of this writing.
Most who study canine behavior would agree that it is the natural state of a wolf pack to establish a dominance hierarchy. This is simply the nature of the wolf.
Or is it?
I have recently stumbled upon a paper, written by one L. David Mech titled ‘Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs’, circa 1999.
Normally I would have read his thesis, smirked, and moved on; but something about it struck me deeper. Made me think...
Mr. Mech’s basic assertion is that wolf packs in the wild do not in actuality form hierarchies, that there is in fact no 'alpha' wolf. Here is a just a short sampling, but I would advise readers to take in the whole article...

Labeling a high-ranking wolf alpha emphasizes its rank in
a dominance hierarchy. However, in natural wolf packs, the
alpha male and female are merely the breeding animals, the
parents of the pack, and dominance contests with other
wolves are rare, if they exist at all. During my 13 summers
observing the Ellesmere Island pack, I saw none...
...The concept, nature, and importance of the dominance
hierarchy or pecking order (Schjelderup-Ebbe 1922) itself in
many species are in dispute (summary in Wilson 1975).
Similarly, in a natural wolf pack, dominance is not manifested
as a pecking order and seems to have much less significance
than the results of studies of captive packs had
implied (Schenkel 1947, 1967; Rabb et al. 1967; Zimen
1975, 1982; Lockwood 1979). In a natural wolf pack, the
dominance rules bear no resemblance to those of the pecking
order, that of a group of similar individuals competing for
rank.

He argues the above, despite the simple fact that canine behavior has been studied and understood, basically, since the dawn of written history. And that wolf behavior has been closely studied for over half a century.
He argues the above, despite the fact that much in the theory of canine training is based on the ideas of dominance/submission. Does he not find it odd that an animal would be imprinted with the understanding of dominant/submissive behavior if it was not a natural part of that animal’s behavior?
He argues the above, despite the fact that the study of captive wolves should hold equal, if not greater merit, as they can be observed on a constant basis. Even with his ‘13 summers observing’, how much behavior was he simply not privy to?
So the question arises, why? Why would he seem to choose to ignore facts that most scientists and dog trainers so readily and easily accept?
Well now, finally, we get to my premise.
Let us begin first by looking at the Left’s view of humans and human behavior for a moment. They feel no man is greater than any other. They feel any advantage one man has over another is simply a fluke of nature, a lucky role of the dice. This is the very reason socialist ideas run so rampant in the ideology of the Left. They argue, ‘why should one man have more property or prominence than another simply because of the whims of fate’(which also explains their hatred of God, but that is another paper). It is this very idea that demands of them to tear down the achievers, to attack the strong. ‘How is it fair for one man to be advantaged, when all men cannot?’ They call this injustice, I call it reality.
Yet, it is with these very ideas that many on the Left view all of nature, the totality of the universe. How can one with such feelings look at a wolf pack’s behaviors, framed by dominance and submission/the strong and the weak, and not be tempted to redefine it? If the universe runs as the Leftist envisions it, this definition of behavior can not stand.
So the Leftist changes it. He sees nuance where it does not exist. He attributes actions where there are none. He ignores behaviors that oppose his ideology. He disregards reality.
But at least, through his self inflicted dismissal of reality, he no longer need call the wolf his brother. For now he can simply call him comrade.

Crossposted @ The Wide Awakes