11-27-2011, 12:03 PM
Hello HUGE post as I try to respond to everyone/cite references XD
[html]Migratory prey is an interesting point. I think herds in Yellowstone migrate to some extent, but the documentary still said those wolves have an easier time in winter. Looking at some maps, Norway's at about 60°N latitude, while Nova Scotia is only at 45°N (which is actually very comparable to Yellowstone's). Meanwhile, Nova Scotia would have a maritime climate (typically milder winters) than Yellowstone, which would have a continental climate. I know PA is a few degrees lower in latitude, but I'm pretty sure our deer stick around all winter. Idk.
As far as population is concerned, I don't think we're that bad. Each block on our map represents a whopping 100 mi2. According to the same source I cited before:[/html]
While we're not technically in the lower 48, I think the larger territories they're talking about are in reference to northern Canada/the tundra or taiga. And even our smallest packs have at least three squares, or 300 square miles. While our larger packs are definitely bigger than most natural wolf packs, they also command a lot more territory than wolves at our latitude would typically require.
Either way, I agree it makes sense for our wolves to start moving towards agriculture at this stage in the game. Settled societies with regular food supplies = more room for specialisation, too
Interestingly, while doing some research on this subject, I came across another interesting fact:
So I'm not sure it's as hard on loners as once thought.
Still, I'd agree that mothers in the spring would be extra defensive. That cow thing sounds painful D:
Aaaand true, I hadn't considered the increased caloric needs of our shifters. Maybe that could account for the huge discrepancy between normal packs' territories and our packs'? Nonetheless, I'd think ours have compensated enough for the elevated energy needs by keeping ranges 2-4x bigger than 'normal.'
And don't get me wrong, I don't think anything's wrong with creating caches of food -- I'm just not sure now it's as critical to make them for winter, so much as in winter. :3
Also, this turned into an awesome discussion XD I love you all <3
[html]Migratory prey is an interesting point. I think herds in Yellowstone migrate to some extent, but the documentary still said those wolves have an easier time in winter. Looking at some maps, Norway's at about 60°N latitude, while Nova Scotia is only at 45°N (which is actually very comparable to Yellowstone's). Meanwhile, Nova Scotia would have a maritime climate (typically milder winters) than Yellowstone, which would have a continental climate. I know PA is a few degrees lower in latitude, but I'm pretty sure our deer stick around all winter. Idk.
As far as population is concerned, I don't think we're that bad. Each block on our map represents a whopping 100 mi2. According to the same source I cited before:[/html]
Quote:Gray wolf territories in the lower 48 states may be less than 100 square miles while territories in Alaska and Canada can range from about 300 to 1,000 square miles or more.
While we're not technically in the lower 48, I think the larger territories they're talking about are in reference to northern Canada/the tundra or taiga. And even our smallest packs have at least three squares, or 300 square miles. While our larger packs are definitely bigger than most natural wolf packs, they also command a lot more territory than wolves at our latitude would typically require.
Either way, I agree it makes sense for our wolves to start moving towards agriculture at this stage in the game. Settled societies with regular food supplies = more room for specialisation, too
Interestingly, while doing some research on this subject, I came across another interesting fact:
Quote:It certainly seems reasonable that, at least to some extent, hunting in groups would increase hunting efficiency even if no cooperative strategy were used. Multiple hunters, even if inept or inexperienced, would seem to yield greater sensing, chasing, restricting, attacking, and killing power than single hunters.(Source)
However, possibly offsetting this advantage is the fact that multiple hunters must also share the proceeds (Brown 1982). This and numerous other theoretical and empirical considerations have led some workers to the conclusion that "cooperative hunting is more often a consequence of gregariousness than its evolutionary cause" (Packer and Ruttan 1988,189).
A good test of the hypothesis that larger groups of wolves are more efficient at hunting or killing prey is to determine amount of food obtained per wolf for packs of various sizes. On Isle Royale during 1959-1961, the pack of about fifteen wolves mentioned above preyed on moose, but in 1961, when this pack split into two about half the time, the amount of food obtained was greater than during the previous 2 years, when the pack hunted as a unit (Mech 1996b). Similarly, lone wolves in Minnesota killed more prey per wolf than a pack of five (Mech and Frenzel 1971a), and pairs killed more prey per wolf than packs (Fritts and Mech 1981; Ballard et al. 1987, 1997; Thurber and Peterson 1993; Hayes et al. 2000).
So I'm not sure it's as hard on loners as once thought.
Still, I'd agree that mothers in the spring would be extra defensive. That cow thing sounds painful D:
Aaaand true, I hadn't considered the increased caloric needs of our shifters. Maybe that could account for the huge discrepancy between normal packs' territories and our packs'? Nonetheless, I'd think ours have compensated enough for the elevated energy needs by keeping ranges 2-4x bigger than 'normal.'
And don't get me wrong, I don't think anything's wrong with creating caches of food -- I'm just not sure now it's as critical to make them for winter, so much as in winter. :3
Also, this turned into an awesome discussion XD I love you all <3