The following paper is about 1/2 way complete and unedited, but if anyone is willing to offer criticism as always I would be extremely grateful.
The purpose of this article is thus to detail property and territorial disputes within the wolf species as well as document the system of order that it yields. Wolves possess a complex system of territory and ownership that exists both within the pack and within pack-to-pack relations. Even within the often categorized pack-hierarchy, subordinate wolves possess levels of territorial ownership that are normally only maintained by their higher ranking pack members.
Introduction:
This author cannot imagine a more poetic way of describing wolves than that put forth by George Schaller, they are, “endlessly absorbing carnivores”. Wolves, like their domesticated counterparts, have played a unique role in human history. Of all the land mammals they are the most widely distributed and adaptable. They are tireless, fearless hunters, traveling upwards of 20-30 miles a day, attacking animals multiple times their own size in packs as numerous as forty. In spite of this, and the ruthless conditions wolves must undergo both within and without of the pack, there is a great joy and companionship among them. Wolf spectators have observed wolves in the wild transporting food from their kills to their crippled pack members. Others have observed pack members slowing the pace of their hunts for the sake of the injured. Onlookers have even observed wolves curling up next to their dead pack members in mourning. All of these characteristics make the wolf a favorite among animal enthusiasts. However, for this author and other students of property, the most interesting aspect of the wolf species is the hidden order of territorial rights and respect for boundaries. It is to this aspect that the majority of this essay will be dedicated. Although the ideas presented below have been quoted from a wide range of texts, the majority of the material presented here is credited to David Mech and Luigi Boitanis’ great work Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Coservation. This marvelous text has made the research involved relatively easy, nearly displacing all other material in its quality and quantity
Why StudyTerritoriesand Boundaries?
Borders and territory (what we deem property) are not specific to human interactions, humans, like all animals have specific notions of property, more specifically, what notions are in violation to said property. Border disputes are the essence of all conflict. In fact, it may be argued that conflict may only exist along borders. That is, any conflict may be deconstructed in terms of borders and any level of interaction or conflict may be simplified to a dispute between two or more border claims. Thus, even conflicts as basic as person-to-person aggression can be simplified to disputes among bodily borders (that is, where does the body begin and end). These are the reasons why property must be studied in order to maintain a free society. Furthermore, it is because of these reasons that the topic of a world without boundaries, without claims to property, is absurd. The individual who makes such assertions is, at minimum, acknowledging the human-borders of those to which he is asserting to convince (see argumentation ethics Hans Hoppe). Life is a border. It lives within the bounds of spatial and temporal order, within the borders of the body which can only be preserved by violating the borders of other organic life. To speak about communal ownership is to neglect ownership and to neglect the individual is to neglect life itself. It is for this reason that we are all propertarians in some shape or form. Shaffer makes the argument as clear as anyone,
“Those who insist that privately-owned property is nothing more than a fiction created by humans, or the creature of political and legal institutions, would do well to examine the behavior of other life forms. Such an anthropocentric vision expresses a fundamental ignorance of the nature of all living things to occupy and consume resources. Territory is the most fundamental fact of existence. Even plants, trees, and corals stake out and defend individual territorial boundaries. Other species have no known governments or laws and yet maintain a very high degree of respect for the territorial claims established by other members of their species.” --ButlerShaffer Boundaries of Order
The purpose of this article is thus to detail property and territorial disputes within the wolf species as well as document the system of order that it yields. Wolves possess a complex system of territory and ownership that exists both within the pack and within pack-to-pack relations. Even within the often categorized pack-hierarchy, subordinate wolves possess levels of territorial ownership that are normally only maintained by their higher ranking pack members.
What is a Border?
Before we speak territorial disputes it must first be noted that when we speak of borders, we are speaking of intra-specie relations and not relations between non-like species. That is, borders are normally only defined vis a vis like species. A wolf defines its territory vis a vis other wolves, not various other competitors. Though true that other competitors, like the bear, may violate a wolf’s boundary, the bear must only be thought of as a factor, an obstacle, to any claim of ownership. For our purposes we may think of the bear as simply an unpredictable, uncontrollable, object, within an otherwise controllable territory. The bear cannot be expected to respect the property of the wolf anymore than the wolf can be expected to respect the property of a squirrel. Again, quoting Shaffer, “a claim of ownership derives its validity from a recognition by others, of the inherent worthiness of an individual to act to sustain himself or herself through negentropic action in the world.”
The reason for such a typical restriction on ownership stems from the fact that it is only in relation to like-species that ownership has a purpose. Like-species hold the ability to reproduce and consume in relation, and opposition, to each other, and thus why like-species are each others predominant form of competition for natures limited resources. Furthermore, only like-species have the ability communicate (on some level) their demands and desires to each other—even if such communication is deemed elementary. Each species thus develops a more detailed form of communication in relation to each other as opposed to outsiders. Though it is true that animals may communicate to other non-like animals with similar signs to which they communicate with each other[1](visual, sound, echolocation, body language, and smell), these signs are not always interpreted as they should/could be interpreted within each species due to the evolved system interpreting-equipment predisposed within any system of intra-specie communication. Therefore, even though both intraspecies and interspecies communication mechanisms between animals are viewed as elementary to the observing human, there is a significant difference between them vis a vis each other. Wolves, even if desired, have but limited means of communicating their demands to bears and other species. Likewise, even if a mutually beneficial set of actions were available between the bear and the wolf, such a set of actions would normally only be revealed by random luck.
Wolf****Territory
Depending on geographical location, time of year, prey population density, rival competition and other factors, wolves may claim a territory ranging anywhere from 25 to 1000 square miles (the average being between 50 - 100 square miles (Busch). Faced with the inescapable law of scarcity, wolves maintain their existence–their ability to consume and reproduce within the comforts of safety–by staking a claim to land and resources and defending it from all newcomers. Yet, what does it actually mean to say a wolf makes a claim to a territory?
For humans, property is typically defined by what you are willing to defend. To legitimately claim un-owned property, one must “mix their labor with it”. That is, transform it from its nature given state to some state worth defending (there is much to unpack within such a definition as “mix their labor with it”, and many words have attempted to unpack it, for the purposes of this essay, we will simply use the homesteading, in all its vagueness, as a compass). Therefore, “what you are willing to defend” seems like an appropriate definition for territory within the wolf population.
To make-obvious territorial ownership, wolves perform a sequence of both direct means and indirect strategies. The majority of all strategies is indirect, including markings, scratching and howling, however, under specific conditions wolves have been recorded as attacking their neighbors in order to remove a potential threat. Given the energy and bodily costs of conflict, indirect strategies are typically the norm for carnivores seeking to make their boundaries known. Núñez notes that,“For a carnivore, placing marks in its surroundings isimportant for several important reasons. In this way it canaffirm its possession of food or mate resources, delimitateits territory, or indicate its social position or a certainphysiological or emotional state.”(Núñez). In the economic and biological game of signaling, we may accept occasional direct attacks as simply a means for solidifying the reality indirect threats, in other words, you may only bark so long before you must bite (otherwise your bark will eventually become disregarded)
Marking****Territory
The Pack
Ownership Within The Pack
Pack to Pack Relations
Conclusion
[1]Ravens and wolves form a pact, the wolves rip open skin and thus they alert each other to food (Busch)