Despite what most people think, a new study reveals that wolves prefer to fish rather than hunt, the study reveals that when salmon are present in the habitat, the moose hunter is neglected in favor of seafood
Researchers from the University of Victoria in Canada who studied the eating habits of wolves in an area of 3,300 square kilometers in British Columbia discovered that surprisingly - wolves prefer seafood!
The study was carried out over 4 years, during which eating habits were studied in the different seasons of the year. As expected, for most of the year the wolves were fed by elk hunters. However, during the fall months, the available menu changes and they turn to seafood.
The authors of the study noted that it was common to think that the menu change is only carried out when there is a shortage of moose, but this study revealed that the claim does not match the observations. The change in eating habits occurred because of the availability of salmon and not because of the decline in the moose population.
The researchers explain that the wolves prefer to hunt salmon for a number of reasons: first, it is safer to fish than to hunt since many times a hunter ends up with serious injuries. Another reason for preferring salmon is because of their nutritional value in terms of fat and energy.
The research reveals new details not only about the lifestyle of the wolves but also about the salmon. It turns out that the migration of salmon in the wide oceans affects ecosystems all over the planet.
The study adds a warning that predator-prey relationships of the above type will not last forever. The multiple threats to the salmon fish, to their living areas due to overfishing, various diseases and the destruction of the spawning areas led to a 90% decrease in their population during the last hundred years.
26 תגובות
Loehari and Hugin:
Do you, Loahari, disbelieve in what I said and claim that wolves do eat trees and stones?
In relation to man, there are several things that distinguish him from other animals and most of them stem from the fact that man changed his natural environment - the one in which he evolved, beyond recognition.
In the distant past, food was not as available as it is today, on the one hand, and human life was much shorter, on the other hand.
As a result - eating fat was a beneficial thing (because fat has a lot of energy) and even when fat was abundant (relatively speaking, today we have much more fat available than ever before) and the person would get fat, it would not be harmful because the person would have died before the effects The obesity would have killed him.
Culture called us to eat a lot and live longer than the "natural" conditions called us and evolution has not yet had enough to change our nature and our tendency to eat too much fat.
By the way, even dogs whose natural environment is the human environment suffer from a similar problem.
And Hugin, take note: this is the correct explanation and nothing has gone wrong here. Things just got better.
Loehari
Right.
To Hugin:
No.
Loehari
It has already been said that "there is nothing to argue about taste and smell". If this is true for all humans, then for some
And what about the animals, whose senses in nature are developed. (And if we are talking about the wolf family, it will be said that the dogs are completely "spoiled", but they are the closest and similar to the soul of a person. And reflect his gait).
In short: the extreme "modern" man has lost his special senses.
To Michael:
Can we talk about a preference for fatty foods in terms of taste?
Humans also often prefer fatty foods and these foods are considered a delicacy - foie gras, lamb fat, steaks and salmon. It would be interesting to conduct an experiment in which an animal would be forced to choose between two nutritional alternatives - a food that does not contain fat and the same food that contains an artificial flavor (or not) of fat.
someone:
So all in all, you are taxing me and not Hagar because this is exactly the conclusion of the researchers - the wolves prefer the fish because it is easier and less dangerous to hunt them.
Regarding the dietary values - although it is not clear if they play a role here - the possibility should not be underestimated.
I guess you know that wolves don't eat rocks or trees and grass they rarely eat (when they need to vomit). This is not due to awareness of dietary values but it is due to dietary values that evolution has "learned" and imprinted in them.
And Michael:
Regarding the definition: he also added to this "post-post-post-modernist-strictly" indeed, in my holy
The vertices and the cores of everyone - and my heart - my head. Exact! (and I am allowed and permitted in proportion, for the necessary hour).
In proportion = in the right proportion.
Anyway,
When the wolf is given a salmon fish, to appease his hunger, his heart says thank you! To the spirit of the fish, and the fish!
Did I already mention that all the sacred animals reside in you?? Yes.
To Michael
I don't know anything about Hagar, but I will go so far as to paint wolves engaged in fishing...
And seriously, in my estimation, a prey animal will always prefer to hunt what is easy and convenient to hunt:
the weak, the disabled, etc... simply to keep the strength (and herself) up
For the next meal - and as written on the site itself:
"The researchers explain that the wolves prefer to hunt salmon for a number of reasons: First, it is safer to fish than to hunt since many times a hunter ends up with serious injuries."
However, please allow me to question the wolves' awareness of dietary values (which is why
the second brought by the researchers).
Hugin:
I have already identified you as strictly postmodernist and your current response illustrates this.
In your view, everything is good - both the smallpox disease and its eradication. Both World War II and the one in which the Germans were defeated (and on that occasion - also the one in which so many Jews died). Everything stems from the superior conscience of the universe and we are only invited to admire and not exercise our judgment.
So that's it, things don't work that way for me.
I am aware that my morality and my judgments about what is good and what is bad do not come from a divine source and are the result of evolution.
I am also aware that the ambitions of the fish do not include predation.
It makes sense, as far as I'm concerned, that the fishes, if they used terms like good and bad, would define their own indulgence as a bad thing and would equally define actions leading to such indulgence as stupidity rather than wisdom.
I don't see anything wrong - and in fact I don't see any escape either - from defining the terms of morality, good and bad, when they are based on the question of what is good for the definer himself.
Wisdom can only be judged in the context of the goals to which the possessor of that wisdom aspires.
An animal that aspires to be eaten will act wisely if it acts as the salmon fish act.
An animal striving to live would act foolishly if it performed the exact same action.
That is why I claim that the actions of the salmon (which is the one who decides on them and not the wolf that preys on them) are acts of stupidity and not acts of wisdom.
To immigrate and to someone who thinks that when he says he is someone he stops being anonymous:
So beauty.
You agree with each other and I agree with the researchers.
They say that the issue has been tested over many seasons and as we know the wolf population is dynamic and individuals in it die while new ones are born.
Even the test you suggest will not help you yourself unless you want it because you can always claim that this preference is also because there were once events in the area that caused the partial extinction of the elk population and the accumulation of corpses on the river bank. The question is only of deciding what makes sense and what doesn't, and since in my opinion you have already crossed the line in this matter, I don't know how far you will go.
Anyway - this is the conclusion of the researchers which seems to me to be just logical, but you are welcome to do your own research and prove it wrong.
Michael
To your question? I will answer with a question: Is it from the north of the upper universe (all the souls of the dynasties of evolution since
Idani Idanim) sacrifices himself for the sake of the knowledge of science his very being? Indeed, who aspires to be
devoured?
Maybe the whole universe wants to keep the throne - heaven on earth in order to live here - to be guests in a living body.. in a special cosmic turn?
I wish you, the rest of the soul - and the rest of the spirit, to be reborn in the same body that you are currently living in in order to
Continue your work, and ask the pointed questions we like.
The mind of the head: serves the mind - the heart of the universe. (And vice versa = black hole: physical/metaphysical/absence of universe soul)
If you are here in Israel you will understand the deep meaning, then in Switzerland they will also understand, because everything that happens
In all the vertices here on the site (including Kobi-whose waves exceeded the speed of light), passes and is projected to all
The ends of the universe and the heart of all humanity - a witness from the upper north of the vast galactic universe
the empress of heaven
and the country
The consciences and consciences of all mankind are intertwined in us, and we are intertwined in them. And the same supreme compass lies in the heart of everyone, without exception. Like a Swiss watch: tick-tock, tick-tock, hi-tock..hi-tock..bye.bye.
Higgs: Hello, did the Higgs boson also understand the message? B. Point? Anyone? Michal,
Hagar, Maayan, Yael... Yehuda?? Don't panic!
Agree with Hagar.
To Michael,
I still think that a specific wolf pack or an area hit by a specific experience cannot serve as a proper research ground,
The test for this is simple, if this particular pack of wolves, "suddenly" sees a dead elk and a pile of salmon, where will the wolves go first (assuming they get to eat carrion)?
And again I say, the experience here is a factor that is not taken into account,
This particular group, in a very specific season, prefers fish to moose.
This is the only conclusion I can understand from the research.
Hugin:
You said a lot of things but you didn't answer my question.
Conscience = natural compass.
What is so complicated about my words? They told me!
To Michael
That "developed navigation system" is the special system found in each of us and helps
In the instinct to return after the tedious journey to the "mother-as-soul of the universe" that magnetism that connects between
The classifications, as complementing natural magnets = love.
In short, the "developed" person, as we see, lost this sense along the way. (In any case, the
the recognition that it is "encrypted").
Where, I surfed the "Science" website.. excuse me. In the name of life sciences, "life".
Hagar:
Read the article again.
These are seasonal changes and the wolves feed most of the time on elk.
The reasons described are logical and the research would not have lost its quality if snow hares had been found because one of the reasons for the findings - according to the researchers' conclusions - is really the danger faced by the hunter while hunting - a danger that is a function of the size so that even the anonymous can breathe easy.
Hugin:
What inner wisdom leads the salmon to return again and again to the place where it will be preyed upon?
It is not called smart, although it requires a developed navigation system.
That I will understand Hugin: The Messiah has already arrived?!
How come my token didn't drop until now, how?
My salmon steak won't affect anyone.
Humans need omega three point.
All other substitutions are unnecessary.
It is worth following the behavior of the salmon fish in the water.
The tribes attribute to him wisdom and inner knowledge, it is noted in the book, that despite the strong currents of the river,
It always returns to the place it was created.
In our case: I don't know if the wolf was hungry, or for a change he suddenly wanted to be smart for fun.
And if the wolves found snow bunnies, then the whole study
This was not worth it. A moose weighs and is many times stronger than a single wolf
– and the wolves are simply looking for something that is easier to hunt without
A connection to the question of whether he lives in water or on land.
odd. I avoid feeding my dog leftover chicken or fish for fear of the bones choking him.
I find this study strange.
To take a herd that lives in the area, you don't know what happened in its past, maybe for several years there was indeed a shortage of elk, which caused them to switch to fish, and as we know, such changes many times become a habit,
My question is, a wolf pack that has never had to decide between a hunter and a fisherman, what will they choose?
This specific band requires experience and the reasons for the choice can be multiple
Stop eating salmon, leave something for the wolves.