Reddit reviews Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation

Sorta. I've actually got a copy of this and I'd be absolutely lying to you if I told you I've read the whole thing, but the tl;dr of the section about the linear pack hierarchy is that wolf packs are generally families and, as such, the circumstances they're in/disruptions they face/individual temperaments can make things look a variety of ways. They're more likely to fight if the pack is made up of unrelated members, or in a situation where the pack's parents are gone and it's a bunch of siblings figuring out who's in charge. They don't really fit well into the defined roles that researchers used to think existed, though.

I know that Mech in particular really regrets the introduction of those terms, and I'm pretty sure the current standard for wolf researchers is to avoid the word "alpha" altogether and just distinguish the breeding pair of a pack.

I wish I knew. Most of this bs comes about from wolf studies in the 60s-70s where they grabbed random wolves from random packs and shoved them all together in their very own Real World house. Normal packs are close-knit family groups, the breeding pair, (aka "alphas", which literally only means "parents" ) and their pups. But these wolves didn't know each other so were more confrontational, guarded resources more, and showed more hostility toward each other. It was, at the time, concluded that those behaviors were normal. We've learned so much since then.

Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation will offer more about wolves than you'll ever reasonably be able to learn. Ultimate reference about pretty much everything.

For lighter reads most all the stuff in the "Customers Also Bought" section of that page should be ok, some of them might be effectively little more than picture books though (the Almanac). The Dutcher books are pretty popular, although iirc I've heard mention of some controversy over them. Of Wolves and Men is supposed to be a more philosophical writing, but I haven't gotten to it yet. For fiction, I'll give a special mention to Jack London's work, especially White Fang.

There was an old book post here a long time ago you could search up for more.

>To say what Cesar Millan does is cruel or doesn't work, etc., is the height of naivety

To defend his nonsense because you've seen the show is the height of naivety. It is reality TV. It is a scripted, setup show. Many of the "rehabilitated" dogs were later killed because their problem behavior continued exactly as before the show. His segments consisted of "tie the dog to a treadmill and run it until it is exhausted, then turn the cameras on and look how it is 'calm' now".

> And I do those things all the time with my dogs,

That is really bad. Please take some time and read a book written by a professional rather than a celebrity with no credentials who is universally condemned by the entire profession.

>dominance if they just don't get it

Dogs do not get "dominance". They have no concept of dominance, it is entirely foreign to them.

>To say it's just the mom and the dad is just wrong

No, that is 100% accurate.

>They're not all unrelated, but wolves do leave packs

That doesn't make the pack unrelated

>and new ones do join

No they do not. Packs are families.

>you're stuck on your misconception of a not-actually-fully-debunked understanding of wolves.

No, it is absolutely fully debunked. You are the only one with a misconception there. The world's foremost expert on wolves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNtFgdwTsbU

http://www.davemech.org/news.html

http://www.amazon.ca/Wolves-Behavior-Conservation-David-Mech/dp/0226516970