Why are wolves universally evil in Tolkien's Legendarium? They're a natural part of the environment that prevent herbivores from overrunning the environment yet he portrays them as unnatural demons.
Why are wolves universally evil in Tolkien's Legendarium?
Because he took inspiration from nordic folklore, and the most famous nordic wolf is Fenrir.
Fenrir was done dirty.
In another odd case of synchronicity, there is an angel who shares the same arc and punishment as Fenrir.
His name translates to "Animosity" or "Hatred".
End times guy, went a bit ham a bit early and was chained up.
The Dead Sea version of revelations kicks off when he slips out of those chains.
There are so many shared characters between the two I always get a kick out of it.
Wolves are used as a symbol of fear in most European cultures.
Is it just america (and turkey obv) where they get turned into vgh what noble creatvres?
Don't forget rabies too. What a horrible fricking thing. You get one bite and haha you are now 100% dead there is no chance to survive make your time. Until they came up with cures recently obviously. I'd heard the guy who helped create a vaccine/treatment for it had a shotgun on hand and understanding from one of his co-workers that if any of them got bit and the vaccines didn't work to just kill them.
>Don't forget rabies too. What a horrible fricking thing. You get one bite and haha you are now 100% dead there is no chance to survive make your time.
Rabies is 100% lethal IF you are actually infected, but avoiding infection itself is quite simple. If you're ever bitten by an animal you suspect have rabies, immediately remove yourself from the animal and start rinsing the wound with water and soap. Washing the wound thoroughly greatly reduces the risk of infection. While you rinse your injury, immediately contact emergency services and explain that you need a rabies vaccine. Even administered post-injury it has a very high success rate in preventing infection. Early wound treatment and more importantly administration of the vaccine within 24 hours (at the latest 72 hours) will literally save your fricking life.
Because they're evil in real life
Man exterminated them in all their traditional ranges for a reason
Vicious, notorious overkillers, happy to prey on women and children
Takes generations of breeding to turn them into a useful creature.
>Vicious, notorious overkillers, happy to prey on women and children
Uhh chief?
>Source: My ass
Look up the Wolves of Paris and the Battle of Notre Dame
Do you think pre-modern humans could have hunted Tyrannosaurus rex to extinction if they were around back in the day too? Or would it be literally impossible for a pre-firearms society to do it?
Easily. We hunted Mammoths to extinction, and they are about the same size.
Spamming projectiles is OP.
No we didn't. That entire field of thought is completely refuted at this point.
It's funny how the places where Humans are non-native experienced near total loss of megafauna. While the place where homosexual sapiens sapiens is native had almost no loss, and other homosexual sapiens subspecies had medium losses.
This inter-glacial period is not special, those species lasted through plenty of them, the difference is that an invasive species suddenly popped up alongside it.
It couldn't be like climatological differences actually differ from one another because everyone knows all changes are identical and produce exactly the same result,
And it couldn't be like a climate or other shift at time A has a different effect on a population as a similar shift at time B because nothing about the population or the rest of the environment has changed.
And it's not like evolution is an ongoing process that sometimes produces changes that make a species less fit.
https://www.rbth.com/science-and-tech/328469-why-did-mammoths-go-extinct
Are you saying it's sheer coincidence? I can grant differing conditions producing populations more at risk of extinction or genetic defects. The Siberian steppe had very low population densities for Mammoths compared to the closely related Indian Elephants. Depending on estimates, as much as a factor of 100(though probably closer to a factor of 10). But low population densities also would mean that a handful of hunts by humans, mixed with a slow reproduction rate of Elephantidae would easily cause localized extinctions. Cross the whole tundra that gives global extinctions. Mammoths were literally hunted to extinction on the wrangle islands.
And Australia is a clear cut example of humans producing extinction. Even if it was secondary, like starting bush fires, the aboriginals wiped out everything bigger than kangaroos.
Evolution is an ongoing process, and the species that had more time to adapt to the new changing environment (said environment being the one with humans hunting in it). The ones less adapted to this shift were less fit and went extinct.
Also humans hunted species to local extinction all the time, LIKE WOLVES! the subject matter of this thread.
The push for a climate based extinction is political in nature I find. It turns out indigenous peoples are perfectly able to screw up their local environments rather than live in harmony with them. But acknowledging that can undermine a lot of movements.
>LIKE WOLVES! the subject matter of this thread.
Like life itself, this part of the thread has diversified and I am specifically discussing mammoths, not wolves, not megafauna in general.
>Are you saying it's sheer coincidence?
What I'm saying that is that claiming mammoths went extinct because of humans is misleading. There is no one factor. Wrangel Island was possibly the last population of them, though it may also have been mainland Siberia and perhaps elsewhere. While the extinction event of Wrangel appears to be the result primarily of humans, other regions appear to have been caused by things like flooding or marine inundation for which humans were not responsible. Overall, the main driver behind their extinction is, as far as I am concerned, climatic changes favouring different flora leading to changes in habitat to which they were unable to adapt. Doubtless humans helped their extinction, but human predation is not the primary let alone the singular cause. When better evidence is published I'll consider it and probably agree with it as is not my primary area of expertise but for now my understanding is that climate is the major factor.
>We hunted Mammoths to extinction
You guys say the dumbest shit.
>That entire field of thought is completely refuted at this point.
The first anon is over simplifying but hunting leading to extinction is not completely refuted. Climate change with the conversion of open tundra to coniferous forest that the warming brought caused a decline that may have been sustainable but even the low level of predation by humans may have tipped the scale the final little bit to their extinction. Without either the habitat change or the predation they may have survived past 9 kya on the main lands so it's possible humans were a contributing factor.
Lizard is lousy regular diet though.
Dinosaurs aren't lizards.
Oh that's right.
They weren't real.
They were/are. But they aren't lizards.
dinosaurs aren't real
but if they were
they'd be lizards
and team peanut butter peeps
the data is in
They aren't even kind of like lizards.
The other anon's not even kind of like a reasoning being.
and Evangelists are all groomers
We didn't hunt shit to extinction. It was an asteroid impact.
>all these mammoths just died at the same time with no visible wounds in the same place by bands of 30 or so grugs with sharp sticks
I call nonsense. Our hunting them probably didn't help, but to claim sole credit for the death of the mammoth is a bit of a misnomer
Humans were probably beneath Rex's notice save as an opportunistic snack, if they'd shared a planet. If humans wanted to wipe them out, they'd do it by attacking their nest sites. But it'd be dangerous, Rex has good eyesight and excellent olfactory capacity, hard to get the jump if the nest is being watched.
>Rex has good eyesight and excellent olfactory capacity, as determined from fossilized skull fragments
evolutioBlack folk, everyone
What everybody misses with the T-Rex vs Human hunter debate is that the T-Rex thrives on confrontation. It wasn't an ambush predator and it didn't chase after things. The T-Rex practiced a hunting strategy that we don't see in any animal in our contemporary environment: direct confrontation followed by TERRIBLE OVERWHELMING VIOLENCE. T-Rexes are notoriously covered in bite marks, horn punctures, shattered bones from tail clubbings, that they've healed from, and the remains of Triceratops who've stood their ground and had their heads completely ripped the frick off by a T-Rex.
I don't doubt at all that stone age Humans would be able to *kill* a T-Rex; I'm just saying we'd have to dramatically re-work our hunting strategy for such an animal. We've made a living goading and provoking animals so we'd be able to snooker them with pointed sticks and spears, but a T-Rex is not only *prepared* for that specific situation, but is actively counting on it.
Aren't you a little old for fairy tales?
I wanna vote T Rex for president
Just throw more spears at from farther than it can charge. Or if we want to be clever, dig a hole, cover it up, then throw more sticks at it from the other side of the hole. Big birdie would break it's ankles.
It's a tough old bird I'll grant you, but people don't wrestle with tigers when hunting them. We don't play fair.
I can't help but feel you guys are seriously underestimating the sheer terror and panic a tyrannosaur would inspire. It's not like a mammoth. It's a giant loud as frick demon that can swallow you whole.
It's easy to talk about all the clever ways you and the boys might take down a T-Rex, but when you're actually faced with pic related in reality? It's roar alone would likely leave your ears ringing. Good luck, hope you've managed to conquer fear.
Big variable would be if T-Rex does or does not fear fire, most animals in today's world do, but dinos we can't say for sure about dinosaurs,
Being loud doesn't really mean being scary. Some people get a kick of loud noises instead.
It's also gotta be pretty dumb, worse than a chicken.
Assuming it does invoke terror and gets close to me, then it would have to put it's big chompy face real close to my long stabby spear. Half of the fear response is fight, and getting stabbed in the throat tends to be fatal. Getting rid of monsters is nothing new.
>Half of the fear response is fight
That's not true, because there's a pretty common 3rd response, other than fight or flight: Freeze. That's why deer and shit like to stop in the front of a speeding car.
T-Rex is ready for a 1v1 vs a moronic triceratops.
It isn't ready for ranged pack hunters.
It can roar and charge all it wants.
Any Human it goes for, presuming they're hunting effeciently, will run while the rest harass the T-Rex. It will eventually be out-endured just as everything else big we hunted was.
You just need bigger sticks, do a ewok vs at-st on them with pointy logs.
How is that supposed to make it harder?
>dig hole
>throw spear at t-rex
>it runs at you
>it falls into hole
How about a Pikeblock against a T-rex?
But Why?
We already have a solution:
That's why you do the normal human thing of ambushing it while it isn't expecting it. It doesn't matter how crazy and aggressive you are if you get ambushed while you're resting.
yes.
>Man exterminated them in all their traditional ranges for a reason
because they'd try to eat the livestock, and humans don't like competition.
Because we're the real
>Vicious, notorious overkillers, happy to prey on women and children
>le man is le real monster! *tips fursuit*
>Dumbass no-history Black person detected
Go shit in your fursuit, all animals with more than 2 braincells are violent and territorial. You are an aberration hiding behind the skirt of society.
>t. animal with aprox 3 braincells
Cmon guy, why are you so upset?
>all animals with more than 2 braincells are violent and territorial.
Only stupid angloids who are too anal retentive to go on nature walks believe this. Most animals, in general, want very little to do with one another if they can help it. Of course animals hunt, but rarely would a predator go out of his way to frick with a perfectly healthy adult animal if he can help it due to the amount of energy they'd have to expend to do so. It's actually the loss of biodiversity worldwide that may contribute to animals seemingly growing more "aggressive".
Didn't mean to write "if he can help it" twice, oh well.
That's because animals have competition, dipshit. As soon as someone becomes apex, he'll devour everything to the best of his ability.
Just refer to cats, hornets, locusts.
Nature controls this behaviour by limiting food stuff, but humans overcame that too, and started growing and herding food.
And often overkilling shit for greed, profit or fun. What's consumerism for you otherwise?
You don't need to be a degenerate to admit that. You need to be one to deny it.
I'm not that anon. I'm just chilling here and lurking after watching an exchange upstream, I'm not following yours closely. But
>Cats
Specific feline reaction, particular to housecats. The only animal that rivals a house cat in terms of its desire to kill is a particular type of venemous shrew that never sleeps and has to eat a multiplier of its own bodyweight every so many hours or it drops dead from lack of calorie intake. And that's specific to domesticated felines.
>hornets
I don't know much about hornet behavior.
>locusts
So, locusts are an entirely different thing than domesticated felines. Locusts are actually incredibly fascinating, because they conditions under which they swarm are poorly understood by biologists, but what little we do know is super interesting.
Also their swarm behavior is totally unrelated to cat behavior.
>Specific feline reaction, particular to housecats
The sheer, unrelenting viciousness of a house cat is astounding when you compare it to other wild animals.
We bred them specifically to murder shit because it exists; the pleasure of the kill means more than food.
Anyone with as passing knowledge of our history knows its true though.
keep in mind, wolves were wandering into the biggest cities in europe and hunting humans for food as late as the 1780s, to my knowledge
woah cool it with the anti-first nationsism
>starving wolves eats exposed calf sitting in a open field for a free meal
}:(
>humans genocide the wolf, his wife, his children, his children's children because they're too stupid to keep their pet cows safe
:O
>wolf
}:(
>wolf(thoroughly inbred)
:O
You mean just like beavers, blue mcays, and the right whale?
They didn't have wolves in England by then, he thinks they're the same thing as goblins and demons, just fairy tale monsters. They're a really backwards people.
>the English are backwards
This. It's also why rats are still evil in a lot of modern fantasy settings.
Rats are evil because they're a pestilential menace, regardless of their socially affable traits as pets.
The only people keeping rats as pets are brain damaged croids.
This. They think a mowed lawn and 1 or 2 trees is nature when it's really a shabby country that got overpopulated
This. They took a war hero pioneering genius technology in his garage and had him chemically castrated and threatened to put him in jail, for being a bit gay. Because if it's one thing gay people do its reproduce. The also had the ephead of MI6 be a soviet spy and betray everyone to give them nuke blueprints.
The Brits are backwards.
Chemical castration was also supposed to prevent libido or at least performance.
Did Tolkien ever write or say anything about Jack London? I feel like he must’ve read his work
Tolkien was British and the British have a long history of hating wolves.
Because he was a professor of literature, not environmental science. So he cared more about symbolism than ecosystems.
Because he was British
Man eating wolves were a reality for most of European history. One time a pack of wolves 'besieged' the entire city of Paris. When the winter came the water froze and they snuck in through the sewers to eat people at night. People would be found half-eaten in the morning Wolves are wild, opportunistic predators, they are bigger, smarter and more feral than pitbulls. Wolves are important to the ecosystem and there's no reason to exterminate a bunch animals just because they're scary, but they were not demonized over nothing.
Why'd they stop?
The wolves were all hunted down and killed. http://www.coolstuffinparis.com/wolves_of_paris.php
It's not typical behavior for wolves to enter a crowded city to hunt human flesh; they'd only do it if pushed by starvation. They would much rather stay in their forests, hunting their regular prey.
It happen in Europe because
1) cattle, wolves went after easy prey
2) corpses, the black plague especially allowed human corpses to pile up and wolves scavenge them
In America where there wasn't a plague nor cattle wolves usually had a relative harmonious life, at least not worse than bears.
>In America where there wasn't a plague
Smallpox killed a bigger % why didnt they start then?
Smallpox never happened in the United States.
Not only did it happen in USA it happened all over the North American continent for centuries before there was a USA
Because people didn't keep middle age practices? Bodies didn't pile up during smallpox outbreaks like they did during the black plague.
Meant for
> .Wolves are important to the ecosystem and there's no reason to exterminate a bunch animals just because they're scary
California green ideology has ruined the west. If a species is too weak to survive then it didn't deserve to live in the first place. Human life only stands to get better without such beasts around.
>Wants an animals to become lost media
Removal of large predators causes an increase of highway fatalities in areas with large deer populations.
Then kill all the deer who cares?
/k/ probably would be upset.
Just dispose of free roaming ones, you can keep some in wildlife reservation for the purposes of animal husbandry or whatever.
I can tell you life in some shithole big city and have never actually been out in nature.
I've been out in the nature for years, anything bigger than a hare is usually more trouble than its worth. And hares themselves are the worst.
Removal of guns causes an increase of highway fatalities in areas with large deer populations.
Humans don't hunt the sick, young or elderly, they hunt the strongest of the herd making natural control all weird. Not do they leave their part to scavengers and fungi.
>interfere with God's creation to own the libtards
Don't Christians believe that God give Adam the lordship over all animals so he can do whatever he pleases with them?
Depends, the verse in question can be read as we can do whatever we want or that we're responsible for taking care of them.
>too weak to survive
Yup, guess that means that when humanity's culled the biosphere willy-nilly past the point that it can reliably weather disruption the decline of technological civilization will be well-deserved. Do the species a favor and have a nice day you moron.
Yes this is why we should really just kill all the honey bees.
Why do we need bees exactly again? They do nothing for us but sting annoying c**ts like you.
Well good luck having no food because all the plants are dead.
The number of times humanity thought it was hot shit and did things without serious forethought and then went "oh shit we were wienery morons" will always amuse me.
Classic example of socialists always being wrong.
Lemme point at the Dust Bowl real quick
>not eating the locusts
For shame Chang.
Locust bean is a plant you Black person
>If a species is too weak to survive getting shot then it didn't deserve to live in the first place.
You deserve every one of your (You)s.
Maybe it should've evolved behavior not to provoke its superiors.
This happened as recently as WW2 in the Soviet far east, where local wolf packs figured out women and children were easy pickings because the locals were not very good at fighting back. Eventually they got their shit together post-war and went on an extermination campaign.
Most animals do not prey on humans because we are not worth the trouble. Animals that hunt humans are either those in places where the local people never claimed the top of the food chain 100%, or the desperate, or those that have cottoned to an aberrance in human behavior.
It's a mythological echo, like
said. That echo exists in the first place because wolves have been an on-and-off enemy for humans for thousands and thousands of years, eating us or more often our herds.
Wild animals by definition can't be feral. Did you mean ferocious?
It was made up hysteria.
Yet again crazy women acting crazy.
That's bullshit. Those French men are themselves. Just ask yourself this: Would you rather be locked in a room with a wolf or a hungry Frenchman?
The anglo fears and dreads the knot.
The U.K. is quite ecologically stable, if sterile today. You absolutely can genocide wolves without the world ending, you just need to do a LOT more ecological manipulation than just that.
The continental U.S. is so big and has so many different ecosystems that it was simply deemed easier to save the wolves than go around culling other populations. The sort of primitive terraforming that occured in the British Isles should be replicated elsewhere to make the earth's wilds a veritable Eden. Baboons should be next IMO, they're basically IRL Goblins.
Dear god am I tired of people screeching "oh but think about the heckin' wolves!" You only like them because you think they're cute and have never ran into one in the actual wild.
I guess dead counts as "stable"
Correct. If food can still be grown, if the soil remains stable, and the weather is not adversely effected then it is quite stable.
that's not what "ecologically stable" means
No but he can focus on stable. Like Concrete. Concrete is nice and clean and stable. What are you a moron? We can just prune all parts of nature we don't need! The sparrows are next!
He's an idiot pulling Mao-tier thought, where do you think this is going to go anon?
"Anthropocentrically functional" would be a better description but what he really means is "self-centred short-term myopia". You may as well repurpose a library of as yet undeciphered text into toilet paper because "hurr durr we don need no scratchings, we need asswipes".
Wolfaboos are the inevitable result of the furBlack person invasion.
I really hate when I'm born too late to see some animals that I think would be really cool to see. I don't feel like letting future humans live in a world were they can't have wild wolves just because of convenience.
The Ice Age had the coolest animals alive for a human.
Man should know fear. He should know that there are monsters beyond his walls. It is his right.
>UK getting overrun by fricking badgers carrying TB and wiping out farms on a regular basis every single year
>"Listen, removing the large predators from an ecosystem is extremely smart and has resulted in a quite ecologically stable environment, okay?"
>UK getting overrun by fricking badgers carrying TB and wiping out farms on a regular basis every single year
Wolves or any large predators don't hunt badgers, they are too agressive species for that. I am not sure if badgers even have any natural enemies, except humans.
>"Badgers only have a few natural predators because they are highly aggressive animals. While their predators include coyotes, bobcats, golden eagles, and bears, cougars hunt them the most"
>"Larger carnivores, such as wolves, lynx and bears may sometimes kill badgers, but this appears to be to remove potential competition for food (i.e. competitive displacement), rather than predation (i.e. with the aim of eating them)."
t. Google
>guns can be used to kill wildlife and the uk has become a police state criminalizing weapon ownership
Do you need google for this one?
>muh farmers own plenty of 17th century barrel-loaded guns in the local club's safe
Hope a badger gets you, but it will probably be diversity
>muh pol
lol
Wouldn't be a problem if farmers were free to do what was necessary to protect their livelihoods. There isn't a single government on Earth that doesn't keep farmers underneath their thumb.
>free to do what was necessary to protect their livelihoods
Giving any human being carte blanche to act in whatever deranged manner they see fit has literally never in the history of the world ended well, especially not when it involves undereducated rural subhumans detached from society. You have to keep these cretins on a tight fricking leash or they'll strip out all the trees from waterways, kill all native wildlife, juice cattle up with mega milker hormones, slash and burn the earth until it's utterly unworkable and blows away in the first storm that hits. Farmers are only marginally higher on the food chain that their livestock, and that's only by the grace of God.
What do you do for your fellow man, shitpost on the Internet and cry that no one likes you?
Traditional farming should move on towards the future once and for all., electric fences, efficient practice, etc.
The UK's biggest issue is removing the greatest predator of all. Guys with guns.
>UK's biggest issue is removing the greatest predator of all
I'm pretty sure Andrew is still around, just banned from public events.
Oh come on, one known 16 year old? He had nothing on most of the BBC.
The whole of Britain is just Nonce Island
Nah, it was so rare that the nonce elites had to import more rapists to not feel so alone.
This song seems to indicate Britain has a reputation for that at least. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iICsiArWmHI
The map of bovine TB cases has basically no correlation with the map of badger populations. It does, however, line up very nicely with a map of which cattle markets the farmers take their herds to.
>The cows with TB are precisely where the cows are
My god, you've cracked the case.
The takeaway is that the biggest source of bovine TB cases are farmers letting their xattle all mingle together in close proximity with zero precautions despite being well aware that there is a problem with bovine TB going around the place, because farmers tend to be remarkably fricking stupid about these things. Culling the badgers won't affect a damn thing as long as farmers keep being moronic and completely ignoring basic precautions.
Culling the badgers is also a temporary solution because the disease will keep circulating in the population which will inevitably increase again, whereas the proposed alternative of vaccinating the badgers will massively reduce the disease over a much longer time period without wrecking another piece of the ecosystem.
Culling the badgers can be permanent fix to badgers as a transmission vector if you're thorough about it. Of course there's other transmission vectors that need their own set of precautions. Vaccination is less than ideal, because it does mitiage spread of the disease the short term (in order of years) but in the long term (say a decade+) can incentivize it to mutate into more aggressive form.
If you're suggesting that the solution to bovine TB is to literally exterminate every badger in the countryside then you can go frick yourself with a rusty butterknife.
Yes, that's one of the benefits of being an island.
Killing the wolves can't be the main cause of the problems, Japan did it too and their agriculture is doing fine.
Japan is not the UK.
>the British Isles should be replicated elsewhere
This homie really wants a second Great Atlantic Garbage Patch
I get you, I am sad that the local farmer's party decided to go into a coalition with lab*ur, which has lead to only gay shit and an decimation of their party, instead of something cool like exterminating all the wolves again.
Supposedly you have panthers now.
>Baboons should be next IMO, they're basically IRL Goblins.
Goblins have nothing on baboons. Baboons can rip your head from your shoulders.
I mean, look at the wolves they had at the time.
Not the little basedpups we have today.
> "Hey b***h its MY chewtoy go get your own."
> tfw you have just killed a wolf and a sultry French maid shows up out of nowhere to fug you as a reward but it was all mind games between her and her BBW (Big Bad Wolf) bull...
Why does that wolf monster have a raging hardon?
Tolkien's legendarium is fundamentally based on nordic and anglo-saxon (white) European folklore. Ancient white Europeans understood that wolves and dogs were a great and dangerous force in the corruption of wh*te w*men.
The American Wolf Cullings occurred as Tolkien was growing up. (He was born in 1892)
In the late 1800's to early 1900's there were massive wolf-bounty programs that depicted wolves as roving hoards of murderous beasts that were countless in number and direct threats to humans. They were heavily demonized in propaganda and for a whole generation where caring about nature in general was a rarity, the western world was left to believe that wolves were essentially fantasy monsters to be purged.
I assume that Tolkein was affected by this cultural phenomenon at least peripherally, even if he wasn't American himself, considering that these culling campaigns lasted until he was probably 73 years old.
Very based pic.
Luckily, unlike snakes, wolves are easily exterminated.
>I assume that Tolkein was affected by this cultural phenomenon at least peripherally, even if he wasn't American himself, considering that these culling campaigns lasted until he was probably 73 years old.
It's difficult to understand now that farming is an automated process completely divorced from the rhythm of seasons and the greatest threat to your livestock is the government deciding that cows are farting the sea-levels higher, but for hundreds of years wolves represented a very real threat to people's personal safety and livelihoods. Tolkien was more inspired by the fact that Englishmen wiped wolves out in Britain than what was happening to America.
The greatest lie that worldbuilders ever told is that myth and fantasy give a single errant toss about real world biology and ecology. Fantasy is a human interpretation of the natural world, the moment you add science to it you start to lose the fantastic
>I assume that Tolkein was affected by this cultural phenomenon at least peripherally, even if he wasn't American himself, considering that these culling campaigns lasted until he was probably 73 years old.
I really think its rather based on Wolves being a literary trope for outsiders and enemies in Germanic literature, for which he was an expert and enthusiast.
Old Norse and German law texts call criminals and people outside of society literally Wolves.
LOTR was written as a myth for Anglo-Saxons. From the perspective of a 5th century Anglo-Saxon settler, Wolves would be incredibly dangerous and evil animals. The only reason we have a positive view of Wolves today is because most of us don't have to worry about being killed by them either directly or indirectly.
The other problem European wolves have is many are probably wolf-dogs.
Feral dogs interbreeding with wolves produces wolves with no fear of humans and an upbringing that is even more focused on scavenging livestock and garbage.
Some reports about the Beast of Gevaudan mentioned the body had two declaws on its front paws, a common trait in the sheepdog breed of the region.
Then again some say based on the colour, tugged tail, size and habit of targeting prey like humans above a certain size it was a juvenile lion.
Before guns existed wolves ate people a lot. They were prolific maneaters. In modern times they rarely attack let alone kill unlike big cats.
Because, like what happens with snakes, humans species have been at odds with wolves since we set a foot on the ground
Holy shit I knew I would be angry if I came in here but I did it anyway.
I'm a wolf biologist, this is my full time honest to god job that I get paid for. The amount of dumb shit in this thread from these supid ass Black folk makes me fricking mad, because these are the people voting for more wolf culling and less protection.
Let me list it off real quick:
>Wolves are a key predator in ecosystems
>Wolves have proven to make ecosystems healthier by their presence
>Wolves control the large herbivores which otherwise over-graze, killing all the slow growing plants, leaving only the shitty fast growing plants which frick up waterways
>Wolves self regulate their population by natural mortality and emmigration. It's not naturally possible to have wolves "overrun" an ecosystem
>Wolves do not kill humans, they're too shy for that outside of human stupidity or rabies
>We HAVE exterminated them from ~80% of their natural range, and we absolutely COULD finish off the other 20%.
>It's not that keeping them around is just easier. We now see the value in them and have decided it's GOOD to keep them around.
>This turnaround only started in the 1900's.
>It's been less than 100 years since we stopped letting dumb Black folk like the homosexuals in this thread make decisions about wolves
>Wolves are not the devil given form. They will not come burn your crops and poison your water
>I've seen wolves in the wild and in captivity so I'm not just a bleeding heart city slicker.
If you still think wolves are the devil please remove yourself from the gene pool and never vote on wolf referendums again
What classes do you usually play in campaign, anon?
I like to play classes with a health regeneration gimmick, a pet gimmick, or healers.
I like having a wolf buddy, so Ranger is my favorite (DnD) class.
Werewolves are my favorite monsters, so anything that lets me tank by regenerating health is awesome.
If it's a sci-fi or future setting, I wanna be a MedTech like the Trauma Teams from Cyberpunk.
I try not to be a one trick pony. I don't wanna be "that guy" who only plays wolf themed characters. I could and not get bored but variety is better for the table.
>Wolves are not the devil given form. They will not come burn your crops and poison your water
Yeah, that sounds like something wolf would write. You're not fooling anyone.
Post paws with timestamp.
Incredibly based. Wolves get so much undeserved shit. Some people have this weird irrational hatred for them whether it's farmers who can't be bothered to put up a fence, sport hunters who think that wolves are going to somehow kill all the other animals until there's nothing left or just weirdos.
It's literally just because of wolves being the antagonist in children's books. That's it. Propaganda
Ever since I realized this I've wanted to one day write a series of children's books where wolves are the good guys
Jungle Book
Middle Earth has regular wolves that aren't evil but it also has demon-wolves which are like platonic exaggerations of normal wolves. This is in keeping with the general theme of how the good Valar had an image of how things were supposed to work and then Morgoth fricked it up. Yavanna probably intended for there to be predators in nature, but we can't even say that for certain, because the real-world is just a further extension of the song-as-marred-by-Melkor and does not necessarily reflect an ideal vision of nature.
Wolves have been humanity's greatest rivals since we left Africa. It's not surprising humans have bad associations with them.
The only time my vote has ever mattered was a vote in my state of Colorado on whether to reintroduce wolves and it passed by 60k votes, and I am proud to say I voted "yes" on that issue. Frick farmers, they're such entitled little shits.
The government doesn't want you to know, but wolves are free. I've been secretly hunting wolves every year and only my taxidermy friend knows. You wouldn't believe how much money people pay for a stuffed wolf. And I get a kickback from local farmers and they're always showering me in gifts like eggs, jam and pies. I reckon I've saved the local economy a couple million over the last 10 years.
Wolves are human killing mosters in Europe, that's why they've been hunted near to extinction.
Wolves aren't needed to control herbivore populations in any area with human hunters.
I'm going to insult you now: your zoomer brain has absorbed environmentalist hoax nonsense and you couldn't be bothered to find this information out on your own because of your low iq. You represent the decline of civilization and are the reason why the pop at large is treated like moronic toddlers by the nanny police state. If you ever venture outside your concrete jungle, you'll probably end up shot by the first human you encounter when you fail an IRL impression check.
This isn't just an issue with environmentalism, this is how stupid and arrogant the rightoid mind is, in general. They're like this on every issue.
>Wolves are human killing mosters in Europe
Wolves are so scared of humans they actively avoid us you fricking oil barrel.
>Wolves aren't needed to control herbivore populations in any area with human hunters.
Just plain wrong. The fact that there are still herbivore pest problems abound in every country despite it being permanently open season on some animals proves that's bullshit.
>the rest
This is how I feel about you. If you did even five fricking minutes of research you'd realize that wolves aren't demons. You have the intelligence of a lobotomized sponge and yet you still come on here to post
Step 1: Liberals are bad.
Step 2: Informed people are actually liberals
Step 3: The liberals lied to you
Step 4: Whatever answer pleases you most, whatever sounds easiest or most gratifying to you, that's the real correct answer
Step 5: Civic responsibility is gay, you shouldn't put effort into your politics, you should feel free to shit here and you shouldn't be sorry when you're wrong
>wolves aren't demons
He said 3 minutes before I watched him get eaten
I go into cages with captive wolves at least once a month you farm fricker. Wolves don't eat humans.
Yeah farmers hate wolves for obvious and understandable reasons. But you've probably COST the local wildlife department even more because for every wolf you kill that's a handful of more hunters they need to pay to keep the deer population down, in addition to other environmental efforts that were once solved by that wolf you shot.
This is also a fricking moronic take. Please never watch game of thrones or you will go out and buy a wolf-dog like so many others, and realize like SO MANY OTHERS that no they're NOT just big dogs. They're entirely different animals that aren't nearly as tame as dogs and can't be treated like dogs. Please don't be a burden on the local wolfdog shelter because of your inbred IQ having ass.
>Wolves don't eat humans.
Wolves 100% kill humans. Especially captive ones. There's an incident every other year or so with some c**t getting clocked out because they thought exactly like you do.
Not that dogs don't kill more humans tho.
Oh well of course I'm not saying that there has NEVER been a wolf fatality. When we're talking statistics we have to keep in mind the scope though.
Wolves fear humans where they live near us, and are most likely to just avoid us or flee. They can turn violent when they're starving, or diseased, or if some stupid ass homosexual tries to pet one of their cubs.
There are places in the world where they don't have regular contact with humans. In those places they still don't see us as prey. We're a curiosity to them.
It's a pervasive mindset isn't it? To cover it in broad strokes it comes from:
>Wolves demonized through mythology for lots of ancient history
>Wolves demonized and hunted through the middle ages before ecology as a science began
>Modern hollywood still holds onto cliche about wolves from before the 1900's when we began to understand them
>Werewolves are still a popular myth (despite us getting very few good werewolf movies/media)
>Hunters think more wolves = less deer = more competition, so less wolves must mean more deer for them
>Farmers hate wolves because they kill livestock. This is the most legitimate grievance against wolves.
>Furries
Look at the data of how people vote and most pro-wolf people live in cities or urban centres, most anti-wolf in rural or countryside.
>On the internet, no one knows your a wolf.
>This is also a fricking moronic take
People killed them with poison, traps, and hunting dogs, when it came to culls they weren't that much more dangerous than feral dogs.
That wasn't your original argument, dumbass.
You were arguing that you're a pussy if a large dog manages to kill you, which is moronic in itself, and a wolf is far more than a dog which makes it moronic squared.
Yeah of course an animal with the intelligence of an animal would be easy to cull with modern technology.
>That wasn't your original argument, dumbass.
Its not hard to kill them, that was the point. Maybe if you're some dipshit who lives in some mud hut in Germania with no metal working, its a problem. If you're going out to kill one and you've got traps, poison, dogs, or sharp implements, not so much.
>Yeah farmers hate wolves for obvious and understandable reasons
Yeah but your average farmer doesn't do anything of actual value since they just get (usually illegal) immigrants to do all the actual work, so I don't care what they think.
You israelites hate humanity so much it's unreal.
If you aren't tired of humanity you ARE the israelite.
What a moronic opinion, especially coming from someone who is supposedly educated in the matter.
Wolves are mini-bears, or mega-wolverines. The three share a characteristic capacity for absolute bloodrage overriding any concern for self-preservation.
Also, wolves are more intelligent than big cats, and we 100% know big cats are already intelligent enough to become obsessed with being evil to human beings. Maybe they aren't as cognitively disposed to cruelty as felines, but I'm sure if one tiger went nuts as a result of losing a teeth and took it out by killing over 300 pajeets in the last century, at some point a wolf probably did something similar since time immemorial.
>Wolves are mini-bears, or mega-wolverines
Those aren't even in the same genus you wiener gobbler. No wolves don't have a Rage Mode switch to flick on. There's zero fricking literature to support that.
>Also, wolves are more intelligent than big cats, and we 100% know big cats are already intelligent enough to become obsessed with being evil to human beings. Maybe they aren't as cognitively disposed to cruelty as felines, but I'm sure if one tiger went nuts as a result of losing a teeth and took it out by killing over 300 pajeets in the last century, at some point a wolf probably did something similar since time immemorial.
That's a hell of leap of logic there anon. That there MIGHT be ONE THEORETICAL data point that happened SOME TIME we don't know when, and you want to support that from the claim that wolves just happen to share the same cognitive capacity as a different species. You should try publish that in Nature anon I'm sure you're just a fricking prodigy.
>That's a hell of leap of logic there anon.
The unprompted seething about cats is a classic identifier of wolfaboo tourists, I wouldn't take anything xe says too seriously. He's probably just here for the anonymity so people can't see his reddit history is full of zoophile posting.
>being evil to human beings
no, humans are weak and good, easy prey when a big cat realizes they're all over the place, read capstick you fricking Black person
>easy prey when a big cat realizes they're all over the place, read capstick you fricking Black person
> Cat kills but doesn't eat.
> Cat kills purely as a tactic in order to draw the pajeets out of the village to sneak in and murder women, children and elderly by the dozen, again not eating any.
> Cat then does it once again, but knowing pajeets are catching on, goes and hide in the cellar of a house to come out during the night and then murder dozens of pajeets as they sleep, again, not eating them up.
> Once beast is finally killed, after wracking a kill count in the mid 300, we discover it had a bullet lodged in one of its teeth, probably making it insane with pain.
> BUT OH NO THIS IS NOT THE CAT ACTING OUT OR TAKING ITS REVENGE, WE JUST WEAK YOU NIGNOG
Holy shit murder yourself.
>wait the entire movie for him to fight the wolf
>the wolf ACTUALLY WAITS until he's ready to fight
>movie ends before the first punch
IT'S UTTER SHIT
KYS
Bad opinion and discarded.
he was fighting the wolf inside himself anon, it's a survival movie, not an action movie, catch up. The ending is also different depending on when you leave the theater, which i always thought was neat.
Bullshit, you can't have an entire set up about Liam Neeson punching a wolf and not deliver.
Yeah I have no idea where this cope that "humans will fix it!" comes from when it's been shown over and over that it's far easier and more efficient to allow natural predators to prevent the overpopulation of herbivores, which are FAR more damaging to the environment than predators ever are, comes from. You would have to create an entire group of professionals that constantly monitored and hunted things like deer which would cost you way, way more with no real tangible benefit than, you know, simply letting the wolves perform their God given role.
No not really, you just have to stop the restrictions on human predation.
>Wolves are human killing mosters in Europe, that's why they've been hunted near to extinction.
Its a slightly bigger dog and that's cowardly as shit. If you get killed by that you're a pussy.
Dogs are just smaller wolves, nothing to worry abou---ack!
>wolves don't eat huma--ACK!
Imagine living in this shit, you must've felt like you were genuinely in the End Times.
Imagine if wolves didn't just attack blatantly in daylight. They would end up eating both armies whole.
dont the book say that in the final battle there were animals of all kinds and species on both sides? some eagles sided with sauron, some wolves went against him
Sure are a lot of Hollywood-brainwashed bugmen in this thread perpetuating horrendously false myths about wolves to justify actual sociopathic desires to kill animals.
It seems less like Hollywood brainwashing and more like the kind of brainwashing you get in school where your average American is trained to pathologically fear anything that might lower a businessman's bottom line. Ergo, the wolves are bad because they might make a rancher lose a cow or two.
You have a comical obsession with America, coming from a continent where wolves were zealously and deliberately hunted to extinction, Eruopoid.
>Evil wolves
I think the man was onto something
STOP TRYING TO GET ME TO WANT TO FRICK THIS WOLF
Ohh anon, you ALREADY want to frick that wolf
I'm more of a cat person.
Furries are disgusting and I bully several daily in the discords I'm in, but I am curious who pic related is.
>discords I'm in
Stay in them
Loona from Helluva Boss. Don't be ashamed of yourself.
Doges are all right
Dogs made the right choice - better to work with than against. Only a handful of species have much success opposing humans, and most of those are vermin species.
If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, where do this "shouldn't have messed with us humans" crowd fit in?
Lower. Way lower. Patriotism might get you killed if you really chug the kool aid but ecological vandalism leads to Easter Island. The sooner the mouthbreathers are sterilised the better.
>gimme moar antibiotics!
Perverse market incentives are at play but you're especeially dumb if you think that'd lead to anything but the tragedy of the commons x1000. Why the frick do you think the UK was after the new world's timber in the first place, frickwit? You take a bunch of small-scale rational decisions and end up with an overall clusterfrick. Oh wait, I forgot:
At least mythic monster-wolves are still rad. Maybe one day people will be able to handle nuance in the world beyond stories.
Because Tolkien, like all Yuropoors, is barely above a dirt eating medieval peasant.
Back in the day the wolves in europe were absolute fricking bastards. So in most european folklore, Wolves reflect that.
Which led to an unfortunate interaction in the americas where the wolves were a LOT less dangerous to people but people were still afraid of them since they're wolves.
>americas where the wolves were a LOT less dangerous
How and why were american wolves less dangerous?
I would hazard a guess that since North American tribes didn't have domesticated grazing animals, wolves never needed to come into contact with humans and dogs unless they had to or by chance.
Thanks for an explanation, gentlemen.
you'd assume they were all the same, but they are 2 subspecies or breeds. Eurasian wolves are on average 50lbs heavier than the American breed, and have more agressive tendency to humans. its believed that the American environment has better conditions and prey availibility for wolves, meaning they have less reason to attack any humans. Another reason might be that Euros are just getting attacked more because they can't fire warning shots at a hungry wolf pack to scare them off. North America still has cougars and bears to worry about, and coyotes are a bigger threat to livestock than wolves. if you go off into the woods ready to encounter a bear, a wolf isn't quite going to command the same fear.
Wolves are only "dangerous" and "an issue" for farmers with animals and literally no one else.
Frick farmers who needs them?
Modern technology already has ways to preserve stock from wolves with electric fences, is "traditional" (aka Europoor) farmers that have problems at all.
>hating traditional farms while all your highly specialized corporate "industrial farms" exists to export goods to Wal-Mart rather than feeding local communities
>all of this while causing biodiversity to collapse on itself on an unprecedented scale
Unironically kys.
Traditional farming already causes this and doesn't really help anyone that much. They also encroach and destroy natural habitats to create more space for their cattle.
Tolkien was a weirdo horsegay. Wouldn't be surprised if he was into Mr. Hands stuff.
Combination of drawing from Germanic mythologies and also having the privilege of living in that desolate landscape known as Britain, where no predators larger than a badger or wildcat exist.
frick you stupid garou, hahah you are so fricking stupiod
Shut up Pentex
Why is it the only people who fear wolves are third worlders?
America truly is one of the worst third world countries.
I have no idea what the frick are you on about, the only problem wolves cuse is livestock attack because otherwise they're not even worse than bears.
This source is useless, considering we are talking about 1650AD and earlier.
By 1950, American wolves in the wild had been nearly wiped out.
Fine, what do you use instead of reported attacks? A really intense hunch?
Because they don't let me pet them
KILL WEREWOLVES! BEHEAD WEREWOLVES! ROUNDHOUSE KICK A WEREWOLF INTO THE CONCRETE!
>ignore the constant fabrication of data, outright lying, and manipulation of statistics by every conservative source for decades
This is illogical. Nobody said anything about conservative scientists (who are all liars). The subject is liberal scientists (who are all liars).
When's the last time you saw your own toes fatso?
So it's a liberal source, fedora-kun?
I'm not liberal, pedo, I'm someone who know that Christianity is demon worshipping and child sexual abuse, particularly the American denominations
>I am not liberal
>next sentence is liberal atheistcuck talking point
you know you will hang next to troons right subhuman?
Post agricultural bias. Ancient peoples admired wolves.
The actual lore reason was that Melkor's discord affected the Arda that would be before the singing and linear time as it's inhabitant would know it. He never created the natural wolves (and the other beasts Orome hunted) of the world, but their predisposition for corruption and evil deeds was effectively set up beforehand because of how much of a disruptive element Melkor was..
Kill predator apologists, kill furgays, kill freakshit. Blog about your blinding lust for white women taking red rockets elsewhere, thirsty shitskins.
That doesn't even make sense. White women are the only ones thirsty for red rockets. Most of us are thirsty for nonexistent fat dog wives but we also joke about white women and their thirst for red rockets.
because only homosexualS associate with wolves & wolves themselves are FRICKING HOORID hunters failed 92% of all attacks when in a large pact, pathetic. I give my PCS incentive to kill them by them being stupid enough to try & kill anything, it also makes my players think they are FAR stronger than they are leaving them open.
I remember some documentary about tigers killing people in rural Indian villages. At some point during the show you got the strong sense that there weren’t any fricking tigers it was just normal killings (ie, gang, family, etc) which the Pajeets blamed on tigers as cover from the authorities. No fricking tiger is going to break through a wall to grab a sleeping person and then drag her out of the village before eating her — and leave no remains afterwards or draw out other villagers from the above commotion.
>No fricking tiger is going to break through a wall to grab a sleeping person and then drag her out of the village before eating her
Animals do that shit all the time
>and leave no remains afterwards
Tigers can crush bones and eat everything. Lions will eat you and leave nothing but the top of your skull and your shoes and play with your clothes.
>draw out other villagers from the above commotion.
Tigers kill their prey instantly. People who are asleep will not notice something dragging your corpse through the village and they especially won't notice it slipping into your house to kill you before it takes you someplace to eat you at its leisure.
When animals kill you, we imagine a gore fest. That's not what happens. To anyone discovering the scene, there will likely be a sign of a struggle, maybe a button from your coat, and it will look like you just walked into the bush and vanished.
>When animals kill you, we imagine a gore fest. That's not what happens. To anyone discovering the scene, there will likely be a sign of a struggle, maybe a button from your coat, and it will look like you just walked into the bush and vanished.
Quoting from jurassic park i see
The French had a huge wolf problem, the French are responsible for a good deal of Englad's foundation, so their foundational myths align.
Tolkien was certainly aware.
Tolkien's work was literally about removing the romantic influences of English myth though.
So…what was the Hound of Valinor? Just a big dog? Also I like how Sauron himself jobbed to it, evil just can’t catch a break with Tolkien
>Just a big dog?
A big talking wolfhound.
He walked in on his wife sucking off a dog and felt insecure ever since
>Why are wolves universally evil in Tolkien's Legendarium?
the word wolf comes from a proto-indo-european word meaning dangerous, and many cultures had taboos against even saying their name because of the fear that it might summon them.