Personal View site logo
No such thing as Alpha exist in wolf packs
  • "Alpha" connotes top ranking in some kind of hierarchy, so an alpha wolf is by definition the top-ranking wolf. Because among wolves in captivity the hierarchies are gender-based, there are an alpha male and an alpha female.

    The way in which alpha status has been viewed historically can be seen in studies in which an attempt is made to distinguish future alphas in litters of captive wolf pups. For example, it was hypothesized that "the emotional reactivity of the dominant cub, the potential alpha animal (emphasis mine) of the pack, might be measurably different from the subordinate individuals," and that "it might then be possible to pick out the temperament characteristics or emotional reactivity of potential alpha or leader wolves, and of subordinates" Furthermore, "Under normal field conditions, it seems improbable that timid, low ranking wolves would breed" . This view implies that rank is innate or formed early, and that some wolves are destined to rule the pack, while others are not.

    Contrary to this view, I propose that all young wolves are potential breeders and that when they do breed they automatically become alphas. Even in captive packs, individuals gain or lose alpha status, so individual wolves do not have an inherent permanent social status, even though captive pups show physiological and behavioral differences related to current social rank. Secondly, wolves in captivity breed readily, and I know of no mature captive individuals that failed to breed when paired apart from a group, as would be the case if there were inherently low-ranking, nonbreeders.

    Third, in the wild, most wolves disperse from their natal packs and attempt to pair with other dispersed wolves, produce pups, and start their own packs . I know of no permanent dispersers that failed to breed if they lived long enough.

    Wolves do show considerable variation in dispersal age, distance, direction, and other dispersal behavior (see references above), and conceivably these are related to the intralitter variation discussed above. However, unless a maturing pack member inherits a position that allows it to breed with a stepparent in its own pack, sooner or later it will disperse and attempt to breed elsewhere.

    Labeling a high-ranking wolf alpha emphasizes its rank in a dominance hierarchy. However, in natural wolf packs, the alpha male or female are merely the breeding animals, the parents of the pack, and dominance contests with other wolves are rare, if they exist at all. During my 13 summers observing the Ellesmere Island pack, I saw none.

    Thus, calling a wolf an alpha is usually no more appropriate than referring to a human parent or a doe deer as an alpha. Any parent is dominant to its young offspring, so "alpha" adds no information. Why not refer to an alpha female as the female parent, the breeding female, the matriarch, or simply the mother? Such a designation emphasizes not the animal's dominant status, which is trivial information, but its role as pack progenitor, which is critical information.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20050308172008/http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/alstat/alpst.htm

  • 1 Reply sorted by
  • Goes against common knowledge. Interesting.