Wolf Studies - Confusion!

Having just finished re-watching 'Living with Wolves,' the account of Jim and Jamie Dutcher's Sawtooth Pack, and thinking about Shaun Ellis' book, 'Spirit of the Wolf' I find myself thinking that science, in particular biology and the study of wild animals is rather flawed. Here, in these two accounts we see two different sets of naturalists intimately studying wolves, living with them and seeing how they live, yet we see different things in each. In the Dutcher's wolf project, they felt sorrow for the omega Lakota for being at the bottom of the pack pecking order, but in 'Spirit of the Wolf' it would seem that while an omega is the diffuser of tension, they are still so important, but maybe, maybe it's the same. Perhaps Motzi in the Dutcher's study is the beta male in Shaun Ellis' study who protects the omega and keeps good meat for them. The Dutchers certainly never stuck their face in a kill like Mr. Ellis did to find out what each rank of wolf is eating. So, today I'm confused; who is right? I Know I'm not explaining very well at all what I am thinking about, so here:

Dutcher: Omega wolves are scapegoats, important members of the pack but scapegoats nonetheless. (Classic interpretation of an omega.)

Ellis: Omega wolves are not scapegoats, but are 'well paid' for their services by the betas, who save them some of the best meat from a kill, even though the omegas must still wait.

So, who's right? Or are they both right? I certainly cannot say that the Dutcher interpretation of wolf society as patriarchal sounds right, because no matter what, their wolves were still fenced in and were not hunting for themselves during their study, so the crucial element of hunting was missing significantly from their study. In Ellis' studies, we see that it is the alpha female, not the alpha male who leads the pack on hunts and decides what they hunt, so she is, in essence, the real leader, making wolf society matriarchal. Further, the Dutcher's wolves were raised by them, humans, not by other wild wolves, so the behaviour of their wolves cannot be trusted to be accurate and while Ellis' wolves were raised by him as well, he had also studied wild ones, but he had mimicked wolf behaviour by raising his wolves, soo.... I'm confused. I still have not actually read or watched the documentary of Ellis' study, I've only read the book 'Spirit of the Wolf' which he wrote with photographer Monty Sloan, which entails that the alpha female is boss and that wolf society is tremendously more complicated than most people believe.

Soo... confused. I guess I need to go watch Mr. Ellis' documentary - perhaps that will clear up some of my confusion!

I love science, and I love wolves... watching the Dutcher's excellent documentary, I remembered why I'm so head over heels in love with them and why they are so dear to my spirit (besides that one is one of my guides.) They are such tremendous movers, gliding through the forest without effort, with something in them that is just indescribable, from their large, beautiful paws to their round, curving ears and the feathery way their many coloured fur looks on their necks. Wolves are beautiful and I love them with all of my heart. It was so nice revisiting the Dutcher's documentary again and seeing these magnificent creatures once more. They are spectacular and I pity the wolves on Grouse Mountain who are stuck in a tiny little pen - that's no life for a wolf, a creature that so loves to lope - only the wide open wild is good enough for them.

I'm not sure if I will ever be able to accurately write these creatures. I'm pretty sure that no one can. Every book, every study, every documentary is regardless from a human's perspective on how these animals think... so how can we know if we are even coming close? We can't. I don't believe we ever can.

Wolves. <3