The Emotional Lives of Dogs and Wolves and Why They Matter

Science shows animals deeply care about what happens to themselves and others.

Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

Key points

• Research shows it's not "radical" to argue that other animals experience deep and rich emotional lives.
• Dogs, wolves, and many other animals share the same feelings, ranging from joy to fear to grief and anxiety.
• Science shows that how we engage with other animals requires a mindset that incorporates their point of view.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) recently dismantled the Copper Creek pack—a family of wolves consisting of the father, mother, and their five children because they denned on the land of a rancher who did little to nothing to deter them from eating his cows and sheep. The father wolf died after being trapped and held in a cage and mom and four of children are being held captive in an unknown location. Just this week we learned that there was another pup who CPW missed and who has been on their own since their family was demolished by CPW's ill-fated efforts using leg-hold traps. CPW has stopped looking for this lone youngster and they will have to continue to fend for themself. There's little doubt they are extremely stressed while on their own, as would be their domestic canine relatives, companion homed and free-ranging dogs.

These parents were the first breeding pair in the state and they and the five youngsters represent the DNA of Colorado’s future wolves. Doing their best to survive, they discovered the rancher’s food animals were an easy option—basically “room service”—compared to hunting wild prey.¹

Why animal emotions matter

I'm sure that CPW had good intentions but good intentions are not enough. CPW’s “trap and relocate operation” failed the wolves in three ways. It represents a failure by its very nature: uprooting and traumatizing the lives of the pack members just for being wolves.

What follows goes well beyond Colorado's wolves and their conflicts with humans and applies to human-animal relationships with a broad array of other animals.

1. Science: Science shows that interfering in the lives of the wolves was most likely going to have serious negative consequences, and it did—the father died after being captured and the rest of his family are being held in captivity or on their own. Even if some or all of this captive pack are released at a later date, experts fear it likely won’t be an easy transition back to the wild.

Of course, there is hope that those of us in the scientific community are wrong. But one thing is certain: had CPW used the “best available science,” something they claim to do, it would not have engaged with or captured the wolves at all, instead allowing them time to adapt to their new home with nearby ranchers doing their part to employ sensible nonlethal deterrence measures. If only, then this founding group of wolves would have been celebrated rather than scorned and ill-treated.

Interfering in the lives of this family group also would have been discouraged had those responsible for the well-being of the wolves paid any attention to what scientific research has shown us about the emotional lives of these sentient beings—what they need to thrive among themselves and in the presence of humans with whom they are trying to cohabit.

CPW also ignored the possibility that the male died after being caught in a leg-hold trap and held in a cage because he was highly stressed and already was suffering from an injured leg.

2. Ethics: Wolves are sentient beings, not merely objects to be moved here and there as if they aren’t impacted by what happens to them. Surely their being trapped and relocated and the loss of their father and mate wreaked havoc with how they feel and deeply compromised their individual well-being.

3. Common Sense: It was never the intent of anti-wolf ranchers to go along with the reintroduction, regardless of how often CPW stepped in to offer assistance and how much it offered to pay in compensation. Within days of removing the Copper Creek pack, the same ranchers who demanded their removal began complaining that relocation wasn’t enough.

Would you do it to your dog? Dogs share a common wolf ancestor and have wolf genes and wolf-like neural pathways in their brains. Common sense and science mandate that if dogs have rich and deep emotional lives, which of course they do, so too do wolves and numerous other animals. If you wouldn't do something or allow it to be done to a dog, why would you do it or allow it to be done to a wolf?²

Coda: Moving beyond wolves to other animals including our wild neighbors

Science shows that how we engage with other animals requires a new mindset that incorporates their point of view, what they think and feel about what is happening to them and to other individuals. There’s no doubt that each member of the family pack of wolves has suffered greatly by having their family dismantled.³

Comparative research also shows it's not "radical" to argue that other animals experience deep and rich emotional lives. Similar to their canine companion descendants with whom millions of people share their homes and hearts, comparative research along with countless stories show what wolves, dogs, and many other animals think and feel about their physical and emotional well-being matters to each individual and must be factored into how we choose to interfere in their lives.

The current situation for Colorado's wolves is not an isolated example of the conflicts that arise when we intrude into the lives of other animals. It's but one of many examples that call into question the asymmetrical nature of human-animal relationships and how we interact with animals in various scenarios including how we engage with our wild neighbors.

Open discussions can be, and have been, extremely important for wider-ranging conversations about "them" (other animals) and us and how we can and must foster peaceful coexistence among all of the individuals who are involved in these debates.