13 Comments

  1. ’cause if they were humans it’d be murder and that serves a serious jail sentence???????

    But if they were human they wouldn’t want to kill and eat him. It doesn’t work. I think that’s all there is— a situation interpreted as though it were done by humans. But, like oakland, there is no there there.

  2. If this was a cow, it might make sense since wolves get blamed for livestock predation. If they could make it look like an accident, they could eat their cake and have it. For a deer? I haven’t a clue.

  3. Are these wolves? I thought they were hyenas, or some other scavenger-type animal. Scavengers wouldn’t be allowed to kill their own food (strictly speaking) so since they have, they have to cover it up.

    Best I’ve got.

  4. The predators are clearly canids of some sort, but not completely obvious what kind. The color pattern doesn’t look very wolf-like (and the teeth are just… wrong). The prey doesn’t look like any animal I’ve ever seen. Given the strip is called “Tundra,” maybe a moose?

    As for the joke, I think woozy has it but it doesn’t really work well. With a nonhuman victim, it wouldn’t even be an enormously serious crime for humans… just hunting without a license.

  5. “As for the joke, I think woozy has it but it doesn’t really work well. With a nonhuman victim, it wouldn’t even be an enormously serious crime for humans… just hunting without a license.”

    Depends on whether the cop who comes up to write up the ticket is another human, or another moose.

  6. When I first read it, I thought it was like beckoningchasm said, scavengers, most likely hyenas, who actually killed an animal, which they supposedly don’t do.

  7. There are not many pure scavengers, and I can’t think of any among mammals. Hyenas and jackals are predators that will also scavenge. And so are lions, bald eagles, etc.

    Hmm … vultures and buzzards, I guess? Some flies only lay eggs in corpses. In the oceans there are entire genera that live only on whale corpses. But no mammals I can think of.

  8. “it wouldn’t even be an enormously serious crime for humans… just hunting without a license”

    Not that I’m an expert in this, but I think hunting without a licence can land you in a lot of hot water. Some regions take this pretty seriously, and you can end up with thousands of dollars in fines. A quick search found the following article from 2016 from Ontario.

    https://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/news-story/8222144-peterborough-man-fined-2-500-for-hunting-deer-without-a-licence/

    Maybe that IS the joke: the wolves (or whatever) are hunting without a licence and are worried about the fines. It’s not very clear if so, but it’s one more theory to add to the pile.

  9. There’s a lot of pushback from ranchers in places where the gummint is trying to protect wolves or (especially) reintroduce them to the local ecosystem, since said ranchers fear (reasonably enough) loss of stock to them. So maybe these wolves are just trying to “clean up their image” — “Yeah, we know lotsa people think wolves kill animals for food, but WE personally are nice, ethical, reformed little wolfy-poos and WE only eat animals which have already died natural deaths! (And if none of those happen to be around when we’re hungry, why, we just order takeout pizza like everybody else.) So, nothing to fear from us! Move right along; nothing to see here. . . .”

Add a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s