1) What biological experiments did Tyler conduct?

What method did he use and what

did he find?

Most of the time, Tyler just observed the wolves and their behaviors. He did this by using
a periscope. Tyler found that However, there were a few experiments that Tyler conducted.
Initially, he collected wolf scat and tracked them. After that, he conducted a scatological study to
determine what the wolves ate. I imagine that he just dissected the droppings with some sort of
prodder. Tyler found that the wolves lived off of eating mice (from the small mammal bones
present in the scat) instead of caribou. To put his hypothesis to the ultimate test, Tyler decided
to only eat mice to see if a large animal could sustain itself off of only eating mice. He was
successful and did just fine by only eating mice. Tyler also photographed some of the native
flowers. After the wolves hunted down a caribou, Tyler cracked open one of its bones and found
that it was diseased. This was important because it supports the hypothesis that wolves killed
off the sick and weak caribou so that the natives could eat the healthy ones. Tyler used the
scientific method by observing the wolves, analyzing their droppings, formulating a hypothesis
that the wolves lived off of mice, experimenting by only eating mice himself, and concluding that
the wolves could indeed live off of mice.

2) Humans enter the story in at least 3 different "roles". How did each of those roles
interact with the environment?

The first role introduced to the story was the “scientist” role played by Tyler.
Tyler’s only objective was to learn more about nature, so he spent his time observing it
as an outsider without directly affecting it. Tyler also tried to understand nature by
emulating it. He did this by living off of the wolves’ diet of mice. Ultimately, Tyler wanted
to conserve nature and protect it from humanity. The role that conflicted with Tyler’s was
the “hunter.” Rosie is a stereotypical hunter since he hunted large quantities of wolves
and caribou in order to profit as much as he could. This role has negative
consequences for nature since it is characterized by the exploitation of it. Hunters
contribute to driving species towards extinction and degrading the environment as a
result. Rosie also wanted to open a resort in the area, which would cause habitat loss
for the native species and accelerate their declining populations (since more hunters
would be present in the area). The last role is someone who benefits from nature
without compromising its resources or degrading the environment. Usually, people who
fit in this role are part of the native population. In the movie, Ootek was the epitome of
someone who lived in harmony with nature, and even though he met all of his needs
through nature, he didn’t exploit it and contribute to its degradation. Mike was a unique
character since he sort of fit into the last category but he was also a hunter. However,
Mike hunted to meet the basic needs of his family while other hunters do it out of greed.
That means that although Mike hunted, he didn’t exploit the resources as much as
someone like Rosie. However, at the end of the film, Mike transitioned to more of a
stereotypical, exploiting hunter after he killed (this is implied) George and Angeline.

● Scientist: Tyler; observed, didn’t disturb the environment, tried to understand nature and
even tried to mimic it (eating mice)
● Steward: Ootek; lives with nature in harmony, benefits from nature (hunts) but doesn’t
overconsume its resources and throw it off balance
● Hunter: Rosie; profits at the expense of nature (conflicts), hunts native species and
contributes to extinction, unbalances nature’s cycles

3) We know that there was a great expansion in almost every aspect of human activity
and impact on the environment, ecosystems and habitats that began in the early 1950s
when this story is set. We interventions might have been taken after Tyler reported
back to his department about his findings that might have prevented the subsequent
degradation of the arctic wolf, Inuit and caribou herds depicted in the movie? What
cultural and economic imperatives worked against these?

There could have been a hunting ban in place for caribou and wolves, or at least
a limitation of hunting these native species. Hunters are problematic because hunting
the caribou only leaves the weak and sick ones left for the native population and
depletes the arctic wolves’ and natives’ food supply. Hunting wolves causes the caribou
population to grow out of hand. Wolves are important because they eliminate the weak
and sick caribou, which leaves the healthy ones for the natives to eat, and the healthy
caribou can reproduce as well. However, hunting these animals for their pelts is a very
lucrative business. Many people made a living just by hunting and selling the pelts. The
Inuit hunted Caribou for clothing and food. However, the natives didn’t overhunt the
caribou, so the local ecosystem was able to stay in a steady state. On the other hand,
outsider/commercial hunters (such as Rosie) overhunted the caribou and wolf
populations. Limiting the amount of hunting the area would hurt the local economy and
cause a reduction in tourism (I’m referring to the scene where Rosie tells Tyler of his
plan to create a resort; Rosie was able to do this because of the money that he gained
from hunting wolves and caribou). I would propose to limit the amount of hunting done,
especially if it was for commercial purposes. Another intervention could have been
limiting the urbanization and expansion in the wilderness that is near the caribou and
wolf habitats. Without the infrastructure in place, not as many hunters would flock to
hunting caribou and wolves. As stated before, this would limit the local economy
because of the absence of tourism and the reduction of money being made from selling
pelts.