This coffee table book has nice photos and is easy on the eyes, but if you're looking for a collection of striking photographs, you'd be better off with any of the wolf calendars. It also has numerous typos and rampant editorializing. For instance, it uses the generic man regularly, in places where it would be easy not to, and in the very first chapter manages to blame the wolf's endangered status on the spread of Christianity. The verbal descriptions of the wolf's prehistoric ancestors directly contradict the drawings given of the same ancestors. I don't know enough about wolves yet to judge the accuracy of the factual information presented, but when the rest of the editing and writing is so sloppy, why should we trust the factual research not to be equally sloppy?