Anyone else see this? Wolves kill man.


PDA






TooTech
November 19, 2005, 11:25 PM
HERE'S a story that doesn't seem to be getting much play as we in the US work to reintroduce the wolf:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation officers looking into a possible wolf attack in northern Saskatchewan have been given permission to kill the suspected animals if necessary.

That follows the discovery last Wednesday of a 22-year-old man from Oshawa, Ont. who died in a wooded area at Points North Landing.

The victim has been identified as Kenton Joel Carnegie, a third-year geological engineering student at the University of Waterloo who was at the remote mining camp as part of his fall term co-op job.

Following an autopsy, RCMP said they couldn't say for certain he had been killed by wolves, but it's "likely" that's what happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the link to the full story:

http://www.cbc.ca/sask/story/wolves051114.html?ref=rss

If you enjoyed reading about "Anyone else see this? Wolves kill man." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Travis McGee
November 19, 2005, 11:31 PM
Can't be true. Wolves love people. I know it's true, because I saw it on "Dances with Wolves."

The Real Hawkeye
November 19, 2005, 11:47 PM
How can they tell it wasn't a pack of feral dogs?

ReadyontheRight
November 19, 2005, 11:56 PM
C'Mon PEOPLE! Get on the bandwagon...

People = BAD

Nature = GOOD

:rolleyes:

VARifleman
November 19, 2005, 11:59 PM
How can they tell it wasn't a pack of feral dogs?
That's a good question, my guess is that this conclusion was made by someone that has something to gain by not reintroducing wolves...

Cosmoline
November 20, 2005, 12:03 AM
Wolf attacks on men are extremely rare, and in all the cases I know of up here the wolf attacked after having been fed by some idiot. Most "wolf" attacks are actually attacks by the far more dangerous wolf hybrids or feral dogs. Unlike a lot of bears, wolves are very skittish about being close to people.

GrayBear
November 20, 2005, 12:04 AM
In pre-statehood Alaska, 1952-1954, I worked a lot with a group of native scouts, members of the Alaska National Guard. They all knew of incidents, some back in their ancestor's times and some far more recent, where wolf packs had killed people. To a man, they all considered wolves, at least wolves in a pack, to be man-killers.

GrayBear

Rupestris
November 20, 2005, 12:05 AM
My, what big teeth you have grandma...

ReadyontheRight
November 20, 2005, 12:05 AM
[QUOTE][That's a good question, my guess is that this conclusion was made by someone that has something to gain by not reintroducing wolves.../QUOTE]

I can appreciate the support of reintroducing wolves...but have you personally had wolves come back to your territory in a big way?

I have, and they tend to kill deer... and now people.

Wolves are not Golden Retrievers.

Cosmoline
November 20, 2005, 12:11 AM
In pre-statehood Alaska, 1952-1954, I worked a lot with a group of native scouts, members of the Alaska National Guard. They all knew of incidents, some back in their ancestor's times and some far more recent, where wolf packs had killed people. To a man, they all considered wolves, at least wolves in a pack, to be man-killers.

GrayBear

Odd that no such incidents have been recorded. In the mean time there are scores of bear attacks every season. But although there are tens of thousands of wolves running around out there--nobody seems to be getting taken down by the packs. They might pose a danger if they were hungry enough, but realistically the only real threat to locals is the impact they can have on moose populations where they're unchecked. And even this is hotly disputed.

I've seen bears black and brown. I've practically tripped over a black bear fifty yards from a major highway. I know people who have had relatives literally slaughtered by brown bears. I've seen the memorial crosses on major trails. I've been chased and charged by many moose. But the only wolf attack I've even READ about in this state is the one a few summers ago where a stray wolf being fed at a logging camp in SE bit some kid. You can live your whole life in wolf habitat and never even lay eyes on them closer than 200 or 300 yards, and it may be this mysterious quality that makes us foist all these myths on their backs.

In the mean time I'm not going to get too worried about them. They keep to themselves and they make the warmest coats on earth, so they're OK by me.

Double Naught Spy
November 20, 2005, 12:15 AM
Why should the story get much play here in the US? The event didn't happen in the US and the cause of death of the 22 year old is undetermined. As such, the story doesn't have much potential interest or draw.

Trottier is incorrect in stating there never has been a fatal wolf attack on humans in North America...
John James Audubon, of whom the Audubon society is named, reported an attack involving two men traveling through part of Kentucky near the Ohio border in the winter. The two men were carrying axes when they were viciously attacked by a pack of wolves, they managed to kill three wolves. One man was severely wounded and one man was killed, and devoured by the remainder of the wolves, only bones remained the next day. This occurred about 1830 ( Audubon,J.J.. and Bachman,J,: The Quadrupeds of North America.3 volumes. New York, 1851-1854)

Here is a case where a woman was killed by captive wolves in a preserve. The animals were not socialized by humans and were essentially wild...
http://www.wolfpark.org/Articles/Wyman.html

As for concerns of reintroducing wolves relative to fatal attacks on humans in North America, it should be pointed out that deer kill more humans than do wolves.

Similarly it should be pointed out that while wolves rarely kill humans (in Europe/Asia such events are infrequent, but not uncommon), they still attack them on occasion, for a variety of reasons.

TooTech
November 20, 2005, 02:58 AM
Quote: "As for concerns of reintroducing wolves relative to fatal attacks on humans in North America, it should be pointed out that deer kill more humans than do wolves."


Of course, the distribution of deer is much higher than wolves. More people are killed by ANTS than by wolves, but that says nothing about the relative danger posed by an individual of each species.

I'm also of the opinion that this type of attack will always occur when you introduce a large predator to a region, and then fail to educate those predators via hunting that Man is to be avoided.

Smythe77
November 20, 2005, 02:59 AM
Being a Cdn I can say that this was on & in the news. They say nothing like this bar around 100 yrs ago though what exact date I cannot recall. Still in packs dog, coyotes & wolves can go after anything.

Like it has not been for some yrs that we have had a maze of trouble popping up in Cdn about cougars or bears or grizzlies yet in last 20 yrs we have been running into a lot of trouble. Like in Canmore Alberta a runner was killed while practicing on a trail this summer & same happend in Ontario a few yrs ago when a bear killed a young woman practicing to possibly win a position in the Cdn Olympic Team.

The Cdn Govt has had to close some practicing areas to hiking trails, yet I lived in Banff National Park in Albeta (only a few miles from Canmore) & as a mountaineer & sport shop owner, from '52 to '61 we had no problems with bears bar them trying to get at one's garbage & every once in a while some would decide to make their home in Banff itself & had to be removed.

Waitone
November 20, 2005, 03:03 AM
The same people who introduced wolves are now working on introducing grizzly bears into areas where they haven't been.

Ohhh goodie. Can't wait.

nipprdog
November 20, 2005, 05:19 AM
general gun discusion?

c_yeager
November 20, 2005, 05:23 AM
C'Mon PEOPLE! Get on the bandwagon...

People = BAD

Nature = GOOD

:rolleyes:

Animals dont have the capicity to actually be evil, people do. Its not a blanket statement, but the fact remains that no animal is actually 'bad', they do what nature dictates they do. Wolves eat meat, people are made of meat, it doesnt take a whole lot of math to figure out how that works. Generally predators dont eat other predators (they arent that nutritious and they taste bad), and humans arent all that meaty, so it doesnt happen often, but there is no reason why a hungry wolf wouldnt eat a person.

1911Tuner
November 20, 2005, 06:13 AM
Tragic for the victim and tragic for the wolves. If it starts another wolf witch-hunt, people will be killing some of nature's most beautiful animals on a suspicion...or on a whim...because they can probably get away with it.

People should understand that just because wild animals are beautiful, they aren't necessarily friendly. Predators are dangerous...even people-shy wolves. Wolves are pack huners, and when they get hungry, they lose a lot of their natural fear of man, and they will do the deed if presented with the right opportunity. Coyotes too...Don't sell those canine cousins short.

Going into wilderness areas unarmed is plain stupid...and mining or logging operations that disarm its workers via "Company Policy" are negligent. Ditto for federal lands and national forests.

The Real Hawkeye
November 20, 2005, 08:58 AM
Tragic for the victim and tragic for the wolves. If it starts another wolf witch-hunt, people will be killing some of nature's most beautiful animals on a suspicion...or on a whim...because they can probably get away with it.

People should understand that just because wild animals are beautiful, they aren't necessarily friendly. Predators are dangerous...even people-shy wolves. Wolves are pack huners, and when they get hungry, they lose a lot of their natural fear of man, and they will do the deed if presented with the right opportunity. Coyotes too...Don't sell those canine cousins short.

Going into wilderness areas unarmed is plain stupid...and mining or logging operations that disarm its workers via "Company Policy" are negligent. Ditto for federal lands and national forests.+1

nfl1990
November 20, 2005, 09:41 AM
Perhaps in oder to make wolf attacks more survivable it should be Federal law that every citezn must own, and carry at all times a loaded semi-auto rifle with a magazine size of at least 20.

thatguy
November 20, 2005, 10:22 AM
I have read several sources claiming that there have been no documented cases of wolves attacking humans. I have heard anecdotal stories from people who "knew someone who heard of a guy who said wolves killed people," but I have never seen a proven instance of it happening.

I read a book years ago by a professional African hunting guide who spoke of the wild dogs in Africa and he said they never attacked humans.

I imagine it would not be impossible for an injured or sick wolf to attack a human. Or maybe some guy gets too close to the pups and the mother might attack in defense of her young. But if wolf attacks on humans do occur, I think they would be rare beyond measure and probably resulted from a highly unusual set of circumstances.

Now, bears and big cats will attack humans and do so quite frequently. Feral dogs are also a real menace. But as far as I know wild canines do not attack humans.

The Real Hawkeye
November 20, 2005, 10:32 AM
I have read several sources claiming that there have been no documented cases of wolves attacking humans. I have heard anecdotal stories from people who "knew someone who heard of a guy who said wolves killed people," but I have never seen a proven instance of it happening.

I read a book years ago by a professional African hunting guide who spoke of the wild dogs in Africa and he said they never attacked humans.

I imagine it would not be impossible for an injured or sick wolf to attack a human. Or maybe some guy gets too close to the pups and the mother might attack in defense of her young. But if wolf attacks on humans do occur, I think they would be rare beyond measure and probably resulted from a highly unusual set of circumstances.

Now, bears and big cats will attack humans and do so quite frequently. Feral dogs are also a real menace. But as far as I know wild canines do not attack humans.Just to be nit picky, I don't think it is correct to refer to wolves as wild canines. I know that canis is in their scientific name, but usually that become canids not canines, which is reserved for canis familiaris.

roscoe
November 20, 2005, 11:29 AM
Canines are teeth, canids are dogs.

XLMiguel
November 20, 2005, 11:32 AM
They're called WILD animals for a reason. Nature ain't a Disney movie.

So, what caliber for wolves? [gun-related content]:D I figure a well placed 9mm would do, but would feel better with a .4x or magnum, or better yet, a long gun .223 and up.

Gunpacker
November 20, 2005, 11:58 AM
However, wolves have not generally been a threat to humans on a large scale. If we killed off every member of an animal species for isolated attacks, we would not have any dogs left. Coyotes have killed far more humans than wolves in documented attacks, as have cougars. Dogs in general are much more deadly to humans, with millions of documented attacks, and thousands of deaths. Wolves do seem to avoid humans. With any outing in areas populated by wild animals, people are wise to be armed and prepared to defend themselves. With the situation of overpopulation by deer and the attendant diseases, a predator that takes the weak and sick out of the deer herds would probably help the deer population maintain health.
Wolves have proven to be relatively easy to eradicate if necessary, and I believe they deserve a chance. They are intelligent and magnificent creatures. Jumping to conclusions about an attack is certainly not the way to be objective. We have all seen the movie versions of wolf attacks being common, but in true life, such attacks seem to be very rare to say the least.
In the past, people would not have thought of going into the wilderness without being armed. Nowadays, seems like many feel like the wilderness should be maintained as a perfectly safe environment, eliminating all predators. A healthy ecosystem requires top level predators, and I would prefer wolves to cougars or grizzly bears personally.

Chipperman
November 20, 2005, 12:49 PM
roscoe-- Canines are teeth, canids are dogs

Canines are also dogs. It is perfectly correct to refer to your domestic dog as a canine. Wolves should be referred to as Lupine.


When people talk about fatal wolf attacks in North America, the quote is usually that "There have been no documented fatal attacks by HEALTHY wolves."

The difficulty there is proving whether or not the wolf was healthy at the time. I am certainly not going to say whether or not it has happened, but why take a chance? Maybe a Wolf won't get you. What about the Cougars, Bears and Humans? Bring a gun, and stay alive.

Chipperman, your friendly neighborhood Veterinarian. :)

Cosmoline
November 20, 2005, 12:59 PM
They're called WILD animals for a reason. Nature ain't a Disney movie.

So, what caliber for wolves? [gun-related content]:D I figure a well placed 9mm would do, but would feel better with a .4x or magnum, or better yet, a long gun .223 and up.

If you get close enough to a wolf to use a 9x19 or .44 you're probably shooting a dog.

pax
November 20, 2005, 12:59 PM
Fascinating, & good discussion -- but not on topic for this forum.

Closed.

pax

If you enjoyed reading about "Anyone else see this? Wolves kill man." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!