Coyotes that have lost their fear of humans have become a concern in some parts of Nova Scotia where they are getting too close for comfort. Problems often occur in neighborhoods that border wild areas where there is an overlap of territories occupied by people and wildlife.
Last week, a young female hiker was killed by two coyotes in Cape Breton Highlands National Park, heightening awareness of the problem. Both coyotes were shot. One is still on the loose, but an autopsy on the other revealed that it was neither hungry nor diseased when it attacked.
Some blame the problem on people feeding the coyotes, either willingly or by keeping backyard compost piles. I once heard of a woman somewhere in the province who was regularly feeding a couple of skinny, homeless dogs, until her husband noticed her actions and pointed out that she was unassumingly feeding wild coyotes!
Small pets often fall prey to coyotes looking for an easy meal. I’ve always kept my cat indoors after being warned of coyotes in the area years ago. Toddlers playing by themselves outdoors might also be easy prey.
It’s been suggested that the coyotes that attacked the hiker may have been coydogs, the offspring of coyotes and dogs. These hybrids may have less of a natural fear of humans written in their DNA.
As a solution, many folks would like a bounty placed on all coyotes in the province. It’s already legal to kill coyotes that are a nuisance on your property and there is a hunting season for coyotes as well.
One comment at the local newspaper’s website boasted that eight coyotes had been trapped in the woods near Bissett Road a couple of years ago.
The first coyote I ever encountered, a strikingly beautiful animal, was seen while I was driving along that road years ago. I saw one near there this past spring along the salt marsh trail. It wanted nothing to do with me and quickly ran off. More recently, a Cole Harbour man complained that a coyote had approached him on the trail and seemed to have no fear at all. The Natural Resources Department told him the animal was probably just curious.
Coyote along Salt Marsh Trail
Like other animal lovers, I don’t want all coyotes to be hunted for the sake of a few bad ones. However, I also don’t like the idea of having to look over my shoulder while I’m out in the woods. A balanced response to the problem is needed.
Coyotes are not native to Nova Scotia. These clever opportunists infiltrated the province just last century, coming up from the US. As wolves were made extinct in the province well over a century ago due to over trapping, coyotes have no natural enemies to keep their population in check. I’d like to see parks introduce wolves as part of the solution to the problem. This would put the balance back into the ecosystem that was removed by man in the first place.
If you do venture out in the woods, it’s recommended that you don’t walk alone and keep children close. The best advice seems to be to walk loudly and carry a big stick.
November 4, 2009 at 12:42 pm
The recent news has kept me out of the woods, as I usually go alone(the hubby being to busy, and not all that intereted, in going with me). We had coyotes all summer. We would wake up in the middle of the night and early, early morning to hear them howl loudly. I’d fall back asleep and have nightmares about them attacking the house, on top of the roof and everywhere; they would get inside. I’m not really afraid of them, but I’m not stupid either; they’re wild animals afterall. We haven’t heard them in the night lately, but that might just be because we sleep with the windows closed now.
November 4, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Grace, I’ve never heard them howling out here. For years we had a dog that was an Alaskan Malamute and Timber Wolf cross. He would howl sometimes. Maybe his presence kept the coyotes away.
If you do go out alone in the woods, make sure you have a stick in your hand or something that can make a lot of noise.
November 4, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Like the “walk loudly and carry a big stick” … Unlike when you’re in bear country, I wonder if walking with a dog would keep you safer Amy-Lynn ? I think the introduction of wolves back into the area is a good solution.
November 5, 2009 at 10:54 am
Sybil, at the very least, a dog would start barking if it sensed a coyote nearby and would make you more aware of potential danger.
The down side of walking loudly or walking with a dog is that you end up seeing less wildlife in general.
November 4, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I want to add that I also fear for their safey now too. There’s always those people who want to shoot every wild animal on sight, especially coyotes, my neightbor being one of them. Perhaps, if do go out into the woods, I should be more afraid of him!
November 5, 2009 at 10:58 am
I know what you mean Grace. Definitely wear red or orange if you go walking in the woods at this time of year.
November 4, 2009 at 1:44 pm
The attack was a horrific thing. I cannot imagine why the coyotes behaved that way. In my experience they avoid people, although I know they kill dogs and cats. I expect I should bring a stout walking staff with me when I take the Disreputable Duo out and about of an evening.
November 4, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I can’t imagine why they they that either Gerry. There’s so much we don’t know about wild animals.
For years I’ve thought there’s an untapped market for walking sticks or staffs.
November 4, 2009 at 3:08 pm
They come so close to our old farmhouse that the yipping and howling often seems right outside our windows. I’ve never liked them that close but have been operating under the apparently false impression that they would not attack a human. The only one I saw (I’ve heard plenty and then go the other way) while out walking looked at me, turned around and went the opposite direction. I did the same, going east while the coyote went west. I was glad Sarah had been busy up on the ridge and hadn’t seen the wild one. So now, more to worry about–as if hunting season wasn’t enough of a constraint on cross-country walks this time of year. But I don’t mean to shoot the messenger, Amy. Thanks for letting us know!
November 4, 2009 at 7:57 pm
You’re welcome Pamela. I would not have thought they’d attack a human either, but this incident seems to prove otherwise.
Hunting isn’t permitted here on Sundays so that’s at least one day that you can walk and only have to worry about the coyotes.
November 4, 2009 at 11:15 pm
No hunting on Sunday? That’s probably the biggest hunting day of the week here. You must have a big surge on Saturday, the only day for working people to get out during daylight hours.
November 5, 2009 at 8:52 am
Pamela, there are many people who take time off from work to hunt during the week. Hunting is permitted on Sundays in most of Canada’s provinces.
November 4, 2009 at 3:29 pm
The attack was also on the news here in Norway, and fueled the forever ongoing discussion about our wolf population here.
November 4, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Wow Eldrid – all the way to Norway. Bad news travels fast. Wolves are very different in temperament from coyotes. Proper management of wildlife is going to become a big issue in the years to come.
November 5, 2009 at 8:36 am
Wouldn’t wolfs be another problem then? We have problems with wolfs in some regions here and had victims.
November 5, 2009 at 8:55 am
Nadezhda and Eldrid, what kind of wolf problems have you had in the Ukraine and Norway? I thought they kept themselves to more remote areas while coyotes are attracted to the fringe areas inhabited by people.
November 18, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Sorry this is so late.
It is mostly farmers who object to having their sheep and lambs killed by wolves (or bears, wolverines,lynx,fox,etc), and also in later years when the wolf population has increased, people who live in those areas are afraid of the safety of their children. Nobody has been killed by wolves……. “yet”, (as the protesters would say)
but a few times dogs tied up right outside homes have been killed.
Some stray wolves have been seen in or close to town areas a few times, but mostly they keep to the woods and mountains in the eastern parts of the country. The government has a “wolf policy” saying wolves are going to live in certain areas, but of course the wolves have not been told, so they stray, and spread, – and then the discussion goes on and on…
November 19, 2009 at 8:31 am
Thanks for letting us know about the situation in your neck of the woods Eldrid.
I’m sure each European country has a different approach to dealing with their wildlife.
November 6, 2009 at 4:34 am
We’ve had problems with coyotes in Portland metro. I had one walking down my street, when I lived next to a man-made lake which had plenty of water-fowl, along with picnic areas and a children’s playground! They are quite brazen here, and small children and pets have to be watched, carefully, and kept close by.
Every ecosystem needs a predator, and I think it would be wiser to return wolves and get rid of an unnatural population of coyotes. Wolves are very intelligent and are more stable creatures, despite all the old fairy tales.
Much wildlife is being pressed in the wild and is forced to come closer in. Here in Oregon, we’ve had cougar and bear sightings, but no human fatalities. What happened on Cape Breton is unusual and tragic, but it prompts a new policy.
Wildlife needs its space.
Best to all — Em
http://diabetesdietdialogue.wordpress.com
November 6, 2009 at 9:31 am
Wildlife certainly does need its space em.
I would think that wildlife managers would like to reap the benefits of lessons learned from other parks. Since Yellowstone Park re-introduced wolves in 1995, they’ve been responsible for killing off 25 percent of the coyote population. Wolves had not been present in the park since the 1920s. Grey wolves are clearly able to keep the coyote population in check. I agree that they’ve been given a bad rap by the fairy tales.
November 6, 2009 at 6:19 pm
We’ve seen and heard plenty of coyotes here in the Midwest. We are fortunate to live in the woods next to a suburb, and see lots of stuff. Once, I heard a screeching hydraulic sound, like in a car repair shop, and was startled by a baby deer leaping out of the woods into our yard, running for its life, followed closely behind by its mother. And, at her heels, a coyote, presumably after her fawn.
The mother stopped midyard to face down down the coyote, screeching and rearing up, before turning quickly and disappearing into the woods on the opposite side of our yard after her babe. Of course, the coyote ran right after them both.
I had no idea deers made such loud sounds but have heard it in the woods many times since, and wonder if it isn’t another coyote problem.
November 7, 2009 at 8:45 am
Thanks for relating your tale from the edge of the woods Gloris. These sorts of escapades go on all the time in the wild. Living on the edge can certainly be interesting.
Last summer one of my sons had to handle a wounded fawn that had been hurt in a collision with a car. He said its screams were absolutely deafening. Until then, I wouldn’t have imagined that deer made much of any kind of sound.
November 7, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I was thinking about you when I heard of this death by coyotes, and am glad you wrote a blog about it. It is so sad. There so often seems to be challenges when humans and wildlife come together in too little space. Whether bear or wolf or coyote or cougars…it seems that mostly people can walk in the woods safely, but there is always the element of the unknown and people do get killed. We need to find some middle ground between being overly fearful and avoiding the woods, and being too casual and not realizing the risks.
November 9, 2009 at 10:08 am
Kathy, there is a need for reasonable caution. However, it IS the wilderness and wild animals are just that… wild and unpredictable.
November 10, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I love coyotes. It is a shame that people are ignorantly feeding them and making them less fearful. They are beautiful animal that normally steers clear of people. Introducing wolves may help but then farmers and ranchers may become upset because wolves have a tendency to hunt livestock.
November 11, 2009 at 9:52 am
I love them too Jessica but there’s definitely something amiss when they lose their natural fear of humans. More coyotes have since been shot at that park and officials are confident that they managed to kill the second one that had attacked the young woman. Another large coyote that was displaying aggressive behaviour towards humans was also shot.
I don’t know exactly how much worse the wolves are for preying on livestock compared to coyotes. What I do know for sure is that both wolves and coyotes eat A LOT of rodents. I wonder what would happen to their numbers if both coyotes and wolves were suddenly absent from the ecosystem.
November 13, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I think the myth that wolves eat a lot of rodents (mice) comes from Farley Mowat’s Never Cry Wolf, but that book was discredited as being anything but fiction. Here’s one article on it:
http://www.salon.com/people/bc/1999/05/11/mowat/index1.html
The diet of wolves is completely different than coyotes. And the idea that wolves are not dangerous to humans too (in this discussion, it seems people think they are less dangerous than coyotes and a solution to coyotes!) is part of the mythology about wolves propagated by scientists. There is good commentary on this fatal mythology by people like Canada’s Dr. Valerius Geist in the article here:
http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/Geist_when-do-wolves-become-dangerous-to-humans.pdf
Here’s a site documenting attacks on humans by healthy wolves in the wild, despite what the wolf advocate/biologists tell …
http://www.prosts.com/Close-Encounters.htm
Also, only a small percentage of wolf and coyote attacks are likely ever reported, according to several scientists and people who study canid attacks.
The idea that a coyote eats rodents or other “pest” species (to some coyote lovers, that is cats and dogs) at any rate says nothing about whether such eating actually suppresses numbers. If coyotes were able to suppress rodents significantly enough to create a food shortage for themselves, you can bet they will be attacking other things a lot closer to home since a healthy natural prey population in relation to predator is a buffer against exploration of humans and attacks on lifestock (according to Geist).
November 14, 2009 at 9:26 am
The Linnell and McNay reports show that wolf attacks on people over the last 600 years have been very rare. Only 17 cases of people killed by wolves were found in the last 50 years in the whole of North America, Europe and Russia – 50 people in a human population of roughly a billion people.
Factors predisposing wolves to attack have been found to be rabies, environment degradation, habituation, and provocation. Wolves have lived in close proximity to people without causing problems. The native peoples of North America have always respectde the wolf and it has never been an object of fear in their folklore.
Many animals around us which we take for granted, like horses and dogs, have killed more people than wolves. So there seems little point being afraid of wolves; yet many people seem to be.
November 14, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Here is an excerpt from Dr. Geist’s unedited report, When Do Wolves Become Dangerous to Humans? about the Linnell report:
The report by Linnell et al. 2002 entitled The Fear of Wolves, of the Norwegian Institutt for naturforskning or NINA, is a very interesting document. It makes some good recommendations, but in its attempts to placate its client’s fears, it states in essence that attacks by wolves are very rare indeed. That is, the reader should go away in the conviction that there is little, if anything to fear from wolves. This is the fallacy of incorrectly assessed probability as I indicated earlier. The correct way to inform the client would be to state that if conditions a, b, c, d and e are fulfilled, then the chances of a wolf attacking humans are minuscule. Conversely, if conditions f, g, h, I, k and j are present, the attacks by wolves on humans are a certainty – and let the client decide.
****
A second, even lethal fallacy is to invoke incorrectly the prestige of science in order to mollify people about wolves. This is done by insisting that reports such as that by Linnell et al. 2002 are “scientific”. It is perfectly true that the report was written by scientists. However, a report written by scientists does not make it automatically “scientific”! Let me put it this way: Just because a scientist sings a song, does not make the song “scientific”! The records on wolf attacks on humans is in the domain or historians, which have the technical training and scholarly attitude to deliver sound assessments after examining such material. Their manner of proceeding and reaching conclusions is totally different from that of scientists, and leads nevertheless to perfectly valid conclusions. See for instance the wonderful book by a historian, the North American Buffalo (1951) by Frank Gilbert Roe. Scientists can act as intelligent, able laymen and reach perfectly sound conclusions, but it behooves them to know their limitations and not invoke the prestige of science when it is not warranted. Also, and as indicated above, I find the report lacking in elementary science of animal behavior …
***
Flawed political correctness can be lethal! The political correctness I am concerned about here is the view that wolves are universally harmless, so that free ranging wolves pose no danger to humans. One is dealing here with a complex case of scholarship taken out of context, with a partially valid, but premature hypothesis becoming a politicized dogma and then, a case of extremism. It is also a case of wrongly invoking the prestige of science. In reviewing the material pertaining to predation by wolves on humans I have documented how evidence is distorted so as to uphold the myth of the “harmless” wolf. Moreover, the denying or manipulating of facts and blaming the victim have been prevalent following the attack of predators on people in North America. Furthermore, as we shall see, the defense of the myth of the “harmless” wolf has reached extraordinary proportions. Perpetuating that myth will, under currently developing circumstances in North America and in Western Europe, where un-hunted wolf populations are expanding, lead to needless injury or death of people. This is all the more tragic considering that one can pinpoint with great precision the conditions under which wolves will avoid humans as well as the obverse, the conditions under which wolves will attack humans. Moreover, such conditions are within our power to manage. It is inconceivable that wolf-conservation can be advanced if we do not prevent wolves from attacking people. While attacks have been extremely rare historically in North America, the increase and spread of wolves may change that. Of special concern are wolves that do not see humans as foes and adversaries and habituate to human presence. That, emphatically, doses not bode well for the future!
http://www.prosts.com/Article-When-Do-Wolves-Become-Dangerous.htm
November 14, 2009 at 10:21 am
Judith and Wayne, thanks for adding your comments to the discussion.
Judith, the Geist article offers some good advice for dealing with wolves (and any other large carnivores encountered in the wild):
“What must be avoided in the presence of wolves is running away, stumbling, limping as well as any sign of weakness, such as may be associated with an illness, or exhaustion.
Making and keeping up eye contact is essential.”
For thirteen years our family ‘pet’ was a very large Alaskan Malamute – Timber Wolf cross. That experience taught me the importance of eye contact and body language in communicating strength and dominance to a large carnivore.
If a wolf or coyote attacked a human being anywhere in Nova Scotia, it would be considered newsworthy. I don’t know why it would be any less newsworthy elsewhere as tales of blood and gore seem to be of common interest to all humans.
The Brothers Grimm tale of ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ has affected people’s opinion of wolves in a way that Farley Mowat’s ‘Never Cry Wolf’ never could, even if he had scrupulously followed the scientific method.
November 13, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Here’s another bit on good ole Farley (and I did love that book as much as the next person and believe in it until I learned the truth recently):
Never Cry Wolf is a book by Canadian author Farley Mowat, first published in 1963 by McClelland and Stewart. It was adapted into a moderately successful movie of the same name in 1983.
It is presented as a first-person narrative of Mowat’s research into the nature of the North American Wolf; however, there is some controversy over whether much of the book is indeed factual. In the May, 1996 issue of Saturday Night, John Goddard poked many holes in this claim. Mowat denied Goddard’s criticisms but did not refute the specific accusations. [1]
L. David Mech, an internationally recognized wolf expert who has researched wolves since 1958 in places such as Minnesota, Canada, Italy, Alaska, Yellowstone National Park, and on Isle Royale, stated that Mowat is no scientist and that in all his studies, he had never encountered a wolf pack which regularly subsisted on small prey as shown in Mowat’s book. [2]
References
1. ^ Burgess, Steve (1999-05-11). Northern exposure. Salon. Retrieved on 2006-03-24.
2. ^ Shedd, Warner (2000). Owls Aren’t Wise and Bats Aren’t Blind: A Naturalist Debunks Our Favorite Fallacies About Wildlife, pp.336. ISBN 0609605291.
http://www.answers.com/topic/never-cry-wolf
November 14, 2009 at 10:29 am
Judith, I agree that there are many misconceptions about the behaviour of wild animals, as there are many misconceptions about the ‘tame’ behaviour of some animals kept as household pets. A wolf in my neighborhood would have a tough time competing for small mammals with many of the bloodthirsty cats that roam free around here.
I wonder if Arctic wolves’ diet is different from that of wolves in other parts of the world, due to the availability of fewer types of prey.
Mowat’s book didn’t necessarily make me less fearful of wolves, but did make me wonder if maybe I should incorporate mice and voles into my diet
November 14, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I don’t understand this line:
A wolf in my neighborhood would have a tough time competing for small mammals with many of the bloodthirsty cats that roam free around here.
Is this the kind of subconscious indoctrination the book by Mowat intills even in those who understand it is a fictional prank? With respect, I think you’ve acknowledged Mech’s comment that wolves don’t eat small rodents yet you persist in believing a wolf would have trouble competing with cats for the mouse …?
Wolves aside, neither neither cats nor coyotes have ever been shown to suppress invasive rodents. Invasive rodents have ingenious anti-predator mechanisms. For cats, there was one experiment circa WW2 where cats were shown to limit re-establishment of Norway rats on farms within 50 metres of buildings if the rats were eradicated by normal human techniques first. The key elements in their ability to do so were not necessarily hunting ability but simply continual presence on the property and density (several cats needed). For coyotes, no scientist anywhere, studying either urban or rural coyotes, has shown that coyotes even eat invasive rats in a number to even register in scat studies — yet they propagate this myth to engender acceptance of coyotes living in close proximity to people.
And it makes sense — a coyote could not have the luxury an urban cat has to sit outside a woodpile all day waiting for a rat to emerge. They have to forage for food, and so they need to be in open spaces and fields where they could catch field mice and small mammals, or hunt in twos or more to kill larger prey in less developed areas.
But back to the “bloodthirsty cats” comment, again, there is no evidence that cats’ “bloodthirstiness” alone can cause any more than local control of rats and mice — and if the term was meant to blame cats for declines in birds, endangered or common, this is again a contentious claim caused by the statements of anti-cat scientists (the modern day equivalent of superstition) but unbacked by science. Habitat loss, not cats, are the main cause for declines in non-human-benefitting bird species (the other adaptive ones, of course, have increased their populations thanks to human development and despite the presence of cats). Many or most of the endangered birds in Canada are large birds that cats could not kill. Ground-nesting species are subject to well-known urban-adaptive nest raiders (raccoons, squirrels, rats, mice, snakes) in high human (and therefore high cat) areas. If you look at Canada’s Species at Risk registry, you’ll see that coyotes are listed as potential threats to birds almost every time cats are — but the coyote info is more often based on actual science, the cat info on anecdotal historical reports or speculation. I can supply you a summary of this info if you’d like. Indeed, coyotes being wide-ranging, unlike cats (which, even feral ones stay close to humans on this continent) are likely to visit the vestige urban natural areas where nonadaptive urban birds currently make their last stand.
Relabelling of cats as vermin and coyotes as beneficial rat controllers has accelerated by a conscious push by American Conservation Biology in the last 25 or so years. Aside from being speculative or outright untrue, it creates the very ticking-time-bomb that caused Taylor Mitchell’s death. Too much praise of coyotes makes people fail to do the necessary things to keep them timid. You want to feed them, you want to take pictures of them, when even the most adamant “coexistence” advocates stress the need to aggressively haze coyotes upon any sighting in a high-human use area.
November 14, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Judith, several neighborhood cats frequent my yard and kill the small mammals that live here. My indoor cat can only watch silently from behind the window. See:
http://flandrumhill.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/wanted-for-crimes-against-nature/
Although I’ve seen wild canids from my kitchen window, I’ve never witnessed one in the act of killing, as I have with domestic cats.
The Brits seem to have done a lot of work studying the effect of domestic cats on local wildlife. This is the latest I’ve come across:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/15/cats-kill-wildlife
I do believe that wolves and coyotes will eat small rodents. They are most likely easier to take down than a larger mammal. However, there are a lot more domestic cats on the prowl in my neighborhood than foxes, coyotes or wolves all put together.
In my opinion, if foxes and coyotes present themselves in my neighborhood, it’s most likely due to the presence of snowshoe hares, pheasants and grouse.
I don’t feed wild canids. The only time I’ve photograped a coyote was when it was at a great distance from me. It appeared to be pouncing on something at the time. Probably a small mammal.
By no means do I believe that wild canids are harmless to humans. Judith, you are so right in your concerns that they are creatures not to be trusted. Though people may fear what they do not understand, they also have a tendency to romanticize the same.
Information from enlightened individuals such as yourself who incorporate information from many sources, are key to our ongoing understanding of these creatures. I can only go by my personal experiences with them which are only limited to my neck of the woods. Yet what is experienced elsewhere likely also holds true for here as well. Your input is very much appreciated.
The most recent coyote I saw was already on the run away from me by the time I spotted it. However, someone walking in the same area told the press that a coyote did not appear to be threatened by his aggressive gestures when he encountered it recently. This leads me to belive that not all coyotes should be painted with the same brush, nor should it be assumed that all coyotes will act the same under all circumstances. More studies are definitely required in order for us to all lived amicably on shared territory.
November 14, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I just watched an episode of “Survivor” last week (I know. I know. I admit it!!!) where the Southern Belle (in a bikini) was tormented as to whether and how she should / could kill the large rat she came across while foraging on Samoa.
As the rat was engaged in gorging on a piece of downed fruit, it wasn’t paying attention and she whacked it with a large tree bough.
Bringing it back to camp, tail-up, in an empty coconut-shell, the other tribe members were stunned!
Mick, the “secret” physician, promptly took the rat from Natalie and used his Anatomy 101 skills to prepare it. Everyone, and I mean everyone, stood around eating BBQd rat to the last tiny piece. Just a morsel each, for 11 people.
So, I guess rats in clean, natural circumstances are safe enough and tasty enough to be used (even enjoyed?) for food.
I’ve certainly seen humans be asked to eat “worse” things as standard fare in China, during “The Amazing Race”.
Although my post is informative and somewhat tongue-in-cheek (OOHHH!) every ecological niche NEEDS its large carnivore, and usually, a human isn’t interested in that role, being too omnivorous, for one reason.
However, I think humans have a real role in not contributing to the increase in the rodent population by bad management of the Land and by bad personal habits.
The number of large predators the land can support is how we keep ourselves a lot safer.
Best to all — Em
November 14, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Em, I agree that proper management of wildlife at all levels is required in order to keep us all safe.
This past May I wrote a post about eating field mice. For some reason they seem more appetizing to me than rats. If you’re looking for something new to scare up in the kitchen, you might be interested in checking it out
http://flandrumhill.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/vole-holes-and-recipes/
November 18, 2009 at 5:11 pm
No one has been killed by wolves “yet”? I’m sorry, you are quite wrong there, sadly. You could start by reading about Kenton Carnegie, who was killed by healthy wolves in 2005 in Points Landing, Saskatchewan after escalation in dangerous behaviour that was easily predictive of attacks on humans but was ignored due to scholars promoting the “wolves are not dangerous to humans” mythology. You could also find other descriptions of deaths in North America. I think some appear in the Mark McNay report on wolf attacks in Canada and Alaska. There is also an Ontario government report outlining a number of people who were killed by wolves in Algonquin Park. In Europe and Asia, wolves kill people more frequently and well documented in books and on the internet. I can find you links later, if you like.
November 19, 2009 at 8:59 am
Judith, I did not think that Eldrid was referring to areas outside of Norway. However, now that you’ve mentioned Canada…
Here is a page from the CBC website about wolf attacks in Canada:
http://www.cbc.ca/sask/features/wolves/attacks.html
Taking a line from Valerius Geist, PhD, P. Biol., Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at The University of Calgary, commenting on Kenton Carnegie’s death at http://www.wolvesgonewild.com/?p=106
“Wolves are virtually harmless under some conditions and exceedingly dangerous in others.”
Ongoing access to human garbage and feeding by humans seems to be a huge factor in predicting dangerous behaviour in wolves. It’s implicated repeatedly in the attacks reported in the CBC article.
November 20, 2009 at 2:08 pm
I think that is a very insightful letter by Dr. Geist at the link you’ve provided. As for the role of garbage dumps in wolf attacks, emphasized by some wolf experts, I think part of Dr. Geist’s opinion is that blaming garbage dumps is a little overrated. From his other article, When do wolves become dangerous to humans, is the following rather powerfully written excerpt:
“Wolves become dangerous when they run out of food, be it by depleting prey, or by encountering difficulties in hunting by virtue of old age, or young age and lone status and low social rank, or due to illness, or due to injury inflicted by a hunter, or by reacting to a scream of a wounded pack member and attacking, or by mistaking the human as prey. Well fed wolves can also become dangerous, but under conditions where they take advantage of a rich feeding opportunity that – constantly – brings them into close contact with humans … However, a necessary condition for attacks to occur is the de facto or de jure protection of wolves.”
November 27, 2009 at 10:58 am
Judith, the conditions when wolves can become dangerous are certainly numerous. Thanks for that excerpt.
There are probably many conditions when they are also virtually harmless. However, wild animals can be trusted to only be just that: wild – with all the potential for danger that this quality implies.