Wolf prevention

[jimmy b]

Lots of moose in Southern New England now. We had one climb the bank of the river at my backyard. There is sign on the trails all over the place. Paddled by a carcass floating in a lake we frequently paddle this spring. Another big animal with the potential but unlikely to do harm that is of little or no concern to me. From my experience most wildlife encounters gone wrong are from common sense challenged folks who don't understand the idea of personal space and how fast things go downhill when you cross that threshold. Enter my home and get in my face, see what you get. We're animals too, if we would only reflect once in a while on our behaviors it would make it a lot easier to understand the rest of the animal world. Its really quite simple, good parents will defend their young at all cost. If your hungry you will take more extreme measures to fill your belly and a perceived threat is no different than a real one until proven otherwise. And there are those animals that will kill and mutilate even their own for no good reason at all… I am speaking about humans of course:(

[Ralph Burgess]

David, is a "kybo" shooting something, or is that a typo? I didn't grow up with guns, and unless there are Polar Bears or velociraptors around, I'm always going to be more scared of getting accidentally shot. Even in grizzly country, I'd much rather follow other safety strategies – grizzly attacks on groups of 4 or more are extremely rare. How many people in the the U.S. are killed from predatory animal attacks of any kind? It would be hard to judge how many of the thousands of firearms deaths to count against that? Very few, probably — granted, the majority of people in the backcountry who are armed are probably far more likely to be both competent and mentally stable, much more so than the average Joe exercising his 2nd amendment rights. Still, I'd wager that drunk hunters probably shoot each other more often than they get attacked by predators!

[Ralph Burgess]

I found this, I have no idea if the source is reliable. Average Number of Deaths per Year in the U.S Bee/Wasp 53 Dogs 31 Spider 6.5 Rattlesnake 5.5 Mountain lion 1 Shark 1 Alligator 0.3 Bear 0.5 Scorpion 0.5 Centipede 0.5 Elephant 0.25 Wolf 0.1 Horse 20 Bull 3 It's hard to find a neutral source on deaths from firearms in hunting accidents, but it looks like it's on the order of ~80 per year. So anyway – guns, bees, dogs, horses. And an elephant or an alligator is more likely to get you than a wolf. Homer Simpson, not so dumb as you thought

[jimmy b]

By the looks of it, that list is probably not too far from the truth. And lets not forget the all too real danger of getting shot by a trigger happy Cop these days. I would rather take my chances with the drunken hunter. But returning to the topic at hand it just shows how many other daily threats we live with and readily accept. BPing is so much safer than daily living. jimmyb

[Dave @ Oware]

You can google it. It is the outhouse or bathroom of which you spoke. Looks like your danger of getting shot when you use the bathroom on a backpack is non- existent as far as my google foo goes. Not so being attacked by animals.

[David Chenault]

Before this discussion gets well and truly off the rails.. In the last seven years of living and backpacking in Montana I've seen wolves in the backcountry on 9 occasions (evenly split between Glacier, the Bob, and Yellowstone), half of them lone wolves, the rest packs between 4 and 10 animals, at ranges between 30 and 500 yards. On the three occasions the wolf or wolves actually knew I was there, they looked at me in a rather relaxed fashion and trotted off. Unlike bears they've never displayed curiosity, and unlike bears they've never sprinted away once they winded me. Also unlike bears I've never woken up to wolf tracks investigating my camp in the wee hours. Avoiding or planning for wolf encounters doesn't enter my thinking in the least, unless it's how to quickly get at my camera. Planning for bear encounters, on the other hand, does, and often.

[Jesse Hutchinson]

Leave the bear spray at home. The extra eight ounces would be better spent carrying some vegetables to stave off the heart disease that probably will kill you…

[Dave @ Oware]

The only wolf sighting I have had is when we had a lab puppy with us on the trail. The wolf was curious, so it gave us plenty of time for pictures. The puppy stayed close and the wolf dissolved back into the krumholzt. Wolf risk is minimal like I said for people. In the same area we found scat with mt lion claws in it, grizzly have been seen by others. A small boy was snatched by a cougar, only to be snatched back by a Kleen Kanteen wielding mom. Many locals carry pepper spray, belt knives, and or hand/longguns when hiking there. Many do not. Never saw a misanthropic cop or a drunk hunter. That kind of hyperbole is trollish.

[Kattt]

Deaths are not the same as attacks. Just in California there have been a number of mountain lion attacks in the last two years, and they will probably rise in the future. Many attacks are not reported either. We had an attack on our road last month and the woman suffered several deep gashes as her friend used a trekking pole to smack the mountain lion. Another woman, a forester, had a five minute stand off with a young cougar in a crouching position. The animal then followed her at varying distances all the way back to her truck. Another cat snatched a small dog from an upstairs deck as the family saw it happen through the screen door, a mile from my house. Several other dogs have also been taken in the last two years. None of us would let our little kids wander out in the woods now, as we did years ago. It just means adapting to a growing population and being smart. There is absolutely nothing wrong with considering how to prevent an attack, particularly for those living or hiking in areas with high predator populations.

[Dave @ Oware]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1zCNH_oN2Q Keep your dog close in wolf country. I have heard several stories from friends of Mtn Lion stalking them. Like K says, fatalities are few, but stalking is common by lions both of people and pets. Pepper spray works on lions I have been told by a biologist who has used it 3 times.

[Kattt]

@David How about a boat horn? I carry a small air horn with me. It is so loud that it would easily damage my ears not even at "full throttle" . From the videos I have noticed how much more listening than smelling cougars do. Any thoughts on that? Edited . Link to a stalking/ pouncing video I got https://vimeo.com/125363074

[Dave @ Oware]

I have seen what cougars and black bears do when a coonhound starts baying. They leave right quick. I think noise would likely work. The issue I have with compressed air, pepper spray, electronics etc. is the shelf life. Seems like you would want a backup if you really needed those things.

[Michael Gunderloy]

I present the "coywolf." http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21677188-it-rare-new-animal-species-emerge-front-scientists-eyes?cid1=cust/ednew/n/bl/n/20151029n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/NA/n

[Dean F.]

>>> There has never been a backpacker killed by a wolf in North America history. Ever. What an ingenious example of dissemination- specifying "backpacker". In fact one might accuse you of being disingenuous, so I'm going to call you on this one. Backpacking is a modern phenomenon, whereas wolves have been very rare for most of the past century. And back when they weren't rare people generally "backpacked" with firearms. The question, you will note, was what to do in known wolf country, today. Allow me to make my case: A 7-year old was attacked in Icy Bay, Alaska in 2001 (survived, saved by his dog). There have been two fatal attacks in the past decade, one in 2005 and one in 2010, both in Canada or Alaska by habituated wolves, and the victims were fully grown adult humans. In 2013 a teenager was attacked in Minnesota. In a 12-year period back in the 1990s one Canadian park alone- Algonquin Provincial Park- had five wolf attacks. (I don't have more recent data.) I won't start quoting all of the hunters who have claimed that a wolf "charged" them, though frankly at least a few of them seem reputable. Frex there's one grandma in Idaho that I think I believe if for no other reason than that she had a wolf tag, so she has no reason to lie. WARNING: that link is to a hunting website so it includes pics of the dead animal, and the comments section is especially neanderthal, so if you are offended by such things don't follow the link. After the Icy Bay AK attack above McNay collected information on 80 reputable attacks (limited to Alaska and Canada) from 1915-2001, about half of which involved apparently healthy wolves- contrary to the old claim that healthy wolves don't attack people. OTOH about a dozen of the other half were indeed proven rabid. Mind you, these are just the attacks that were well documented; as one might imagine the further back you go the sketchier the data get. All of that was just the FIRST page of my google search. I'm very green and a big proponent of reintroduction, but I'm also a scientist so I have no illusions about pack predators who evolved to be specialists at taking prey up to the 1000kg range and their potential for conflict with humans. I'm not some starry-eyed hippie who thinks that wolves are snuggly and fart rainbows. They are wild animals. When they and humans co-locate there will be conflicts. I just happen to think it's worth it, to have wolves around in a healthy ecosystem. That said, I will still agree that bears are more of a concern. Bears are omnivores, and omnivory leads to a degree of curiosity, because omnivores are generalists and curiosity is rewarded by finding new food sources. (Thus the nocturnal camp investigations described above.) Wolves however are nearly obligate carnivores- they'll only generally examine a potential prey animal of an appropriate size while ignoring everything else. , So would I worry about wolves? No, not generally. Except in the far north all of our wolves are suitably frightened of man and they have good food sources that are much less dangerous than humans. Obviously severity is at least Significant and potentially Catastrophic, and in Alaska or northern Canada I might rate likelihood as Remote, leading to Undesirable risk and prompting action (the carrying of spray or gun, or keeping to a large group). But just about anywhere in the lower 48 I think it's fair to say that likelihood is Improbable, leading to Acceptable risk, so it's reasonable to just stay aware. Others' thoughts may differ. But what about bears? Severity is clearly the same if not more definitively Catastrophic, so the issue is likelihood, which is incredibly variable depending upon location. In most of CONUS I'd again rate it as Improbable, but there definitely are areas with dense enough populations that I'd rate it Remote. And if you're armed for bear (so to speak) you're also armed for wolf, so as a practical matter I just subsume this all into "large animal attack" rather than by species. If you want to do an Alaska Range traverse without a gun or spray, good on ya, HYOH, but I'm not.

[Ralph Burgess]

That's some interesting stuff, thanks. I think to some degree people are drawing conclusions at cross purposes, because the right strategy depends so much on where you're hiking. I emphasized that I feel guns are more dangerous than animals, and I think the stats support that for anywhere that I hike right now (in some areas, even spray is probably more dangerous than the risk posed by animals). But I wouldn't feel that way in the Alaskan wilderness. And I'd certainly think twice about wolves in any areas where populations or habitats are changing rapidly.

[Buck Nelson]

Hey Dean, My statement was accurate as written. I'm not sure you understand the definition of dissemination or disingenuous. This is a backpacking forum, and the original post, the one I was responding to, was about backpacking and wolves. "I am new to BPL and didn't find much in the forums about encounting Wolves while backpacking Wyoming and Montana." Backpacking predates my lifespan by many decades, so I don't consider it modern. I've never traversed the Alaska Range. If someone does, it's fine with me if they carry bear/wolf spray.

[Dean F.]

Of course it was accurate as written, Buck. :) That's why it was disingenuous- by which I mean "cunningly deceptive." Sorry, I actually chose my verbage to try NOT to be too confrontational; I guess I consider disingenuity to be a very gentle accusation. If you feel set upon, I apologize. Stuff like that tends to push my buttons. It is one of my failings, and one which Rog has oft exploited. But frankly, stating "accurate as written" is also disingenuous. So, in defence of Ms Mulligan my sixth grade English teacher, allow me to elaborate: My point was that by narrowing the statement to 'backpackers' it trivialized the danger and allowed you to to add that dramatic "Ever." At best this was a misleading equivocation that is easy for the uninformed to miss, and at worst it was cherry-picking. People have been attacked by wolves in North America- even by healthy wolves- and at least three have been killed in the past decade. Further, clearly, backpackers are at risk- it's hard to dispute that one, brother. Thus "deceptive." The dissemination was the attempt to perpetuate the old inaccurate meme that wolves aren't dangerous, though I admit that I had a more archaic meaning in mind that was subtly nuanced toward propagandising. Humanity has really come full circle on this issue. Well, maybe not FULL circle. Historically wolves were thought to be soulless sport killers, and we wiped them out. Then came the widely-disseminated (heh) statement "A healthy wolf has never killed a human in North America"- which was also almost certainly a lie, by the way, and at the least equivocation regarding the limitation to North America and specification of a 'healthy' wolf. More accurate at the time would have been to say "We deny the existence of cases of a healthy wolf killing a human in North America that we consider to meet forensic standards of evidence," which is what the pro-wolf people were really demanding. Basically, they argued that one couldn't prove that any of the proposed wolf fatalities weren't bear attacks- an argument from ignorance. Well, now we have three well documented fatalities in ten years (and which do in fact meet forensic standards), and any reasonable person is now forced to doubt that there really were none before that. Nowadays I think that even the most ardent environmentalists- i.e. yours truly- are at least again willing to accept that healthy wolves are capable of human predation. And for that matter, does it really make a practical difference to the victim if the wolf is healthy versus starving or rabid? I would propose no, and so the "healthy" equivocation is also pointless. EDIT– The Alaska Range statement was not directed at you- it was a general observation. In fact, nothing beyond the first two sentences were really directed at you per se, though most of it was indeed meant to dispute the contention that wolves aren't dangerous wild animals. But there were other people pushing that (IMO) false meme, not just you. And all of you out there- please bear in mind that to me "dangerous wild animals" are a good thing! I'm a greenie, too! And clearly verbosity is another of my failings, eh?

[Buck Nelson]

"And clearly verbosity is another of my failings, eh?" Clearly. "The Alaska Range statement was not directed at you" I don't believe you. "…at worst it was cherry-picking" Says the man who cherry-picked worst-case scenarios over a hundred years. "There have been three fatal attacks in the past decade, one in 2005 one in 2010 and another in 2010, all in Canada or Alaska by habituated wolves, and all victims were fully grown adult humans" You listed the Alaska attack twice, thus inflating the fatal wolf attack numbers by 50%. There is no question wolves are potentially dangerous. But the risk to an individual backpacker is very, very, very low. I don't think you will find a single wolf expert that will disagree.

[Dean F.]

>>> I don't believe you. OK. I believe you. Not sure where that came from, though. EDIT– Holy crap. I got to wondering about your peevishness, there, so I checked your website and I see that you actually have done a Brooks Range traverse. As a matter of fact I think I have your DVD, now that I have connected you with that trip. :) Anyway, since I edited my post to "Alaska Range" from "Brooks Range" I guess I understand your doubt. But in fact I changed it because I realized that I wasn't certain if there were wolves that far north. >>> Says the man who cherry-picked worst-case scenarios over a hundred years. If 'worst case scenarios' is code for 'wolf attacks'… guilty! I mean, isn't that what we're talking about? Or put another way- exactly what subset of data are you accusing me of cherry-picking? More seriously- no, you are mistaken. What I did was search for attacks in the 2000s, not in the past 'hundred years.' The McNay study popped up because it was published in 2002 (and by the way it is not a definitive list of ALL attacks). I could have listed more- I just produced ten attacks in the past five years on a quick google search, and that's not including doubtful cases like the one in Yellowstone this summer. But I didn't because injuries were minor or only involved aggressive behavior but no physical injury, nor did I include fatal attacks by captive wolves. So give me just a little credit. And, it's odd that you complain about this yet later admit that wolves are dangerous. If they are dangerous then there are obviously going to be incidents to be found, what with people being so clueless so often. >>> You listed the Alaska attack twice, thus inflating the fatal wolf attack numbers by 50%. Did I screw that up? Hang on… EDIT– You're absolutely right, that was the same attack. The links I followed had some differing dates listed, which tripped me up, and then I didn't pay attention to the details of location and names in the pdf and just skipped to the forensics when I went through it. That's totally my bad. I have to own that one. I'll go edit my prior post in case some searcher finds it. So two fatal attacks in the last decade. >>> There is no question wolves are potentially dangerous. But the risk to an individual backpacker is very, very, very low. The likelihood of an attack is indeed very low almost everywhere in North America, but likelihood is not the same as risk. Risk is a calculation based upon both likelihood and severity. I do think it's a bit of overkill to carry 'wolf spray' or somesuch- especially since anywhere there are wolves you'd be more rational to worry about bears. Two North American wolf fatalities versus 41 bear fatalities since 2000? That's pretty telling, though a large part of that discrepancy is probably that bears have a much greater range and potential interaction with humans. In such areas spray is 8oz of peace of mind, and those who worry about such things are welcome to it. That's all I'm saying. Or, more to the point, I'm trying to be inclusive and not demean them for having these concerns. Wolves ARE dangerous animals, even if I'm pretty sure that moose kill more people. OTOH, absolutely yes, some of the crap that the anti-wolf nutjobs write is almost funny in it's ridiculous melodrama. It's really weird- there are all of these people calling for a war on wolves "because of the danger to people" but none seems worried about bears. (Thus it is patently obvious that the wolf hysteria is a product of lobbying and advertisements on the part of ranchers.) So I certainly understand the defensiveness of the pro-wolf people.

[Buck Nelson]

More seriously- no, you are mistaken. What I did was search for attacks in the 2000s, not in the past 'hundred years.' Here's a quote from your post. 80 reputable attacks (limited to Alaska and Canada) from 1915-2001 2015-1915 = 100 years.

[David Lorenz]

When I posted the original thread I was looking for other precautions to follow in addition to just those used for bear. I think there was some great advice especially for those who bring their dogs along. Although I'll continue to carry bear spray for whatever I may encounter, I appreciate the ideas–thanks. What I didn't expect was the deep level of debate on wolf attacks, it is interesting to listen to both experiences and the research into the topic. My greatest fear me is not adhering to specific precautions and by doing so, acliment wolves to human presence–much like some coyote, cats, and black bear have become to finding easy food sources in parks and residential areas. Great discussion! Please keep providing your experiences and insight……

[Monte Masterson]

The fear of wolves runs deep through our psyche. The unease works on a subconscious level more than we're aware. Wolves hold a special place in our hearts, causing us to fear them more than other predators. Throughout the ages numerous tales have depicted wolves as ravenous beasts: Little Red Riding Hood, The Boy Who Cried Wolf, The Three Little Pigs, The Mother and her Six Kids (Grimm's Fairy Tales), etc. The list goes on and on. Perhaps wolves seem diabolical because of the way they hunt. They're very smart, working as a team to bring down even the largest prey. And the eerie howl at night can send chills down the spine.

[Jerry Adams]

Maybe it just "went viral" People are afraid of wolves because other people are afraid, write stories about vampires and things,… Wolves are pretty efficient predators. I can see why ranchers don't like them. Maybe a good thing about hunting is it keeps wolves, bears, and mountain lions afraid of humans, so they're more likely to run away than try to eat us. Or play with us.

[Buck Nelson]

FWIW, I've encountered wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Yukon Territory, and British Columbia. In North America, wolf attacks are so rare I am rarely concerned about wolves at all. The only one encounter I've had that triggered some concern is when a wolf paralleled me in the woods at night as I hiked, howling several times. In the still, black forest that close-range, deep howl was impressive. As a rule of thumb, wild animals that show no fear will get my attention. If I saw a half-tame wolf or a strangely acting wolf I'd keep my guard up, otherwise I will enjoy seeing them without concern. David, about the only thing I'd suggest is not purposely feeding wolves. Here is video of several wolves I saw on my Brooks Range traverse, including what I think were some pretty dramatic encounters with wild wolves in deep wilderness.

[Anonymous]

Fascinating, indeed; more like riveting. Thanks for sharing, Buck.

[Author]

Posts