Things you can't say anymore: No documented kill of a human by wolves in USA

[Matthew Carberry]

Not rabies or starving or emotionally deprived, just wolves being wolves.

The story

http://www.adn.com/2011/12/06/2205617/dna-samples-confirm-wolves-killed.html

The Fish and Feathers Report

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/news/pdfs/wolfattackfatality.pdf

(I'm agin' the "kill 'em all" mindset but it sure is nice to slap a hippy in the face with reality once in a while.)

[brimic]

But Grizzly bears wolves are just people with fur!

[Matthew Carberry]

But Grizzly bears wolves are just people with fur!

Yep, which is why it's so silly to think they won't eat you like the furless people will.

[lupinus]

Perhaps the nutball from NJ thinks the wolves will just need people avoidance training as well.

[MicroBalrog]

Uh? This isn't the first nor the third such incident in the United States.

El Comrade Wiki has a list.

[makattak]

Uh? This isn't the first nor the third such incident in the United States.

El Comrade Wiki has a list.

It is generally assumed to mean in the modern age. That last such incident in the United States not involving a pet is 1910 according to your link. (Also that "documented" is another weasel word.)

[Matthew Carberry]

Uh? This isn't the first nor the third such incident in the United States.

El Comrade Wiki has a list.

You're a fer'ner so I'll fill in the blanks.  

The unspoken caveat(s) among the wolf-idiots here in the states is "documented as killed and eaten by wild, healthy, unprovoked wolves".

Not domesticated or habituated to being fed, not starving (invariably due to humans destroying nature somehow), and not injured or infected with rabies (or other diseases).  They also discount reports that don't include ironclad proof from some "proper authority" of the above.  Most of the wiki list attacks are "pets", habituated, or are from long enough ago to be untrustworthy as they come from a time when wolves were being systematically eradicated and were not "sufficiently documented" by trustworthy authorities.

You'll see that even in the comments to the current story, "the wolves could have just fed on the body, it doesn't mean they did the killing..."


@makattak - great, now I seem all wordy   

[MicroBalrog]

You're a fer'ner so I'll fill in the blanks.  

The unspoken caveat(s) among the wolf-idiots here in the states is "documented as killed and eaten by wild, healthy, unprovoked wolves".

Yes, and "bears do not attack people".

Does anyone take these idiots seriously?

They're big predators. You are made of meat. Do the math.

[makattak]

Yes, and "bears do not attack people".

Does anyone take these idiots seriously?

They're big predators. You are made of meat. Do the math.

Yes. Some people take these idiots seriously.

They're the kind of people who think Bambi was a documentary, though.

[Jocassee]

Can't help but think that would be a horrible way to die.

[makattak]

Can't help but think that would be a horrible way to die.

I don't know if you've read any Jack London, but I think he correctly portrays just how terrible the fear leading up to the horrible death would be.

[AJ Dual]

In countries with wolves where carrying a gun isn't an option, go jogging with your Caucasian Ovcharka I guess.

[De Selby]

Ironically, the odds are indeed higher that the gun used for wolf protection will involve a lethal accidental discharge than the odds a wolf will kill you.  If safety is your aim, proabably not the best way to go about it.

[MicroBalrog]

Ironically, the odds are indeed higher that the gun used for wolf protection will involve a lethal accidental discharge than the odds a wolf will kill you.  If safety is your aim, proabably not the best way to go about it.

See if you can figure out why this is wrong.

[Tallpine]

See if you can figure out why this is wrong.

I've already shot a number of deer, snakes, coyotes, porcupines, and gophers without shooting myself yet.

[Matthew Carberry]

Ironically, the odds are indeed higher that the gun used for wolf protection will involve a lethal accidental discharge than the odds a wolf will kill you.  If safety is your aim, proabably not the best way to go about it.

Show your math.

There are only about 600 lethal accidental shootings in the US per year total, last I checked.  Any occuring at home don't count for this comparison, nor those involving hunting accidents (as the weapon is not being primarily carried for predator protection), nor those occuring while carrying a gun primarily for protection against humans or in any areas where wolves are not present.

Hell, even granting you all instances of weapons being carried partly or mostly for wolf and bear and mountain lion protection, (since wolves don't exist anywhere one of the other two apex predators do not and no one carries "just for wolves" when bears or cats are also around), I'd say you'd be hard pressed to show an equivalence, much less a statistically significant higher level, of lethal misadventure than of successful use in defense, which is the proper comparison.

[De Selby]

I've done lots of dangerous things without killing myself - not under the pretense of improving my safety, though.  If a guy's actually worried about the risk of wolf attacks, he should probably be looking for a solution that overall lowers his risk of death...now if you like guns and want to spend time in nature dong things with them, taking one out (to wolf inhabited areas or elsewhere) is a smart move.

[De Selby]

Show your math.

There are only about 600 lethal accidental shootings in the US per year total, last I checked.  Any occuring at home don't count for this comparison, nor those involving hunting accidents (as the weapon is not being carried for predator protection), nor those occuring while carrying a gun for protection against humans or in any areas where wolves are not present.

Hell, even granting you weapons carried partly or mostly for wolf and bear and mountain lion protection, in places where one of those three predators live, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to show an equivilence, much less a statistically significant higher level of lethal misadventure than of successful use.

Uh, why don't accidents at home count?  You would presumably need to keep the anti-wolf weapon at home...but anyway, how does 600 lethal accidents compare to the number of wolf caused deaths?

That's several thousand percentage points higher I'd wager

[MicroBalrog]

I've done lots of dangerous things without killing myself - not under the pretense of improving my safety, though.  If a guy's actually worried about the risk of wolf attacks, he should probably be looking for a solution that overall lowers his risk of death...now if you like guns and want to spend time in nature dong things with them, taking one out (to wolf inhabited areas or elsewhere) is a smart move.

The thing is, using a gun is :

1) not dangerous (most of these 'gun accidents' are actually 'heinous gun stupidity')

2) useful against threats other than wolves.


The proper question is  to measure the risk of gun accidents vs. the risks of all of the things a gun helps you to protect from (wolves, robbers, carjackers, rapists, terrorists).

Certainly if you know there are wolves or coyotes in your geographical area, carrying a gun not only makes sense, but is the solution recommedned by many experts.

[Matthew Carberry]

Uh, why don't accidents at home count?  You would presumably need to keep the anti-wolf weapon at home...but anyway, how does 600 lethal accidents compare to the number of wolf caused deaths?

That's several thousand percentage points higher I'd wager

Again, that isn't a valid nor useful comparison.  The proper comparison is "number of lethal accidents occuring with guns being used for wolf (large predator) protection" to "number of successful uses of guns to defend against wolf (large predator) attack.  That's apples to apples.

With your position you might as well compare "all accidents involving guns owned that might be used for protection against wolves" to "having trees fall on you in the woods" as far as relevence goes. 

[gunsmith]

We all know that a Wolf can easily take the gun & use it on you itself, they're supposed to be smarter then tame dogs and every year there is a fresh case of a "domestic" dog "accidentally" shooting its master.

http://www.fox13now.com/news/kstu-shot-by-dog-dog-shoots-hunter-in-the-buttocks-20111130,0,7820602.story

[Hawkmoon]

Ironically, the odds are indeed higher that the gun used for wolf protection will involve a lethal accidental discharge than the odds a wolf will kill you.  If safety is your aim, proabably not the best way to go about it.

Source citation, please?

[RoadKingLarry]

Ironically, the odds are indeed higher that the gun used for wolf protection will involve a lethal accidental discharge than the odds a wolf will kill you.  If safety is your aim, proabably not the best way to go about it.

"Mr. DeSelby,  what you've just Posted... Is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

With apologies to "Billy Madison" 

[gunsmith]

"Mr. DeSelby,  what you've just Posted... Is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

With apologies to "Billy Madison" 

Like - With apologies to Facebook.

[LadySmith]

Can't help but think that would be a horrible way to die.

I agree.
The descriptions of what happened based upon the prints and blood that were found gave me the chills.