- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
- Messages
- 226
Thanks for the links @Ranger Psych .. As for the Wiki page, yeah I agree not always the best source but often good for guidance for further reading. Here are a few tidbits I want to quote.
"Nevertheless, they tend to fear and avoid human beings, especially in North America.[6] Wolves vary in temperament and their reaction to humans. Those with little prior experience with humans, and those positively conditioned through feeding, may lack fear. Wolves living in open areas, for example the North American Great Plains, historically showed little fear before the advent of firearms in the 19th Century,[7] and would follow human hunters to feed on their kills, particularly bison.[8] In contrast, forest-dwelling wolves in North America were noted for shyness.[7] Wolf biologist L. David Mech hypothesized in 1998 that wolves generally avoid humans because of fear instilled by hunting.[9] Mech also noted that humans' upright posture is unlike wolves' other prey, and similar to some postures of bears, which wolves usually avoid.[6]"
In all honesty it seems like a combination of both our views (although yours is a firsthand encounter, with more credibility). Yes, in Alaska it appears they have less fear for humans I can definitely agree with that. It also seems that its only a certain percentage of their population that have interactions with human despite their mobility. Unless of course a human decides to go deep into the wilderness and in that case, your out of human habitation where the dangers of confrontation is inherent.. in my opinion.
"Following the Icy Bay incident, biologist Mark E. McNay compiled a record of wolf-human encounters in Canada and Alaska from 1915-2001. Of the 80 described encounters, 39 involved aggressive behavior from apparently healthy wolves and 12 from animals confirmed to be rabid.[41] The first fatal attack in the 21st century occurred in 2005, when a man was killed in Saskatchewan, Canada by wolves that had been habituated to humans,[42] while in 2010, a woman was killed whilst jogging near Chignik Lake in Alaska.[43]"
Out of 96 years it had 39 "aggressive" cases and with 12 incidents involving rabid animal incidents out of the ENTIRE geographical area of Canada and Alaska. I'm wondering what constitutes aggressive in those cases as well, does it involve actual attacks or scenarios where the animal was showing aggression but in the end it involved both parties parting ways. Not denying attacks happen, as they clearly do... but seems somewhat rare in comparison to other animals. I am going to try to dive more into statistics on my own accord.
I'm not referencing the second link, since it's mentioned in the Wiki page you shared. I would agree with that incident (without reading it) that the wolf should be taken care of because it clearly poses a future threat if it killed somebody. Unfortunately the final and last link you provided I can't open for some strange reason.
How often do Ungulates and human interactions involve in human injury/death in human inhabited areas? I would think its a safe assumption it greatly outnumbers its predators incidents. Yes, both incidents are different scenarios (e.g., Vehicle accidents vs Attack incidents) but based on statistics its clear Ungulates pose a greater risk to human life. It could be attributed that its because for example, the deer overpopulation. The ironic part about why is there an overpopulation, ah yes, their natural predators are being killed by humans.... So maybe we should kill all the deer, wolves and avoid those thousands of incidents a year. Than we will have to control the foliage, and than what. I don't know, out of my knowledge and now I'm rambling again.
Humans try to fill that predator role here in the Northeast U.S. and it seems it not going well as deer are still overpopulated and incidents occur frequently. Than you have situations like in Pennsylvania a few years ago. The deer were culled to sustainable and safe numbers, than the hunters complained they didn't have enough to hunt. No matter what people will bitch.
Clearly my view is let nature take care of itself and that humans shouldn't try to fill a niche they don't belong in and my view won't change. Animals in human inhabited areas are prone to the will of humans as are humans in animal inhabited areas. Further, my opinion is fragile ecosystems away from human habitation should be largely regulated and left alone.
It seems much more difficult for us to keep stability in an ecosystem despite being the penultimate predator. I do truly wish we lived in a world where people filled their apex predator role and actively hunt meat rather than hunt at the supermarket for it but it seems unlikely. Who is right? I am not trying to make it seem my point of view is whats best, its merely based on opinion. @Ranger Psych if its good with you I would like to end our debate on this specific subject after your response to this post and move onto a different topic some others mentioned. I feel we both clearly stressed our opinions. Our debate is exactly the reason why I created the thread to begin with, for us to portray opinion on issues.
Thanks for the link @x SF med .. No issue with the delisting, I just prefer they stay delisted from there being thriving environments.
Maybe we should move onto the Global Warming topic brought up or uh, mini ice age...
"Nevertheless, they tend to fear and avoid human beings, especially in North America.[6] Wolves vary in temperament and their reaction to humans. Those with little prior experience with humans, and those positively conditioned through feeding, may lack fear. Wolves living in open areas, for example the North American Great Plains, historically showed little fear before the advent of firearms in the 19th Century,[7] and would follow human hunters to feed on their kills, particularly bison.[8] In contrast, forest-dwelling wolves in North America were noted for shyness.[7] Wolf biologist L. David Mech hypothesized in 1998 that wolves generally avoid humans because of fear instilled by hunting.[9] Mech also noted that humans' upright posture is unlike wolves' other prey, and similar to some postures of bears, which wolves usually avoid.[6]"
In all honesty it seems like a combination of both our views (although yours is a firsthand encounter, with more credibility). Yes, in Alaska it appears they have less fear for humans I can definitely agree with that. It also seems that its only a certain percentage of their population that have interactions with human despite their mobility. Unless of course a human decides to go deep into the wilderness and in that case, your out of human habitation where the dangers of confrontation is inherent.. in my opinion.
"Following the Icy Bay incident, biologist Mark E. McNay compiled a record of wolf-human encounters in Canada and Alaska from 1915-2001. Of the 80 described encounters, 39 involved aggressive behavior from apparently healthy wolves and 12 from animals confirmed to be rabid.[41] The first fatal attack in the 21st century occurred in 2005, when a man was killed in Saskatchewan, Canada by wolves that had been habituated to humans,[42] while in 2010, a woman was killed whilst jogging near Chignik Lake in Alaska.[43]"
Out of 96 years it had 39 "aggressive" cases and with 12 incidents involving rabid animal incidents out of the ENTIRE geographical area of Canada and Alaska. I'm wondering what constitutes aggressive in those cases as well, does it involve actual attacks or scenarios where the animal was showing aggression but in the end it involved both parties parting ways. Not denying attacks happen, as they clearly do... but seems somewhat rare in comparison to other animals. I am going to try to dive more into statistics on my own accord.
I'm not referencing the second link, since it's mentioned in the Wiki page you shared. I would agree with that incident (without reading it) that the wolf should be taken care of because it clearly poses a future threat if it killed somebody. Unfortunately the final and last link you provided I can't open for some strange reason.
How often do Ungulates and human interactions involve in human injury/death in human inhabited areas? I would think its a safe assumption it greatly outnumbers its predators incidents. Yes, both incidents are different scenarios (e.g., Vehicle accidents vs Attack incidents) but based on statistics its clear Ungulates pose a greater risk to human life. It could be attributed that its because for example, the deer overpopulation. The ironic part about why is there an overpopulation, ah yes, their natural predators are being killed by humans.... So maybe we should kill all the deer, wolves and avoid those thousands of incidents a year. Than we will have to control the foliage, and than what. I don't know, out of my knowledge and now I'm rambling again.
Humans try to fill that predator role here in the Northeast U.S. and it seems it not going well as deer are still overpopulated and incidents occur frequently. Than you have situations like in Pennsylvania a few years ago. The deer were culled to sustainable and safe numbers, than the hunters complained they didn't have enough to hunt. No matter what people will bitch.
Clearly my view is let nature take care of itself and that humans shouldn't try to fill a niche they don't belong in and my view won't change. Animals in human inhabited areas are prone to the will of humans as are humans in animal inhabited areas. Further, my opinion is fragile ecosystems away from human habitation should be largely regulated and left alone.
It seems much more difficult for us to keep stability in an ecosystem despite being the penultimate predator. I do truly wish we lived in a world where people filled their apex predator role and actively hunt meat rather than hunt at the supermarket for it but it seems unlikely. Who is right? I am not trying to make it seem my point of view is whats best, its merely based on opinion. @Ranger Psych if its good with you I would like to end our debate on this specific subject after your response to this post and move onto a different topic some others mentioned. I feel we both clearly stressed our opinions. Our debate is exactly the reason why I created the thread to begin with, for us to portray opinion on issues.
Thanks for the link @x SF med .. No issue with the delisting, I just prefer they stay delisted from there being thriving environments.
Maybe we should move onto the Global Warming topic brought up or uh, mini ice age...
