A wolf attack

[contender]

Apparently a family camping in Canada,,, (Father, Mother & 2 boys) were in their tent when a wolf tore into it attacking them. Dad shielded them and fought off the wolf. He suffered injuries. I caught this on the world news last night. No mention of rabies or anything. Or even what happened to the wolf.

Bet he wishes he'd had a gun for protection.

 

[JohnBoy]

I did a quick search and found the story. Below is an excerpt from CNN:

'The campground was closed for a few days while Parks Canada investigated the incident. It reopened Monday after park staff tracked and killed the animal, verifying that it was the right one through DNA testing.

It's unclear why the wolf was attracted to this family, Matheson said. Veterinary tests confirmed that the wolf was in "poor condition" and nearing the end of its life, which was probably a contributing factor in its behavior, Parks Canada said.

The wolf was underweight for its age, a mere 78 pounds compared with the usual 100- to 150-pound range, Matheson said. Tests for rabies came back negative.'

The family was very fortunate. This wolf was old and underweight. Probably desperate for a meal. Sounds like everyone is OK.

 

[BearBio]

Abnormal, starving wolf. This is also indicated because he was a "lone wolf". Lone wolves are usually the aging wolves driven out by the dominant male (alpha male=mate of the alpha female). The previous alpha may have died and a new alpha pair took over and drove him out to keep him from breeding.

 

[caryc]

It reopened Monday after park staff tracked and killed the animal, verifying that it was the right one through DNA testing.

Of course "verifying" was done after they killed it, but they don't make that part clear, do they?

 

[BearBio]

It reopened Monday after park staff tracked and killed the animal, verifying that it was the right one through DNA testing.

Of course "verifying" was done after they killed it, but they don't make that part clear, do they?

I think that deemed obvious (unless they trapped it an euthanized it but that would be expensive and waste time under the circumstances.

 

[bogus bill]

Officials would be forced to do something. I suppose they had a rough discription of the wolf`s size and got lucky killing the right one. People on that job would/should be experienced and you are under obvious public pressure to do something.

 

[BearBio]

Officials would be forced to do something. I suppose they had a rough discription of the wolf`s size and got lucky killing the right one. People on that job would/should be experienced and you are under obvious public pressure to do something.

AGREED!

AND, a public threat must be dealt with immediately (I've seen enough horror movies to know what happens if you don't==monster keeps eating dumb rednecks and getting bigger and bigger!! :lol: )

 

[caryc]

Yeah, I know all that and I agree. It's just the way they make it sound that I don't like. If they had killed three wolves before they found that right one by DNA, do you suppose they would have published that?

It just has that "CYOA" kind of feel.

 

[Jeepnik]

What!!! All of the wolf lovers swear wolves don't attack people. Of course they all grew up with a Disney vision of wildlife.

 

[don44]

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[bogus bill]

My grandmother was from what now is the NW corner of Ukraine. Probably around 1890 she told me a story of the government equivalent to a game warden there was arresting some villagers for poaching. The men took him out, split open a stump, shoved his beard in it, sprung it back and left him for the wolves!

 

[gramps]

Yeah, I know all that and I agree. It's just the way they make it sound that I don't like. If they had killed three wolves before they found that right one by DNA, do you suppose they would have published that?

It just has that "CYOA" kind of feel.

It wouldn’t bother me one bit if they killed several before matching the DNA. Wolves were killed off for a reason, if the .gov does the killing that is fewer for us to need to kill!
gramps

 

[caryc]

Yeah, I know all that and I agree. It's just the way they make it sound that I don't like. If they had killed three wolves before they found that right one by DNA, do you suppose they would have published that?

It just has that "CYOA" kind of feel.

It wouldn’t bother me one bit if they killed several before matching the DNA. Wolves were killed off for a reason, if the .gov does the killing that is fewer for us to need to kill!
gramps

I am not a wolf lover by any means. A wolf is just about the only animal that will kill even if it's not hungry. They don't even care about killing an animal as long as they can get it down and start eating it alive.

Before man came along, nature used to police itself nicely. Man is the one who screwed up nature.

I also get a kick out of all those shows on animal control like animal shelters where they euthanize animals. Why don't they just say they kill them? Does the animal know it's being euthanized instead of killed? Like he would feel a lot better about it if he knew.

 

[pete44ru]

Yeah, I know all that and I agree. It's just the way they make it sound that I don't like. If they had killed three wolves before they found that right one by DNA, do you suppose they would have published that?

It just has that "CYOA" kind of feel.

Who's to know if any DNA they may or may not have gathered was that particular wolf's ?

It is, however, an excellent PR move/spin...…..

.

 

[redhawker]

I am not a wolf lover by any means. A wolf is just about the only animal that will kill even if it's not hungry. They don't even care about killing an animal as long as they can get it down and start eating it alive.

Before man came along, nature used to police itself nicely. Man is the one who screwed up nature.

I also get a kick out of all those shows on animal control like animal shelters where they euthanize animals. Why don't they just say they kill them? Does the animal know it's being euthanized instead of killed? Like he would feel a lot better about it if he knew.

Agreed that man screwed up nature in many places. Due to that fact I think it is incumbent that the "powers that be" take on the task of managing these areas for the benefit of the wildlife AND the people in these areas. You can't go back to where things were before man got here in most places. Part of the now required management is to balance the predator and prey populations. In some cases that will mean relocating some animals, in some cases it will mean hunting, in some (probably rare) cases it will mean leaving things alone and monitoring populations. The problem with a lot of these wolf reintroductions is that they have "fully protected" the wolfs and allow them to overpopulate and then decimate their prey species populations. Then where do they turn? This incident may be an example of failure to manage the area wildlife.

 

[gramps]

The Wolf left its DNA in the tent! All they needed was DNA from wolves in the area to match.
gramps

 

[caryc]

The Wolf left its DNA in the tent! All they needed was DNA from wolves in the area to match.
gramps

Yeah, I guess they asked every wolf in the area to line up for a DNA swab.

I really doubt they did anything with DNA. Probably just a good made up story to placate the public. After all, they are government people.

 

[contender]

We all know that the media releases & such usually leave out a lot of the "behind the scenes" story. And quite often,, a lot of the "ugly" or "not PC" stuff is left out on purpose to avoid bad publicity.

Still,,, wolves are predators. And if they think they can get a meal,, they will try. Many wolf lovers will say it was just starving & needed food or help. They will want to offer more protections & whatever else they can dream up to try & "save the wolf!"
But it was most likely mother nature at work.
As noted above,, a lone wolf, likely old & out of a pack. Advanced age means that in it's "natural" environment, it would die slowly of starvation & fatigue. Or, possibly by a rival pack who found it in "their" territory. Mother nature in it's raw form is "cruel" by our human emotion standards.

Still, when animals are faced with hunting for food & hungry,, they can & will attack pets, humans etc. As humans if we want to survive, we have to stronger than the predator.
Or,, as most of us here would be,, better armed for protection.

 

[BearBio]

Scientists use the term "sacrifice" instead of "kill". Actually, if left alone wolves will not "decimate" (which means to reduce by 10%==as in "deci"). The populations will equalize and balance. Unfortunately, man harvests (hunts) the surplus and, if there is no surplus, hunting quotas and success go waaaay down! Guides complain because they have to work harder.

This was shown in Yellowstone. A friend of mine is a wolf biologist in Yellowstone (interesting character, when I met him he was tattooed, had long hair and rode a Harley chopper. Found out, the tattoos were endangered species, he cut his hair and parked the Harley next to the bosses Mercedes because it set the car alarm off. He also was a retired Marine Corps captain, was a PhD in predator behavior and had published 28 journal articles on predators). Wolves came in (introduced) and the elk and moose had to move out into the open (to see the wolf packs). Beaver came back (as did native song birds and small animals) because the vegetation recovered from overgrazing by deer, elk and moose. Coyotes and mountain lion populations reduced due to "predation" (actually, "competitive exclusion"--wolves killed competing predators, more fawns and calves lived to maturity and older grazers were eliminated, improving population structure).