What i find disturbing about this article is the description of how fear gripped the locals when this occurred. There's always this assumption that when one occurence happens, the entire breed is suddenly the epitome of evil. Would the village take down all depicitons of domestic dogs and get rid of all their pets if the attack had been by a domestic dog? Dogs kill a couple dozen people each year, but you hardly ever see those stories making national news, and they generally don't leave people cowering in fear of their pet Fido. But hey, i used to be pretty darn scared of dogs in my competitive running years, so the fact that this happened to a jogger certainly would have had my defenses up too.
The locals should be a lot more fear-gripped by bees. Forty innocent Americans die each year after being attacked by these habituated opportunists It’s just something we’re just going to have to adjust to, but the sense of trust with a wild animal is totally going to be different.
I'm truly sorry that a life was lost. I'm equally sorry that we respond to every one of these events with an unproductive and pointless "eye for an eye" killing.
The technology has its good points. Right after reading the artice I found Chignik Lake on Google Earth and it gave me a lot insight on life of isolated communities in the middle of wilderness.
We can look at it this way: that's the way the wolves have been for millions of years, or whatever the evolutionary period of time they have existed. That's the way they have always been - hunting things. Either buffalos, deers, rabbits, whatever is within their reach. That's their life. If you take that away they will become extinct. Period. We need to learn that.
I believe it doesn't have to be a choice: either them or us. I believe it can be both of us. Somehow. They have their right to exist too.
It is not like some books arrogantly claim that the Earth belongs only to us. It doesn't belong to us. We need to share it with others.
No bees to worry about there, but no law enforcement and little beyond basic first aid for medical either.
On top of that village teachers are often the ONLY "authority" in small villages, the principal contact with the outside world and the first person villagers call on for help when there's trouble.
From the village point of view, picture your own town with all the police, EMTs and contact with the outside world ripped off in one incident. Rattle hell out of your secure little world, I'd bet.
And I'm sure from their previous experience from other trouble animals including brown bears, the depredation is often the first incident rather than an isolated event never to happen again. One incident leads quickly to more unless something is done.
Not unlike a serial killer or rampant gang in urban settings.
Thank you for your reply, Hank. I was trying to figure out how to explain this situation. I think it's hard for people in the rest of the country to imagine what it's like.
> And I'm sure from their previous experience from other trouble animals including brown bears, the
> depredation is often the first incident rather than an isolated event never to happen again. One
> incident leads quickly to more unless something is done.
The article says that they tracked down the two wolves responsible for the attack and they terminated them. The forensic investigators will confirm that they are the wolves and there are no others. It should be enough - from this standpoint it is isolated. Period.
Comparison to serial killers or gangs? If that happens then the gang and the killer is held responsible, isolated and punished, not the entire community that hosts the killer, correct?
Rare fatality
It was the first fatal wolf attack in Alaska, and only the second documented case of a wild wolf killing a human in North America. There are an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 wolves in North America, including 7,700 to 11,200 in Alaska.
I would say this outlines the rarity of this sad experience and I can totally understand the small village having concerns. However, it should be more of a notice to be on alert and take precautionary measures when out and about, but nothing beyond that.
My two years of very remote travels throughout Alaska never left me concerned with wolves, but after two encounters with grizzlies, I have a deep respect for giving them a wide berth.
The sad fact is that a small person running looks a bit like natural prey to a wolf. I grew (1954-1959) up in southwest Alaska. Wolves and bears do come in to the villages, particularly in winter, particularly when the snow is deep, particularly if folks have been sloppy with their trash. A rifle does hang by the door in most homes. As Hank says, it's so different from the way that most of us live that we have a hard time imagining life there.
As for fear or hysteria gripping the community, I don't think that's true. That's more a projection about what a our white community might do. Among the Aleuts, parents will be a bit more careful with their kids, and stray dogs - not uncommon in villages - will get shot. But life just goes on. There will be or has been a nice potlatch for the school teacher, and people will be a bit more careful. But so much bad stuff has happened to the Aleut people for so many centuries that most villagers will simply carry on. It's more like someone drowning while fishing or being killed in a car accident would be for city-folk than the atavistic reaction we city-folk might have.
The Yup'ik people, where I lived, don't make big distinctions among how nature kills you. The Yup'ik have a phrase that translates, roughly, "made a mistake hunting/fishing and got killed." It's treated as very sad but, for lack of a better word, it's more "natural." Especially in the villages that are still mostly subsistence cultures. I strongly suspect the Aleuts aren't much different.
Posted by Ross Warner on March 18, 2010 at 7:28 PM
There are crazy wolves, just like there are crazy people.
lol, Ross, well i guess that's the question: were the wolves 'crazy' or just doing what came natural? Im not happy they were killed, (and im certainly not happy the vicitm was!) but i suppose part of the reason was to try to determine if they were suffering from any environmental or physical stresses like disease or whatever.
I hope Jim is right, cause that's not the impression i got from the article. The impression i got is that nothing has changed; we (all of us) still view wild animals as something to be feared (as opposed to respected) and exterminated whenever there's a perceived threat. I am interested in the Alaskan viewpoint, but when Hank starts making analogies to urban gangs, he's lost me--unless Ross is right, and the wolves really were crazy (maybe protecting their wolf-drug turf?? ).
Im not happy they were killed, (and im certainly not happy the vicitm was!) but i suppose part of the reason was to try to determine if they were suffering from any environmental or physical stresses like disease or whatever.
Stan, this is a very important point you make about the need to capture/kill these wolves to find a possible cause. Again, no need to go beyond the suspected animals unless there is a find of rabies or anything else that maybe spread. I recall an outlaw mountain lion that was finally shot after several domestic animals and I think a person being killed by it as well. The autopsy revealed a large cranial hole from an injury in the cat's early life that may have caused the uncontrolled aggressive actions.
To clarify, the analogy of urban gangs and serial killers is about the impact on the psyche of a small village rather than a characterization of the wolves.
And Jim's right. The village solution is a lot more direct than staying home while the DC sniper runs rampant. There's a rifle hanging inside most doors.
Even with the "right" wolves removed, I'm betting any wolf venturing near the village is going to be suspect for generations to come.
I once did a stovetop fish canning workshop in a village at the home of the mayor. The mayor stayed away, his wife stood in the doorway, and everyone in the village kept calling on the CB and asking "Annie! Are you alright?"
Annie finally explained to me that a pressure cooker once blew up and killed a woman in the village. I did some research, and was finally able to establish that the pressure cooker explosion occurred in 1928. And until I showed up with a pressure cooker and a couple of cases of jars, no one in that village had ever canned fish again. Once Annie survived, I had to do the workshop again the next day when the whole village turned out.
Comparisons between village life and urban life stop at the waterline.
Here's the thing from my point of view. people are not part of the normal food chain for any of North America's predators. right? But predators are opportunistic. But they usually target small, or weak animals because the odds of success are better. So unless the predator is weak, and starving, it usually won't target a human being. If the human is small and percieved to be weak, well... Isn't running one of the things that triggers the predatory response??? If we want to expand our territory out into the wildernass because it's pretty, and away from the hussle, and bussle of urbvan life, great. But at some point, accepting responsibility for the potential dangers of this action becomes necessary. I don't think killing the wolves responsible is the wrong thing to do. But it does make me sad that the incident happened in the first place. Becoming fearful of wolves, or any other potentially dangerous animal because of a rare and isolated tragedy is ignorant in my opinion. People need to come to the realization that we in fact are not at the top of the food chain. At least not without a firearm. I don't believe we should remove every threat there is to our existance, so we can live out safe(and boring) lives. Understanding what the potential threats are, and applying some education, and common sense to the situation are what is needed. Then if you choose to run on a wilderness trail, choose to accept the dangers that may come with it. I would accept the possibility of maybe being killed by a wolf, or a bear, over knowing I would never have the chance to see them in thier natural environment.
"I would accept the possibility of maybe being killed by a wolf, or a bear, over knowing I would never have the chance to see them in their natural environment."
Chris, I am dying to know if you have ever been charged by a wild animal.
Posted by Eva McDermott on March 19, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Last October a similar incident occurred in Cape Breton National Park CA but with two coyotes. The park rangers killed one shortly after the incident and another about a week later when on the same trail, the second coyote was acting aggressive towards them. I don't believe the authorities found anything physically wrong with the coyotes during autopsy. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/10/28/ns-coyote-attack-died.html It was a little unnerving to me at the time since I was not too far from where the incident occurred a few weeks earlier. I guess that is one of the risks we take when we venture into the "wilderness".
Posted by Fred Stearns on March 19, 2010 at 2:24 PM
One of the reasons that wild animals may get aggressive has nothing to do with anything that can be found during an autopsy. It is simply feeding the animals. Way too many people feed animals thinking that they are doing it some good when the exact opposite is true. If they become dependent on hum ans for food, they become aggressive in their approach as they expect to be fed. I don't know how many people remember the "Bear Jams" at both Yellowstone and The Great Smoky Mountains but it is a wonder that more people weren't maimed or killed.
This is not limited to carnivores or omnivores either. If you drive up Mount Evans when the Big Horn Sheep are out, they will approach you car and stick their heads through the window in the hopes of being fed. There are even reports of people getting bit by squirrels and chipmunks while they are being hand fed. It may seem cute, but it can be a death sentence for both teh human and the animal.
Hi David,
Well no, I have not really ever been charged by a wild animal. Not one that I was fearful of anyway. I did have the dominant male in a herd of antelope run toward me when I approached too close once. But I just respectfully backed off. I imagine if I had ever been in a potentially life threatening situation with a predatory animal, I would have been pretty shaken up about it.
I was mostly trying to say that removal of the wild animals to reduce, or eliminate any threat to us is not a very good way of dealing with the situation. Nor is it an example of "good stewardship" in my opinion.
I have been charged three times. Two of them were do to lack of alertness on my part, the third was erratic behaviour by a bear. The bear I did report as it was in a park and charging anything that moved including traffic on the road. In all my experience I had not seen a bear behave in this manner before.
In another instance I met a moose in Algonquin Park while on an autumn shoot. Slipped my mind completely it was rutting season. When I backed off he went his merry way. When I went to the head of the portage and warned other paddlers that he was approaching they rushed down the trail to see him.
In my time I have seen people throw rocks at bears to attract their attention, attempt to pet moose, bison and similar animals. The management of Algonquin Park had to run a special campaign to warn and advise people about approaching wild animals due to the number of foolish incidents.
Every year bears will wander to the edge of town here. Generally natural resource traps and transports where possible. We had one shot in our yard two years ago. Just a young curious male looking around. With dogs, children and people wandering through they just couldn't take the chance that something might spook him.
While very fortunate to see a wide variety of animals in their natural habitat I can agree with you at the marvel of it, however foolish behaviour on the part of the ignorant is one thing, and I am sympathetic to those who get upset when such animals are put down. When people are put at risk by atypical behaviour of an animal it is a completely matter.
David,
Yes, in the instance of atypical behavior that puts people at risk, I completely agree with you. It is unfortunate, but sometimes has to be done to protect people. Also when the situation comes to people, I agree that a certain level of security needs to be maintained. It's when we encroach too far for the sake of entertainment that I have a problem with. At that point we are making a personal choice to take a risk. I think people put themselves above all else way to often, for the sake of entertainment, or personal gratification. It's these instances that cause the suffering or stress of the animals that I don't have any appreciation for.
Thanks for the dialog,
Chris
Posted by Carl Donohue on March 20, 2010 at 10:18 PM
Hank wrote:
And I'm sure from their previous experience from other trouble animals including brown bears, the depredation is often the first incident rather than an isolated event never to happen again. One incident leads quickly to more unless something is done.
Hey Hank
.. except there is not a single recorded instance of a brown bear, black bear, or wolf, etc, ever becoming a habituated 'man eater'- lions and tigers, sure - but not North American mammals. The idea that a bear or wolf might suddenly start preying on people is mythological, fairy tale stuff.
"serial killers" and "urban gangs"?? Why not call the wolves murdering criminals, terrorists guilty of war crimes, etc .... sheesh. :) That kind of language distorts and misshapes the discussion, IMO, and doesn't usefully serve the conversation or understanding. The situation, and its bearing on small communities of people, is indeed very unlike that of serial killers and urban (or non-urban) gangs.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Dan Borzynski on March 21, 2010 at 11:44 PM
Carl,
(without having the article available I'm guessing it wasn't written by someone who grew up outside of an urban area)
I think you are misconstruing Hank's comments with "serial killers" and "urban gangs". Down here in the lower 48 urban areas, most people simply don't understand the potential dangers and realities of living with wildlife. We've had our large mammals Disney-ized. Squirrels and chipmunks are as dangerous as it gets and bears do song and dance numbers if we cue up the music. When unfortunate incidents like this occur, the only context we have to place them in is the serial killer and urban gangs mindset. They're evil - give 'em a fair trial and hang 'em!
A couple of years ago, I was down in the Smokies when a women was killed by a black bear just east of the park. The fear down there among the tourists was incredible. A lot of people refused to walk any of the trails beyond a distance they could see their car (so they could run back to it if needed - yeah, right...) and thought I was completely nuts to be out there. I talked to a waitress about it (the fear) after she overheard my conversation with a tourist family and she basically laughed. She figured the family would have absolutely panicked had a black bear made one of its occasional appearances on the main drag in Gatlinburg.
Yes, it is not fair to the animals to characterize them like this, but Hank is right on the money as to how incidents are perceived by the urban populations here.
Dan, you misread Hank's comments--he was analogizing how the local population views the threat, not how we in urban environments characterize the incident. What Carl and I are saying is that this is a bad analogy: no one should view the wildlife as serial killers or gangs, the animals aren't psychotic or plotting for power or money, and anyone can recognize this, urban, rural, whoever!
I like your story though. When i did a lot of hiking in the Olympics and other bear-rich areas, i always was annoyed by the tourists with their stinkin' bear bells, scaring all the wildlife away for miles around. Every chance i got, i'd make it a point to tell the bell-ringers that the bears perceived that sound as a call to dinner!
Posted by Carl Donohue on March 22, 2010 at 2:52 PM
I think you are misconstruing Hank's comments with "serial killers" and "urban gangs". Down here in the lower 48 urban areas, most people simply don't understand the potential dangers and realities of living with wildlife. We've had our large mammals Disney-ized. Squirrels and chipmunks are as dangerous as it gets and bears do song and dance numbers if we cue up the music. When unfortunate incidents like this occur, the only context we have to place them in is the serial killer and urban gangs mindset. They're evil - give 'em a fair trial and hang 'em!
hey Dan
Isn't placing wildlife in the "serial killers and urban gangs" mindset the exact same Hollywood-ification that you're talking about?
Using the term 'serial killer' or similar to describe a wild animal that kills for food (or likening our response to that of dealing with urban gangs) is simply mythologizing both the animals AND our own relationship to them.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Dan Borzynski on March 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM
Yep.
Unfortunately, that is what happens. At least the Disney version doesn't get the animals killed, at least not until you have tourists trying to pet the pretty buffalo.
And I'm sure from their previous experience from other trouble animals including brown bears, the depredation is often the first incident rather than an isolated event never to happen again. One incident leads quickly to more unless something is done.
Hey Hank
.. except there is not a single recorded instance of a brown bear, black bear, or wolf, etc, ever becoming a habituated 'man eater'- lions and tigers, sure - but not North American mammals. The idea that a bear or wolf might suddenly start preying on people is mythological, fairy tale stuff.
"serial killers" and "urban gangs"?? Why not call the wolves murdering criminals, terrorists guilty of war crimes, etc .... sheesh. :) That kind of language distorts and misshapes the discussion, IMO, and doesn't usefully serve the conversation or understanding. The situation, and its bearing on small communities of people, is indeed very unlike that of serial killers and urban (or non-urban) gangs.
Cheers
Carl
Lots of apples and oranges in quoting me. They're not claiming anyone is getting eaten, but beaten up occasionally and lots of damage to homes and facilities are the facts if bears habituate to villages. The traditional solution involves rifle bullets and a big hole in the ground, But in recent years a concerted effort by ADF&G and others to close, fence or otherwise cleanup the village dumps, as well as to change the habits and cleanup in villages have largely resolved the problem in villages I know. Rather than blaming the bears for being bears, the folks are changing their own ways as people.
Same applies to wolves around people I suspect. "Innocent" habits have to change. I recall (all too clearly, as a matter of fact) photographing wolves in Yellowstone when I realized I had dropped a lens cover about 50 yards back. Not wanting to miss to much action, I started jogging back to pick it up. In milliseconds, the whole pack started running toward me. I stopped and they stopped. I started walking and they ignored me. In the sad case of the teacher in Chignik Lagoon, I'm willing to bet that some running was involved. Not a place I would go jogging, for sure. Back to the waterline.
Hank, some really good points in your last comment here. Especially with regard to two items, the first is cleaning up the dumps with all the bears around, and secondly the running action and drawing attention overall with the wolves.
When I was in Alaska all the villages basically had small dump sites. The black bear were as thick as flies digging through the stuff. Never felt too uneasy around the black bear per se, but the two separate grizzly encounters I had up there were another story.
Back to the key point with the wolves and the running action, most all cougar attacks here in So Cal have resulted when runners or mountain bikers were traveling in off road terrain in the foothills. A few of the survivors do recall the attacks by the cougars coming from the rear too as they ran or rode down a path.
Absolutely Paul. I'm at our place in the Southwest right now. For the second year in a row we have a mountain lion hanging around, and I glimpse him almost every day. I think it's pretty cool, but the mule deer HATE it. Not seeing many of those right now. BUT.... I say again BUT!!! I don't run anywhere; I make lots of noise when I'm out in the brush; and I don't go out much after dark. Friends with small children and a dog wanted to visit and I discouraged them. All part of the "good neighbor" policy, and a way for the cat and I to share the area. Sad to say, since the mountain lion moved onto our place, the pair of bobcats that have been living here so long decided to relocate.
On the other side of the coin, friends in Montana have had a wolf pack move onto their ranch. Whereas in the past they lost many thousands of $ each year to hay consumption by hundreds of elk and deer, they haven't seen a single elk and only a handful of deer since the wolves arrived last summer. They're at peace with the wolves, at least until and if they decide to dine on this year's calf crop in the absence of elk and deer. They're keeping the cows and calves penned near home right now in the hopes that the wolves will move on in search of more deer and elk before it's time to turn the cattle out onto their range. It's all give and take, and adjustment along the lines of Alaska's program to cut down on bear problems by changing the habits of people. It can be done, but it takes forethought and flexibility.
Posted by Carl Donohue on March 24, 2010 at 9:59 PM
Lots of apples and oranges in quoting me. They're not claiming anyone is getting eaten, but beaten up occasionally and lots of damage to homes and facilities are the facts if bears habituate to villages. The traditional solution involves rifle bullets and a big hole in the ground, But in recent years a concerted effort by ADF&G and others to close, fence or otherwise cleanup the village dumps, as well as to change the habits and cleanup in villages have largely resolved the problem in villages I know. Rather than blaming the bears for being bears, the folks are changing their own ways as people.
Same applies to wolves around people I suspect. "Innocent" habits have to change. I recall (all too clearly, as a matter of fact) photographing wolves in Yellowstone when I realized I had dropped a lens cover about 50 yards back. Not wanting to miss to much action, I started jogging back to pick it up. In milliseconds, the whole pack started running toward me. I stopped and they stopped. I started walking and they ignored me. In the sad case of the teacher in Chignik Lagoon, I'm willing to bet that some running was involved. Not a place I would go jogging, for sure. Back to the waterline.
Hey Hank
I figured from the context you were using 'depredation' to refer to people being eaten, given, that in this situation, someone was killed and eaten - but maybe not. No worries. At the same time, there's a vast difference between property damage and someone being killed and eaten.
I think one of the comments you make also points to the critical difference b/n this kind of situation and the 'serial killer' thing ... " the folks are changing their own ways as people. " ... in dealing with most interactions with wild animals, we can chose to alter our own behavior and allow bears and wolves, et al, to go on being themselves, and the conflict (largely) goes away. With serial killers and urban gangs, not so much.
Interesting story about your Yellowstone experience. Given that the teacher had gone for a jog, I'd safe it's a relatively safe bet that some running was involved here. That said, it's still a freakishly rare thing that 2 or 3 wolves chased and killed a jogger. Apparently F&G had autopsies done on the 2 wolves they killed, and found no sign of rabies, etc.
OK, I'm going to wax philosophical with regards to the wolf attack.
There is always over-reaction because we are unaware that we are unaware.
I've been to Alaska 9 times and have spent a total of 5 nights by myself where wolves and grizz were present. I always want to go back because it is a time of "awareness".
ALL of life is about awareness. From co-existing with potentially dangerous forms of flora and fauna---to politics.
There are things that go bump in the dark that need to be heeded. There are things in the minds of men that we need to watch. There is always the unexpected.
So---be aware. I call it the animating contest of life.
It is a moment-to-moment exercise that can deepen appreciation for extremes and averages and cycles of life and death--of which we are a part.
Discussion
28 repliesWhat i find disturbing about this article is the description of how fear gripped the locals when this occurred. There's always this assumption that when one occurence happens, the entire breed is suddenly the epitome of evil. Would the village take down all depicitons of domestic dogs and get rid of all their pets if the attack had been by a domestic dog? Dogs kill a couple dozen people each year, but you hardly ever see those stories making national news, and they generally don't leave people cowering in fear of their pet Fido. But hey, i used to be pretty darn scared of dogs in my competitive running years, so the fact that this happened to a jogger certainly would have had my defenses up too.
I'm truly sorry that a life was lost. I'm equally sorry that we respond to every one of these events with an unproductive and pointless "eye for an eye" killing.
We can look at it this way: that's the way the wolves have been for millions of years, or whatever the evolutionary period of time they have existed. That's the way they have always been - hunting things. Either buffalos, deers, rabbits, whatever is within their reach. That's their life. If you take that away they will become extinct. Period. We need to learn that.
I believe it doesn't have to be a choice: either them or us. I believe it can be both of us. Somehow. They have their right to exist too.
It is not like some books arrogantly claim that the Earth belongs only to us. It doesn't belong to us. We need to share it with others.
On top of that village teachers are often the ONLY "authority" in small villages, the principal contact with the outside world and the first person villagers call on for help when there's trouble.
From the village point of view, picture your own town with all the police, EMTs and contact with the outside world ripped off in one incident. Rattle hell out of your secure little world, I'd bet.
And I'm sure from their previous experience from other trouble animals including brown bears, the depredation is often the first incident rather than an isolated event never to happen again. One incident leads quickly to more unless something is done.
Not unlike a serial killer or rampant gang in urban settings.
> depredation is often the first incident rather than an isolated event never to happen again. One
> incident leads quickly to more unless something is done.
The article says that they tracked down the two wolves responsible for the attack and they terminated them. The forensic investigators will confirm that they are the wolves and there are no others. It should be enough - from this standpoint it is isolated. Period.
Comparison to serial killers or gangs? If that happens then the gang and the killer is held responsible, isolated and punished, not the entire community that hosts the killer, correct?
I would say this outlines the rarity of this sad experience and I can totally understand the small village having concerns. However, it should be more of a notice to be on alert and take precautionary measures when out and about, but nothing beyond that.
My two years of very remote travels throughout Alaska never left me concerned with wolves, but after two encounters with grizzlies, I have a deep respect for giving them a wide berth.
As for fear or hysteria gripping the community, I don't think that's true. That's more a projection about what a our white community might do. Among the Aleuts, parents will be a bit more careful with their kids, and stray dogs - not uncommon in villages - will get shot. But life just goes on. There will be or has been a nice potlatch for the school teacher, and people will be a bit more careful. But so much bad stuff has happened to the Aleut people for so many centuries that most villagers will simply carry on. It's more like someone drowning while fishing or being killed in a car accident would be for city-folk than the atavistic reaction we city-folk might have.
The Yup'ik people, where I lived, don't make big distinctions among how nature kills you. The Yup'ik have a phrase that translates, roughly, "made a mistake hunting/fishing and got killed." It's treated as very sad but, for lack of a better word, it's more "natural." Especially in the villages that are still mostly subsistence cultures. I strongly suspect the Aleuts aren't much different.
I hope Jim is right, cause that's not the impression i got from the article. The impression i got is that nothing has changed; we (all of us) still view wild animals as something to be feared (as opposed to respected) and exterminated whenever there's a perceived threat. I am interested in the Alaskan viewpoint, but when Hank starts making analogies to urban gangs, he's lost me--unless Ross is right, and the wolves really were crazy (maybe protecting their wolf-drug turf??
Stan, this is a very important point you make about the need to capture/kill these wolves to find a possible cause. Again, no need to go beyond the suspected animals unless there is a find of rabies or anything else that maybe spread. I recall an outlaw mountain lion that was finally shot after several domestic animals and I think a person being killed by it as well. The autopsy revealed a large cranial hole from an injury in the cat's early life that may have caused the uncontrolled aggressive actions.
And Jim's right. The village solution is a lot more direct than staying home while the DC sniper runs rampant. There's a rifle hanging inside most doors.
Even with the "right" wolves removed, I'm betting any wolf venturing near the village is going to be suspect for generations to come.
I once did a stovetop fish canning workshop in a village at the home of the mayor. The mayor stayed away, his wife stood in the doorway, and everyone in the village kept calling on the CB and asking "Annie! Are you alright?"
Annie finally explained to me that a pressure cooker once blew up and killed a woman in the village. I did some research, and was finally able to establish that the pressure cooker explosion occurred in 1928. And until I showed up with a pressure cooker and a couple of cases of jars, no one in that village had ever canned fish again. Once Annie survived, I had to do the workshop again the next day when the whole village turned out.
Comparisons between village life and urban life stop at the waterline.
Chris
Chris, I am dying to know if you have ever been charged by a wild animal.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/10/28/ns-coyote-attack-died.html It was a little unnerving to me at the time since I was not too far from where the incident occurred a few weeks earlier. I guess that is one of the risks we take when we venture into the "wilderness".
This is not limited to carnivores or omnivores either. If you drive up Mount Evans when the Big Horn Sheep are out, they will approach you car and stick their heads through the window in the hopes of being fed. There are even reports of people getting bit by squirrels and chipmunks while they are being hand fed. It may seem cute, but it can be a death sentence for both teh human and the animal.
Well no, I have not really ever been charged by a wild animal. Not one that I was fearful of anyway. I did have the dominant male in a herd of antelope run toward me when I approached too close once. But I just respectfully backed off. I imagine if I had ever been in a potentially life threatening situation with a predatory animal, I would have been pretty shaken up about it.
I was mostly trying to say that removal of the wild animals to reduce, or eliminate any threat to us is not a very good way of dealing with the situation. Nor is it an example of "good stewardship" in my opinion.
Cheers,
Chris
I have been charged three times. Two of them were do to lack of alertness on my part, the third was erratic behaviour by a bear. The bear I did report as it was in a park and charging anything that moved including traffic on the road. In all my experience I had not seen a bear behave in this manner before.
In another instance I met a moose in Algonquin Park while on an autumn shoot. Slipped my mind completely it was rutting season. When I backed off he went his merry way. When I went to the head of the portage and warned other paddlers that he was approaching they rushed down the trail to see him.
In my time I have seen people throw rocks at bears to attract their attention, attempt to pet moose, bison and similar animals. The management of Algonquin Park had to run a special campaign to warn and advise people about approaching wild animals due to the number of foolish incidents.
Every year bears will wander to the edge of town here. Generally natural resource traps and transports where possible. We had one shot in our yard two years ago. Just a young curious male looking around. With dogs, children and people wandering through they just couldn't take the chance that something might spook him.
While very fortunate to see a wide variety of animals in their natural habitat I can agree with you at the marvel of it, however foolish behaviour on the part of the ignorant is one thing, and I am sympathetic to those who get upset when such animals are put down. When people are put at risk by atypical behaviour of an animal it is a completely matter.
Yes, in the instance of atypical behavior that puts people at risk, I completely agree with you. It is unfortunate, but sometimes has to be done to protect people. Also when the situation comes to people, I agree that a certain level of security needs to be maintained. It's when we encroach too far for the sake of entertainment that I have a problem with. At that point we are making a personal choice to take a risk. I think people put themselves above all else way to often, for the sake of entertainment, or personal gratification. It's these instances that cause the suffering or stress of the animals that I don't have any appreciation for.
Thanks for the dialog,
Chris
Hey Hank
.. except there is not a single recorded instance of a brown bear, black bear, or wolf, etc, ever becoming a habituated 'man eater'- lions and tigers, sure - but not North American mammals. The idea that a bear or wolf might suddenly start preying on people is mythological, fairy tale stuff.
"serial killers" and "urban gangs"?? Why not call the wolves murdering criminals, terrorists guilty of war crimes, etc .... sheesh. :) That kind of language distorts and misshapes the discussion, IMO, and doesn't usefully serve the conversation or understanding. The situation, and its bearing on small communities of people, is indeed very unlike that of serial killers and urban (or non-urban) gangs.
Cheers
Carl
(without having the article available I'm guessing it wasn't written by someone who grew up outside of an urban area)
I think you are misconstruing Hank's comments with "serial killers" and "urban gangs". Down here in the lower 48 urban areas, most people simply don't understand the potential dangers and realities of living with wildlife. We've had our large mammals Disney-ized. Squirrels and chipmunks are as dangerous as it gets and bears do song and dance numbers if we cue up the music. When unfortunate incidents like this occur, the only context we have to place them in is the serial killer and urban gangs mindset. They're evil - give 'em a fair trial and hang 'em!
A couple of years ago, I was down in the Smokies when a women was killed by a black bear just east of the park. The fear down there among the tourists was incredible. A lot of people refused to walk any of the trails beyond a distance they could see their car (so they could run back to it if needed - yeah, right...) and thought I was completely nuts to be out there. I talked to a waitress about it (the fear) after she overheard my conversation with a tourist family and she basically laughed. She figured the family would have absolutely panicked had a black bear made one of its occasional appearances on the main drag in Gatlinburg.
Yes, it is not fair to the animals to characterize them like this, but Hank is right on the money as to how incidents are perceived by the urban populations here.
I like your story though. When i did a lot of hiking in the Olympics and other bear-rich areas, i always was annoyed by the tourists with their stinkin' bear bells, scaring all the wildlife away for miles around. Every chance i got, i'd make it a point to tell the bell-ringers that the bears perceived that sound as a call to dinner!
hey Dan
Isn't placing wildlife in the "serial killers and urban gangs" mindset the exact same Hollywood-ification that you're talking about?
Using the term 'serial killer' or similar to describe a wild animal that kills for food (or likening our response to that of dealing with urban gangs) is simply mythologizing both the animals AND our own relationship to them.
Cheers
Carl
Unfortunately, that is what happens. At least the Disney version doesn't get the animals killed, at least not until you have tourists trying to pet the pretty buffalo.
Lots of apples and oranges in quoting me. They're not claiming anyone is getting eaten, but beaten up occasionally and lots of damage to homes and facilities are the facts if bears habituate to villages. The traditional solution involves rifle bullets and a big hole in the ground, But in recent years a concerted effort by ADF&G and others to close, fence or otherwise cleanup the village dumps, as well as to change the habits and cleanup in villages have largely resolved the problem in villages I know. Rather than blaming the bears for being bears, the folks are changing their own ways as people.
Same applies to wolves around people I suspect. "Innocent" habits have to change. I recall (all too clearly, as a matter of fact) photographing wolves in Yellowstone when I realized I had dropped a lens cover about 50 yards back. Not wanting to miss to much action, I started jogging back to pick it up. In milliseconds, the whole pack started running toward me. I stopped and they stopped. I started walking and they ignored me. In the sad case of the teacher in Chignik Lagoon, I'm willing to bet that some running was involved. Not a place I would go jogging, for sure. Back to the waterline.
When I was in Alaska all the villages basically had small dump sites. The black bear were as thick as flies digging through the stuff. Never felt too uneasy around the black bear per se, but the two separate grizzly encounters I had up there were another story.
Back to the key point with the wolves and the running action, most all cougar attacks here in So Cal have resulted when runners or mountain bikers were traveling in off road terrain in the foothills. A few of the survivors do recall the attacks by the cougars coming from the rear too as they ran or rode down a path.
On the other side of the coin, friends in Montana have had a wolf pack move onto their ranch. Whereas in the past they lost many thousands of $ each year to hay consumption by hundreds of elk and deer, they haven't seen a single elk and only a handful of deer since the wolves arrived last summer. They're at peace with the wolves, at least until and if they decide to dine on this year's calf crop in the absence of elk and deer. They're keeping the cows and calves penned near home right now in the hopes that the wolves will move on in search of more deer and elk before it's time to turn the cattle out onto their range. It's all give and take, and adjustment along the lines of Alaska's program to cut down on bear problems by changing the habits of people. It can be done, but it takes forethought and flexibility.
Hey Hank
I figured from the context you were using 'depredation' to refer to people being eaten, given, that in this situation, someone was killed and eaten - but maybe not. No worries. At the same time, there's a vast difference between property damage and someone being killed and eaten.
I think one of the comments you make also points to the critical difference b/n this kind of situation and the 'serial killer' thing ... " the folks are changing their own ways as people. " ... in dealing with most interactions with wild animals, we can chose to alter our own behavior and allow bears and wolves, et al, to go on being themselves, and the conflict (largely) goes away. With serial killers and urban gangs, not so much.
Interesting story about your Yellowstone experience. Given that the teacher had gone for a jog, I'd safe it's a relatively safe bet that some running was involved here. That said, it's still a freakishly rare thing that 2 or 3 wolves chased and killed a jogger. Apparently F&G had autopsies done on the 2 wolves they killed, and found no sign of rabies, etc.
Cheers
Carl
There is always over-reaction because we are unaware that we are unaware.
I've been to Alaska 9 times and have spent a total of 5 nights by myself where wolves and grizz were present. I always want to go back because it is a time of "awareness".
ALL of life is about awareness. From co-existing with potentially dangerous forms of flora and fauna---to politics.
There are things that go bump in the dark that need to be heeded. There are things in the minds of men that we need to watch. There is always the unexpected.
So---be aware. I call it the animating contest of life.
It is a moment-to-moment exercise that can deepen appreciation for extremes and averages and cycles of life and death--of which we are a part.
the fisch