Wolf Attack Kills Teacher

[Rick Marchand]

But I live here and make my living raising livestock so truthfully it's my "problem" not yours.

That's where you are mistaken... to think that a couple thousand miles disconnects me from the land, animals and the natural laws of nature in your area... and allows you to do as you see fit without longterm consideration for future generations, is ridiculous. Those wolves you are so willing to exterminate might someday be our ticket to repopulating a dying species.... That sir, IS MY PROBLEM.... and if you don't see it that way.... your grandkids and their kids will have wished you did. I do realize that you are most likely talking about population control... but the tone of your post hints otherwise ..... and there ARE folks who would like to see them gone all together.

You start disgarding engine parts (however small and insignificant they may seem) and pretty soon the whole thing will stop running.

If I misjudged your previous posts, I'm sorry... it is hard to comunicate through a keyboard.

Rick

 

[BlackHills]

What is really interesting is how people in the east and south feel that as long as it is not in your backyard it's ok for the government to force something on us westerners that is not needed and most of us don't want. We exterminated them because they are in direct conflict with our interests, they kill livestock and compete for the prey we like to hunt.I am higher on the food chain and I am ok with that. So by all means if you want em take them to Georgia.

I agree with you for the most part. I don't want to see them totally exterminated but the way the Feds won't allow the state to control them in the manner they see fit is wrong. There has to be a balance in the middle somewhere but finding that middle point seems to be impossible.

 

[Rick Marchand]

I agree with you for the most part. I don't want to see them totally exterminated but the way the Feds won't allow the state to control them in the manner they see fit is wrong. There has to be a balance in the middle somewhere but finding that middle point seems to be impossible.

Dustin...

If Blackhills got this impression from your post, perhaps I misinterpreted it.

Rick

 

[teacher]

It is very interesting how people in the West feel entitled to devastate the natural environment (especially if it is owned by the feds). The environmentalists dont want you to treat wolves as pets, they just dont want you westerners to AGAIN put a bounty on the wolves and exterminate them.

What is really interesting is how people in the east and south feel that as long as it is not in your backyard it's ok for the government to force something on us westerners that is not needed and most of us don't want. We exterminated them because they are in direct conflict with our interests, they kill livestock and compete for the prey we like to hunt.I am higher on the food chain and I am ok with that. So by all means if you want em take them to Georgia.

Well said DustinL......... :thumbup:

......just please don't lump all of us here in the east & south in the same boat.
There are plenty of us here that agree with you for the most part.

I don't especially want to see wolves wiped out and totally gone.
I guess I lean more toward what BlackHills said below as long as it does not affect a persons lively hood or how they live their life.
When that happens though.... the 3 S's apply, IMO anyway.

I agree with you for the most part. I don't want to see them totally exterminated but the way the Feds won't allow the state to control them in the manner they see fit is wrong. There has to be a balance in the middle somewhere but finding that middle point seems to be impossible.

 

[DustinL]

Wolves are here to stay whether I personally want them or not. I realize that, and I do not want to see them wiped from the face of the earth. What I want now is for the people and states that actually have to deal with them on a daily basis to have some say in the management, instead of people thousands of miles away who really have no idea what they are talking about. Wolves can be a romantic symbol of the wild to some people and I understand that but the reality is far different from the fantasy. I have debated this issue on many message boards and all is does is give me a headache. The fact is unless it affects your life directly then most people are going to form opinions based on emotions more than facts. Thanks for listening to my ridiculous opinions.

 

[teacher]

Wolves are here to stay whether I personally want them or not. I realize that, and I do not want to see them wiped from the face of the earth. What I want now is for the people and states that actually have to deal with them on a daily basis to have some say in the management, instead of people thousands of miles away who really have no idea what they are talking about. Wolves can be a romantic symbol of the wild to some people and I understand that but the reality is far different from the fantasy. I have debated this issue on many message boards and all is does is give me a headache. The fact is unless it affects your life directly then most people are going to form opinions based on emotions more than facts. Thanks for listening to my ridiculous opinions.

Nothing ridiculous about that at all........ well said. :thumbup:

 

[Rick Marchand]

That is reasonable and well said, Dustin.... I apologize for taking your other post out of context.:thumbup:

 

[philwar]

The fact is unless it affects your life directly then most people are going to form opinions based on emotions more than facts

I have lived and worked for long periods in agricultural areas that suffered from wildlife pests. Some people want to just exterminate a species, not bothering to take a slightly wider view and see these animals as just trying to surivive in a habitat that has been radically diminished by us. Not trying to make anyone feel guilty, that's just how it is.

Of course we're the top of the food chain. We can kill almost any species we like, certainly any mammals. However, there are plenty other ways to deal with such problems without having to resort to such radical and shortsighted measures. We can live our lives the way we want and have a richer more diverse fauna and flora as well. No need to always choose the simple way of killing what we don't like.
And besides, this 'method' has already come back to haunt us more than once.

 

[Lycosa]

Real talk^^^.

 

[bearcut]

Just an opinion from someone who lives up here:

The area where the biologist/teacher lived is WAY out in the boonies. Chignick Lake is a village halfway down the Aleutian chain, out in the middle of nowhere. Even at that, you are far more likely to be stalked and eaten by a grizzly. Wolves aren’t that big of a threat compared to 1500lb bears (and moose).

The AK dept. of fish and game mentioned that there hasn’t been a recorded wolf attack in AK for over 100 years. This concurs with my understanding. This is an extremely rare event. Wolves eating dogs and cats however, is a different story. They take hundreds every year.

If the biologist/teacher was like 99% of the young transplants we get up here, she was probably a proponent of the green movement, and would have been very much against Alaska’s wolf hunting program. Guess she found out why we cull the things. I really don’t feel too bad about an idiot who runs around the wild Alaska tundra by herself while listening to her tunes. If I were a hungry wolf, that might be too good to pass up. The local villagers don’t let their kids run around the back 40 because they aren’t stupid, they know the risks. That’s why they don’t get killed and eaten by wolves all the time. The newcomer was foolish.

Some people in the lower 48 get so upset when they find out that we regularly have aerial wolf hunts. In fact, we just started one in Tok. We do this for the simple reason that, if we don’t cull them, they will kill all the moose in the area and then die off themselves. Our wolf population is strong because we manage,(hunt) them. The lower 48 manages deer in the same way, with tremendous success I might add.

I love seeing wolves. I’ve had single wolves lope past me while backpacking. They knew I knew they were there, and we got along just fine. I don’t worry about wolves. I do take concern with bears and moose however. They are what will get’cha. Still, it’s not a big deal. It’s part of what makes living up here so much fun. I am no greenie though. I carry a .44 magnum and am not afraid to use it. Idiot drivers on cell phones and fascist Muslims are a much greater threat to my safety than wolves.

BTW, all you guys who think a couple of ‘bad-ass’ dogs can take a few wolves don’t know much about Canis lupis.
The usual scenario goes like this: the dog approaches the wolf.
The wolf lowers his head to expose his ruff, which is thickly furred.
The dog bites the wolfs ruff. This doesn’t hurt the wolf at all.
The wolf then grabs the dogs leg and crunches it. No dog, no matter how tough, can take this pain. The dog lets go and rears back.
The wolf rips open the underbelly of the dog.
The second dog usually runs away at this point.
There are other tactics that wolves employ, but this is the most common according to the villagers.

Now I suppose I’ll hear the argument about “trained” dogs.
Uh-huh...

 

[texasred66]

Could it be wolf attacks are rare in Alaska as most people are armed and aware? I do enjoy the posts from the folks with actual experience with wolfs.

 

[Mentor]

Guess she found out why we cull the things. I really don’t feel too bad about an idiot who runs around the wild Alaska tundra by herself while listening to her tunes. If I were a hungry wolf, that might be too good to pass up. The local villagers don’t let their kids run around the back 40 because they aren’t stupid, they know the risks. That’s why they don’t get killed and eaten by wolves all the time. The newcomer was foolish.

Just a question:

Isn't it possible to acknowledge that this woman could have (and indeed, should have) taken steps to mitigate the risks she was facing without turning that acknowledgement into a judgement or condemnation of the deceased, or a dismissal of her death as something unworthy of feeling bad about?

All the best,

- Mike

 

[DustinL]

I have lived and worked for long periods in agricultural areas that suffered from wildlife pests. Some people want to just exterminate a species, not bothering to take a slightly wider view and see these animals as just trying to surivive in a habitat that has been radically diminished by us. Not trying to make anyone feel guilty, that's just how it is.

Of course we're the top of the food chain. We can kill almost any species we like, certainly any mammals. However, there are plenty other ways to deal with such problems without having to resort to such radical and shortsighted measures. We can live our lives the way we want and have a richer more diverse fauna and flora as well. No need to always choose the simple way of killing what we don't like.
And besides, this 'method' has already come back to haunt us more than once.

That's fine and dandy, but there has to be some sort of pest control[/B] so those of us who live here can make a living also. Right now the wolves that were introduced (not re-introduced. Completely different sub-species) to the Greater Yellowstone Area are way beyond population goals set by the feds. Yet we in Wyoming still have no way to manage this population. You are entitled to your views and I am entitled to mine but I am not the one calling your views radical and short sighted. That is a matter of opinion not fact. We lived for many years without wolves and we managed just fine. Like I said I don't want to completely kill off the whole species. I don't want them here. But since they are here I want to be able to manage them at a level we can live with.

 

[KEmSAT-Survival]

That's fine and dandy, but there has to be some sort of pest control[/B] so those of us who live here can make a living also. Right now the wolves that were introduced (not re-introduced. Completely different sub-species) to the Greater Yellowstone Area are way beyond population goals set by the feds. Yet we in Wyoming still have no way to manage this population. You are entitled to your views and I am entitled to mine but I am not the one calling your views radical and short sighted. That is a matter of opinion not fact. We lived for many years without wolves and we managed just fine. Like I said I don't want to completely kill off the whole species. I don't want them here. But since they are here I want to be able to manage them at a level we can live with.

So, who gets to decide what a "level that we can live with" is? I completely understanding capping one attacking your live stock or creeping around your property. But "pre-emptive" summary execution is a bad idea. You have to remember, they were here before we were and they only understand what they need in terms of survival: food, water, sleep and procreation. They'll take it however they can get it, the easier the better. Wolves don't reason and weigh probability. They can learn, all animals can learn--Pavlov and classical conditioning experiments the world over have proven that. And this is what you see when wolves are attacking cattle herds: conditioning. They've learned where the food is. They don't see price tags and property damage. They see a meal that doesn't have a place to run.
I think we may be thinking with emotion and not reason.


I think we might be losing sight of the rationale of the discussion.

Change one part of an equation and you change the equation. We (as in the collective of the human race) have so radically f--ked up our habitat, that we now are re-introducing species into areas. Think about that for a second.

The wolves are doing what wolves normally do, the only way they understand it. Once you introduce humans into that mix, you've changed the equation. Wolves don't understand property lines and fences.

This is an example of that. The young lady presented herself as easy prey to a predatory pack animal. They did what wolves do, what a cougar would do, what a grizzly might do, what a feral dog would do...

Using certain arguments and following some lines of thinking in this discussion I could claim a right to rid the world of cats because there are some tearing into my garbage and ruining my infant fruit bushes.

Do you know why humans are at the "top of the food chain"? It isn't because we can kill everything we see. A 1500 lb grizzly can kill everything it sees, hell an F-22 could kill everything it "sees". The reason we are the peak animal in the food chain is our reasoning abilities. We have the ability to rationalize and think in abstract terms. All animals below us don't have that ability. The ability for intricate tool making is a byproduct of that. All other animals are instinct driven (yes, even primates, they've shown some signs of reasoning, but NOTHING even close to the human ability).

 

[teacher]

That's fine and dandy, but there has to be some sort of pest control so those of us who live here can make a living also. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Like I said I don't want to completely kill off the whole species. I don't want them here. But since they are here I want to be able to manage them at a level we can live with.

Well said..... :thumbup:

That is totally reasonable and no different from deer devastating crops or coyotes killing stock here in Alabama.... and we have a abundance of both.

We also are allowed and/or, do.... deal with them. :thumbup:

No reason it should be any different for you Dustin just because you are in Wyoming & it is wolves.
BUT, I imagine that is where the FEDS step in and the management gets all screwed up. :thumbdn:

Good luck.......... :thumbup:

 

[DustinL]

So, who gets to decide what a "level that we can live with" is?

Well a good start would be the level at which the lying bastards set when they put the dang things here. We are way over those numbers now.

 

[teacher]

So, who gets to decide what a "level that we can live with" is?

Who would you suggest? Seriously....

I completely understanding capping one attacking your live stock or creeping around your property.

We are on the same page here.

But "pre-emptive" summary execution is a bad idea.

Maybe - maybe not ..... that depends on predator population density of the location and surrounding areas.

You have to remember, they were here before we were and they only understand what they need in terms of survival: food, water, sleep and procreation. They'll take it however they can get it, the easier the better. Wolves don't reason and weigh probability. They can learn, all animals can learn--Pavlov and classical conditioning experiments the world over have proven that. And this is what you see when wolves are attacking cattle herds: conditioning. They've learned where the food is. They don't see price tags and property damage. They see a meal that doesn't have a place to run.

Exactly, we seem to be on the same page here also.
The predator needs to be "re-conditioned" by trapping, poisoning, and/or 'reaching out & touching them' with some hot lead.
Just to keep them in control and manage them mind you.... not to totally eradicate them.

I think we may be thinking with emotion and not reason.

I think some emotion might creep in from any of us when we see our hard earned $$$$$$, that is our lively hood; being slaughtered by a predator.

I think we might be losing sight of the rationale of the discussion.

Maybe, it seems like we are getting closer to the bottom line to me though.

Change one part of an equation and you change the equation. We (as in the collective of the human race) have so radically f--ked up our habitat, that we now are re-introducing species into areas. Think about that for a second.

Yeah, we have screwed it up a lot.... on many, many, many fronts though. Not just the West or the wilderness.

The wolves are doing what wolves normally do, the only way they understand it. Once you introduce humans into that mix, you've changed the equation. Wolves don't understand property lines and fences.

Exactly, that is why they need some of "Pavlov's classical conditioning".... modified for the situation at hand of course.

This is an example of that. The young lady presented herself as easy prey to a predatory pack animal. They did what wolves do, what a cougar would do, what a grizzly might do, what a feral dog would do...

Exactly.... well said.... sad but true.

Using certain arguments and following some lines of thinking in this discussion I could claim a right to rid the world of cats because there are some tearing into my garbage and ruining my infant fruit bushes.

Now that would be foolish..... just take care of the ones that are bothering you.
And I really don't see a lot of people here saying they want to rid the world of all wolves. or anything else.

Do you know why humans are at the "top of the food chain"? It isn't because we can kill everything we see. A 1500 lb grizzly can kill everything it sees, hell an F-22 could kill everything it "sees". The reason we are the peak animal in the food chain is our reasoning abilities. We have the ability to rationalize and think in abstract terms. All animals below us don't have that ability. The ability for intricate tool making is a byproduct of that. All other animals are instinct driven (yes, even primates, they've shown some signs of reasoning, but NOTHING even close to the human ability).

Exactly, on the same page again.
It would be absurd to "kill everything we see" as you say.[Unless it was trying to kill us of course.]
That is why we as humans have the responsibility to "manage" animals in a responsible way.

Just some of my thoughts........

 

[bearcut]

Just a question:

Isn't it possible to acknowledge that this woman could have (and indeed, should have) taken steps to mitigate the risks she was facing without turning that acknowledgement into a judgement or condemnation of the deceased, or a dismissal of her death as something unworthy of feeling bad about?

All the best,

- Mike

I feel bad for her family, they raised a fool. I feel bad for the two dead wolves that may have needlessly been shot because of her arrogance.

First, read what I said about biologist/teacher transplants. I have never met one that had a clue.
That doesn’t mean that they don’t exist up here, it just means that I have never met one.

Second, the woman had only lived in Alaska for 6 months! 6 Months! And she was cavalier enough to think that there was no risk in taking a run out in one of the most remote wilderness areas of North America? The local villagers had warned the kids to stay near town because the wolves were getting more and more bold this year. She paid no attention to the warnings. She was smarter than the villagers I guess, what with her degrees and all.

This whole story smacks of Timothy Treadwell. “Nice bear, pretty bear…..”CHOMP.

Some people want to believe that the animals are our friends. They can believe anything they want. The animal will not be persuaded otherwise.

It took me over a year up here in AK to overcome my (healthy) fear of the animals that can kill you. I had lived in CO., WY, WA, UT, and CA, before I moved up here, and had a lot of experience in the wilderness of those states. It wasn’t like I just stepped out of NYC. But, the lower 48 has it’s critters and Alaska has it’s critters. They are not the same. And there are more of them up here. I understood that I had to adjust to the new risks that Alaska presented.

I have no unreasonable fear now, haven’t for years, but I am cautious in certain areas and don’t put myself in dangerous situations like the teacher did. She came up with no fear, and paid the price. Now two wolves are dead. (they just shot them) We don’t even know if wolves actually killed her, or if the two they shot were responsible. Thanks a lot lady! Way to protect the wolves!

My point is this. Anyone who moves up here, especially to a village out in the bush, thinking that it is just the same as wherever it is you came from in the lower 48, is asking for trouble, in addition to being arrogant and stupid.

Now for those of you who seem to think that harvesting, OK, killing, wolves is immoral, and ‘upsets the natural order of things’, consider this.

The state of Alaska has promoted aerial wolf hunting for a couple decades now. The local population gets too big or too dangerous, we kill ‘em all. They rebound later and everybody is happy. We have the largest, healthiest population of wolves, bears, sheep, moose, caribou and anything else in North America. The reason is simple. We manage the populations via hunting and trapping. When animals fear man, they are not a problem. When they quit fearing man, they end up getting killed.

The vast majority of Alaskans love our wildlife, I mean really love it. But we have no problem keeping things in perspective. Man trumps animals. Period.

Now, let me tell you about the vast, mosquito ridden, god-forsaken, ugly as sin swampland called ANWR. There are billions of barrels of oil there, but we can’t touch it because it’s “Pristine Wilderness”.
Don’t worry, CBS, MSNBC and the NY Times know better than we do. Just listen to them…..

 

[teacher]

Good post 'bearcut'. :thumbup:
Where is ANWAR....???

EDIT / Good post except the part of her being a fool. She made a serious mistake, yes; and paid dearly for it...... but I would just choose to call her uninformed.....
Not a fool, even though she probably did exhibit 'foolish' behavior at the time.
Either way......... a sad ending.

 

[Lycosa]

You love your wildlife and kill it? That's moral schizophrenia.