Halls of the Dark Muse

You know most TV and film wolves aren't even pure wolves? They're half wolf and half Malamute (or other such dog). One reason for this is that real wolves are very shy and don't like people. Because she's grey people ask if my husky is a wolf....clearly these people know nothing about wolves. Wouldn't it be illegal to take a wolf to a public park in Greater London? Besides, if she were a wolf she wouldn't even go outside anywhere near people.

I know how you feel about this movie, I decided not to see it because of the conflicting statements about it. I read a few articles on the internet and the (very) detailed plot on wikipedia. The wolfs in question have just recently been taken of the in danger species list and many animal welfare groups have been mad about this movie for fear it will increase illegal hunting.

People don't know that much about wolfs and a film like this does nothing to change that.

Thank you for sharing this DM. I probably will not watch this movie now. I know wolves have suffered terribly at the hands of man, as have most animals if you get right down to it.

They should just market this as a horror movie, although that probably wouldn't help the wolves image much.

I have not seen the movie, and while I agree with qimi's comment about the fact that wolves have indeed suffered from mankind (having their numbers decreased by however much) I disagree with the implication that they are not dangerous. Being in the ranching community in the western states, not more than a few hundred miles from where wolves were reinstated to Yellowstone National Park a few years ago (and having photo evidence of them in southern Wyoming,) I have heard more than a few stories about wolf killings on ranches surrounding the Park. I saw a documentary a few years ago, and I don't recall the exact title, but it was about this man that built a homestead in the backcountry of Alaska back in the sixties. He witnessed and discussed a pack of wolves that pursued and killed a caribou, then left the carcass without taking so much as a nibble off of it.
So, when I hear that wolves 'are not that dangerous' I disagree. Wolves are predators that, when the time calls for it, will take down the easiest prey available. Between a herd of elk that fight for a living versus a group of humans fighting just to survive, I am going to guage the humans the easier target. A movie about that does not sound unrealistic nor inhumane, nor unfair against the growing wolf population in the states. I'm sure the Hollywood'ed up version probably goes overboard with the teeth and the blood, but the situation seems far from abnormal.

In the small numbers grey wolves sustain right now, they are nothing more than a nuisance to a few. However, when their population gets out of control (look at coyotes) they will become a genuine problem.

sorry about that little rant, DM. I know you were just doing a bit of movie critique and I went and took it all overboard!

Thanks, Skib. It's always good to hear the other side, especially when it's from a knowledgeable source.

The evidence disagrees tough, Skib. There are very few documented cases of groups of people being killed by wolves. The few documented cases of people being killed by wolves involve either a person being bit by a lone rabid wolf, and then dying from rabies, or lone individuals attacked (and then usually they are children or small women). Wolves occasionally attack humans who try to intervene in cases where they are hunting other animals, this is often the case when ranchers are attacked. They are more often guilty of killing people's pets than attacking people. Wolf attacks of people in North America are extremely rare, it seems less than 10 people have been killed in the last decade. (I could only find 2 examples, a female jogger in Alaska and a hiker in Saskatchewan (who might have been killed by a bear), both were alone when attacked).

The only stats on agricultural animals being attacked I could find was cows in Oregon, where apparently 22 cows were killed in 2011. In comparison over 50k cows are loss to disease every year in the state. So, wolves seem to reflect a limited risk to agriculture even. Of course, this makes the incidence of wolves attacking dogs and livestock not unusual, but also not necessarily a sign of the animals being extremely dangerous or a major problem. Statistically ranchers are probably at more risk of accidental death from a number of other sources than from the wolves they might encounter.

Originally Posted by skib

sorry about that little rant, DM. I know you were just doing a bit of movie critique and I went and took it all overboard!

I never stated they were not dangerous. I said it would be very rare for one to attack humans which is simple truth.

And wolves are not nearly the aggressive, relentless man killers that they are portrayed as being within the film.

In fact more people have been attacked by deer, and domesticated dogs than they have by wolves.

Forgive me for not being sympathetic towards ranchers wanting permission to perform massive slaughter on wolves because a few cattle might get eaten. (and yes that is said with sarcasm)

According to Fish and Game data in all of recorded human history there have only been 25 cases of humans being attacked within North America by wolves.

And according to another source Only 17 fatalities due to wolf attacks have been found in the last 50 years in all of Europe, Russia and North America, a population of 1,000,000,000 people.

Yet, in one single year, within North America 188 wolves had been killed during a Spring Wolf Hunting season (and that is not counting pups which would have been left to starve after their pack members were slaughtered)

And there is a recorded 4.7 million attacks annually upon humans by domesticated dogs.

I just watched a BBC documentary on wolves that live in Northern Canada and Alaska. The documentary stressed the misconception man has of wolves as a predator. There is no doubt that they are majestic creatures. We want them to exist, but not in our own backyard. I think Skib raises the real concerns of the ranching community, but as Orphanpip pointed out wolves become particularly dangerous to man when he is hunting. This may mean the wolf is very dangerous when trying to hunt livestock. For this reason, as a rancher, I wouldn't want the wolf near my livestock. Another question that arises in my mind, is how will man deal with the ever shrinking wilderness the wolf needs to safely hunt. We are forever, clear cutting and building to no end.

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

There are very few documented cases of groups of people being killed by wolves. The few documented cases of people being killed by wolves involve either a person being bit by a lone rabid wolf, and then dying from rabies, or lone individuals attacked (and then usually they are children or small women).

Statistically ranchers are probably at more risk of accidental death from a number of other sources than from the wolves they might encounter.

Yes, the stats don't reflect that attacks happen frequently. Because they don't. Wolves are not yet (even with their slow yet unhindered growth) finding the need to attack humans. They are content to stick with their normal, natural prey. As Bee points out, with their habitat shrinking and their population growing and bleeding heart liberals unwilling to MAINTAIN (I said and intended absolutely nothing about slaughtering them, DM) they will run out of normal prey. I am not so much concerned about the safety of my fellow ranchers- they can defend themselves. My point is that wolves have and will continue to prey on the ranchers livelihood. Most ranchers are not willing to fight with the government over their losses, seeing as the investigation of the killing costs more than the reimbursement they would receive for the loss they sustained. Most cases of killed livestock go unreported.

Also, DM, let us compare the numbers of domesticated dogs versus the number of wolves. What, tell me, is the ratio of domesticated canines to humans versus the wolf population to humans? Take into account the difference in face time between the two parties. I don't see wolves every day. I see 15 to 20 domesticated dogs every day. Tell me why I have a better chance of being attacked by a dog.

I am also not condoning the poaching and unrestricted hunting of wolves at all. It really pisses me off when people stereotype the hunting and ranching communities based on a few *******s that don't play by the rules.

Originally Posted by skib

Yes, the stats don't reflect that attacks happen frequently. Because they don't. Wolves are not yet (even with their slow yet unhindered growth) finding the need to attack humans. They are content to stick with their normal, natural prey. As Bee points out, with their habitat shrinking and their population growing and bleeding heart liberals unwilling to MAINTAIN (I said and intended absolutely nothing about slaughtering them, DM) they will run out of normal prey. I am not so much concerned about the safety of my fellow ranchers- they can defend themselves. My point is that wolves have and will continue to prey on the ranchers livelihood. Most ranchers are not willing to fight with the government over their losses, seeing as the investigation of the killing costs more than the reimbursement they would receive for the loss they sustained. Most cases of killed livestock go unreported.

It's a fair concern, but I'm not sure there is empirical reason to fear something like this. Even when wolf populations were much larger than they are now, attacks seemed to have been fairly infrequent.

I think it unlikely that they will run out of normal prey, just because of the way predator-prey ecology functions. There is a well studied model of arctic fox/rabbit populations that suggests that predator-prey relations tend to settle into stable reverse-proportional relationships, such that the prey will decline to the point that predator population collapses, and then the prey will recover and the process starts over again. As long as appropriate measures are taken to insure that wolves are not able to find alternative food sources, such as feeding easily on livestock or being fed by park visitors, these models should be consistent. It is rare that predators, especially territorial ones that compete with each other like wolves, will deplete a region of prey. Deer aren't exactly sitting ducks and they managed to survive wolf predation for thousands of years prior to humans killing most of the wolves.

Certainly there are reasonable economic concerns, because they present a more likely risk to livestock than people. But there is a need to balance the desire for biodiversity with the economic needs of ranchers. At the moment gray wolves are still an endangered species, and thus I think the current trend should be in favor of conservation and promoting the growth of wolf populations. In the event that a population of wolves becomes stable, then it will be more reasonable to consider measures of population control to help protect the livelihood of ranchers.

Wolves are not a serious threat to the ranching industry.
Wolves are opportunists and, like us, sometimes eat livestock. However, they have a relatively small impact on the ranching industry. Declining meat prices, increased land prices, disease, weather, and even human thieves are much bigger threats (4).

Much like shark attacks, wolf depredations can make for startling photos and grisly stories, so the threat of wolves to livestock is greatly magnified. Some studies have even indicated that in some circumstances wolves may actually decrease livestock losses by keeping smaller predators like coyotes in check (21). An article recently published in the journal of Ecological Economics found that wolf depredations account for less than 0.01% of the annual gross income of ranchers in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana (4).



Since wolves returned to Oregon in the late 1990’s, they have killed 29 lambs, 7 calves, and 1 goat. By comparison, in 2005 alone 700 sheep were killed by domestic dogs and 200 were killed by eagles in Oregon (5).
In 2005, human thieves took 5 times as many livestock as wolves in MT, ID, and WY (4).
In Minnesota, a state with nearly 300 times as many wolves as Oregon, they were responsible for 0.65% of cattle losses in 2005 (9).
A single Montana storm in the spring of 2009 killed 2,260 sheep and calves. In all of the preceding year, 188 were lost to wolves (7, 8).


We sometimes hear that wolf losses are underrepresented or attributed to other predators. Here are some interesting cattle loss numbers from Idaho in 2005 (when the state had a wolf population about 55 times that of Oregon’s current number) that take that possibility into account.



All non-human predators (including wolves, dogs, & unknowns) – 1.0% (9)
Poisoning – 1.2% (9)
Injury – 6.2% (9)
Calving (not including calf losses) – 7.9% (9)
Respiratory, digestive, and other diseases – 37.0% (9)
Other & unknown non-predator – 46.7% (9)


Furthermore, it’s not inevitable that wolves will kill livestock. There are lots of things ranchers can do to protect their livestock that don’t involve bullets (22). Behind many of the horrific stories of livestock losses trotted out by the anti-wolf folks is an untold story of poor animal husbandry. Oregon’s first wolf depredation in over 60 years were by a pair of young wolves who had been enticed to a flock of sheep being kept next to a 2-acre open carcass pit where ranchers had been throwing their dead cattle for years.
http://www.oregonwild.org/fish_wildl...-misunderstood

This chart shows just where wolves rank in killing cattle in compassion to other threats and dangers posed to ranchers:

http://www.defenders.org/images/prog..._loss_2005.gif


According to a report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 588 Idaho cattle have been confirmed killed by wolves since 1987. As an estimated 5.5 million head of cattle roam Idaho pastures each year, Niemeyer said that statistically, wolf depredation is not as large a problem as some make it out to be.

"[Wolves] do kill livestock," he said. "Certainly they kill livestock. But it's not a huge, huge loss for the livestock industry."
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005136775

actual livestock losses
In 2007, there were an estimated 1,311,799 cattle and 412,804 sheep in Wyoming. (9) Wolves depredated 67 livestock (41 cattle and 26 sheep) in Wyoming in 2008. (2) The National Agricultural Statistics Service completes a census detailing the causes of livestock deaths in the lower 48 states. According to this report, non-predator losses, including weather, respiratory illness, digestive problems and calving complications, cause over 90 percent of cattle losses in Wyoming.
Based on the report:
g Livestock were five times more likely to be stolen than
preyed on by wolves
g Only 5% of all cattle losses in the U.S. were attributed to predators
g In Wyoming less than 1% of sheep losses were attributable
to wolves
g In Wyoming less than 3% of cattle losses were attributable to wolves
g Domestic dogs killed almost five times as many cattle as did wolves
http://wyoming.sierraclub.org/WOLVES...0LIVESTOCK.pdf

In addition to the fact that wolves are scavengers as well as hunters. There have been cases of misidentification, in which a wolf is caught feeding upon cattle and presumed to have killed it, when in fact the animal had died of other natural causes.

Wow, DM. Impressive. However, I freely acknowledge being a bleeding heart liberal. It seemed obvious to me that wolves were not near the threat that ranchers made them out to be. I was glad to hear of the wolf's reintroduction into some western parts of the the United States. I firmly believe that man has taken and plundered plenty of land. We need to maintain our population and leave what's left of the wild-wild. The earth needs wolves and wilderness. I don't think we can survive without it. Not to mention that with global warming scientists are concerned that millions of species will become extinct within the next 50 years.

I'm just waiting for mankind to take care of the one and only planet that we will ever have, and all the plants and animals on it, as if they actually mattered to them. Even, yes, owls that might cost someone a job.

Still waiting.

Originally Posted by qimissung

I'm just waiting for mankind to take care of the one and only planet that we will ever have, and all the plants and animals on it, as if they actually mattered to them. Even, yes, owls that might cost someone a job.

Still waiting.

Unfortunately human arrogance is under the perception that we will somehow find a new place to live once we have finished trashing this one.

In the same way in which humans act as if this planet has endless resources and complain that being asked to conserve is such a HUGE inconvenience to their life styles, they think oh well eventually some new planet will be found that we can colonize, so we can continue flagrant wastefulness.

Wow, this blog got a lot of reaction. I don't have the time to read through all the comments. If the supposition is that the pack of wolves stalked the humans to attack them, well that's just flawed and unreal. While wolves might be dangerous (I wouldn't walk up to them) they do not stalk humans. I don't care for movies that put animals in a bad light. I mean really, humans have dominated the planet (not that's a bad thing) and killed off more animals (that's a bad thing) than imaginable and they want to portray wolves as the bad guy? I guess it just plays on fears.