Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska Wolves Kill, Eat Human

Come on guys! The view that anyone who admires wolves� or works for the federal government must be a tree hugging liberal is just plain silly. The feds have plenty of wacky right wing nuts to, just look at the current batch of wing nuts in the Bush administration! Enough of that!

Let�s keep in mind that the wolves, bears and all of the other beast of the scary forest and tundra were here long before any of us and they see other animals as something to eat or something to avoid. Humans have applied the notion of good and evil, just look at all of our bedtime stories. Yes the damn wolves eat live stock and once in a while they eat our pets, what do we expect? We are the ones who insist on living close to the wild places and yes we should expect that once in a while we are going to loose livestock to wolves. Hell I grew up on a dairy farm in Colorado and we lost claves now and then to coyotes but not to often. I remember loosing more chickens to skunks and coons than just about anything else!

I guess my point is balance. I live closer to Siberia than to an American road and the caribou out number humans up here 100-1. Yes we have lots of wolves and tons of griz but in all of my years stomping around up here and I do a lot of stomping around, I have only seen wolves once. I was stalking a group of 300 caribou this past fall and was with in 600 yards of being able to drop 2-3 fatties when the whole group exploded and I could not see any reason why. As the main group started to crest the top of the pass where I was sitting in I saw a white wolf running behind the whole herd. Just as the first 30 or 40 bou crested the ridge I watched a group of wolves ambush the whole damn herd! It was unreal to be sitting so close to this example of nature working like a well tuned clock. Was I pissed that the wolves nailed some caribou and I missed out? Hell no! I felt lucky to have seen this happen. If I had been 300 yards closer I might have gotten a shot off at a wolf but it was a privilege to watch it all happen and later in the day a dropped 2 nice bulls a whole lot closer to my boat! We all ate well.

It�s all about balance guys, balance. Room for all of us, even the left wing tree huggers and the right wingers too, maybe even a wolf or bear or two!



Walt
Kotzebue, Alaska
www.northwestalaska.com

Walt,

Nice story. I wished I could have been there and witnessed that scene too. I've been there twice in my 48 year tenure in Alaska...it never gets old.

I can appreciate your sentiment (quoted above) but felt the need to respond. It is about balance. All about balance. Maintaining a viable population of both predator and prey species. Problem is that in a few places, this balance is not being achieved. I am glad for you that you live in a place that has a plethora of prey species to go around. It hasn't always been thus...and isn't likely to be that way forever. More's the pity.

Political pressure in the form of lawsuits has always been a headache for those government agencies that have been desirous of maintaining a balance; they spend their budgets combating the costly lawsuits proffered by the anti-hunting crowd; the monies that should be available to make a difference as relates "balance" becomes unavailable.

As has been stated by others on this thread, there has been an infiltration of some anti hunters into government levels. The good news is that there are still many government employees that are hunters and trappers; they hold a love for the country and have true conservation at their heart's core.They also believe in "balance."

You say that there's room for all of us...that maybe we should all just get along? Many of these anti hunting groups are called by different monikers: "Tree huggers, anti's, Green Peace'rs, bunnies, etc." Most people when applying a name, use one of the above (or any number of others) to describe the ANTI HUNTER political action arm. These people want to stop you from ever hunting caribou or anything ever again. I guess I appreciate your opinion on making room for all, but I will not ever stop doing my damndest to try and make NO ROOM available for these type of people. It is a battle that will never be won, but still needs to be fought...

You are correct that the wolf has got a bad rap in historical cultures and old wive's tales. No one really wants to see the end of the wolf...and I am the least of these. They can be managed just like any other beast that goes on four legs. The methods are just a little different. Twer the wolf to become void and extinct in Alaska, I would leave. Can't happen/won't happen. They could sure be harmed by those that wish for mother nature to be the only predator/prey "manager" legally able to take care of the resource: they are the anti hunting group.

Common sense and good biology should rule the day. Yeh, like that's gonna happen...

Still think there's room for all?

best,
bhtr



ps. I also submit to you that NONE of the animals running around up at Kotz are older than I or have been here longer than I...eh?

I know there are as many opinions on wolves and other things as there are people. I neither hate, fear, nor dislike them. That said, don't think they are any more worthy of worship or political abuse than any other creatures are. I do think wolves ((and some other predators) and the legends and lore have been dismissed by today's "experts" to the point that new "fact" has been invented. I do think that the incident originally posted is eveidence that the contemporary "facts" as we know them are not necessarily so. I don't think Red Riding Hood and other stories are all contrived legends of fear. There are nearly always grains of truth in these things. I think that is supported to some degree by such a modern-day incident.\

I would hate to see the complete loss of wolves and other things from wild places. I don't, however, think we can create wild places from settled, farming, developed simply by re-introducing wolves or other creature to them. I think, largely because of politics, that wolves are abusively protected in some places (like Minnesota, Idaho, etc.)

People argue about wolves. This much is abundantly clear! :-)

I could argue either side. I see truth typed in this thread, lots of it... some problems just don't have solutions that work for everybody, is sort of the real problem here.

I would, personally, err on the side of the wolves, within reason. But I certainly see the other side, too.

-jeff

Northwestalaska,

You make some valid points in regards to the wolf in Alaska. But Alaska has room and wilderness enough for the wolf.

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming do not. This is obviously true, because the wolf could not find room enough to survive here or compete with humans, until the feds spent multiple millions of dollars to reintroduce it and told the ranchers to let the wolves eat their livestock or face federal imprisonment.

Watching those wolves take down and feed upon a herd of caribou was no doubt a thrilling sight. But the thrill is lessened when it is calves or lambs which you have nursed through the cold winter nights which are being slaughtered.

The predator-prey situation was fine in Idaho in about 1970. I never heard any complaints from Montana or Wyoming either that they had big game tags they could not give away. The Feds should have left well enough alone around here and those many millions of dollars could have been much better spent on something which was actually not harmful to the local human population.

I am anxiously waiting for Butch Otter to jump in his airplane with a few hundred pounds of hamburger and some 1080 to take care of the situation.

Klikitarik:

You just said a mouth full, and I happen to agree with ALL of your many points.

I would like to add that I don�t think that the fact that the Wolves were anywhere first, is worth even the slightest consideration.

And, personally I would not enjoy, or revel in, seeing a Caribou or other ungulate killed by a Wolf or other predator.

Smitty of the North

Yep, there are extremists on both sides--according to the extremists wolves are either the devil reincarnated or should be worshipped.........

I just had a great 3 hour conversation this Thanksgiving with a researcher who spent 4 years in Russia on wolf and then Amur leopard research projects. He had previously spent 5-6 years in Alsaka on Brownie research projects, two years of it dealing with problem brown bears in Denali.

Like he said, "Don't make it complicated, just treat wolves like every other game animal, manage them, hunt them, and it's no big deal".

By the time one gets done reading this thread, it's a wonder the wolves haven't eaten all the humans on the planet...........How did we survive when all we had were spears?


Casey

It appears Kenton Carnegie did not have a spear.

Probably tried to give the wolve a big hug instead...........



Casey

Maybe you're trying to be funny? It ain't working.

I have not read anything to suggest he was suffering from TTS (Terminal Treadwell Syndrome), but was just a worker at a remote mining camp that got caught by a pack of wolves.

Any Canadians know if the company had a "no guns" policy?

Yesiree, watch out for those 'wild' wolves...

"Staff believed several generations of wolves there had never hunted for food, eating only from the dump."

Jury Authenticates Wolf Attack

That is interesting JOG. I have a strong suspicion that Prof. Coppinger is right. Dogs did not come from wolf pups stolen from the den:

NARRATOR: For Ray Coppinger and other dog experts who reject the adoption hypothesis, the challenge has been to find an alternative. How else might the journey from wolf to sled dog�and all the other diverse forms dogs take�have begun?

It was only when he started thinking about what was in it for the wolves that Coppinger came up with an answer. Now he's convinced wolves chose domestication, and they did so because of the easy pickings in a Stone Age equivalent of this Tijuana dump.

In a dump, an animal that's a little tamer, a little less likely to get scared off by people, has a better chance of finding food and surviving. It's true today and, Coppinger argues, it would have been just as true a long time ago.

RAY COPPINGER: Imagine 14,000 years ago when people first get the idea of living in a village. They settle down, they build permanent houses, and around that permanent...those permanent houses, all the waste products of their economies build up. You've got waste food; you've got waste materials of all kinds. Now there's a whole set of animals that move in on that. We know them now: we've got house mice, we've got cockroaches, we've got pigeons, we've got all kinds of animals that are living off the human waste. One of them is the wolf. The wolf moves into that kind of a, of a setting, that new niche, that new foraging area, and it's great. You don't have to chase anything, you don't have to kill anything. You just wait; people dump it in front of you.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3103_dogs.html

I note that there is a Canadian biologist who came to the conclusion that it was a bear.

I also note that the retired Alaskan biologist was "contacted by the family" of the victim. We can be fairly assured the retired biologist was paid money for his efforts.

Here we have what appears two equally qualified biologists with different conclusions.

But there tends to be more malintent directed towards wolves than bears in North America, so most people will choose the side they want to believe..............

Casey

I think that wolves are what they are. It doesn�t matter whether people demonize them or not.

I think they're smart enough to have learned to leave people alone, just like they learn to leave bears alone, for example.

Just because they don't usually attack man, doesn't mean that under the right circumstances, motivated by hunger, opportunity, etc. they won't.

Frankly, knowing that they don't usually eat people meat, doesn't make me feel that much safer. I think that common sense would dictate that we watch out for them boogers, and oppose the baloney spread by the "wolf huggers". I think they are the extremists.

IMO, I�m not an extremist against wolves, and I can�t say I�ve ever met or heard of one. I suppose that anyone who is for aerial wolf hunting would be an extremist in the eyes of the �wolf hugger� types, but I don�t believe the facts, no matter how they slant them, support that view.

Smitty of the North

I think that killing anything from the air is a bad idea! I don't have an issue with hunting and trapping wolves but there is no Fair Chase in a super cub with a gunner on board. Poor idea period!

Walt
Kotzebue Alaska
www.northwestalaska.com

Not to me. If you're hunting to reduce the wolf population, I say use use a method that is the most productive.

When you come right down to it, there's really nothing FAIR about hunting, as it is normally practiced.
Smitty of the North

That's why the poorly chosen moniker "predator control" is used instead of hunting - 'cause it ain't. Of course I prefer to call wuff killin'
Ungulate Enhancement!

Come on Valley guy!

If we are choosing the most productive way to kill wolves we would just poison them the way that we did 50 years ago and the by catch would include lots of other things like foxes, eagles and anything else that was with in the drop zone. It is not about Killing. I know that there must be what 50-60 wolf attacks in down town Palmer and Wasilla every year right? There are so few wolf-man encounters each year that we can�t justify any form of control based upon that. Hell there are far more bear problems down on the Russian River each summer that total wolf sightings, do we start killing bears next. Let�s not stop there because once I read about a man eating Snow Shoe Hare that was terrorizing all of South Anchorage, Kill them too!

We are now entering the silly� no the stupid side of this debate!


Walt
Kotzebue, Alaska
www.northwestalaska.com

1st off, predator control is not hunting. Hate to break it to you but its a cull. Plain and simple to take a few #'s out of the population. you want a fair hunt, go to africa and hunt out of the back of a jeep.

2nd, one bio said a dog, the other said a bear. I'm no rocket scientist but basically it means a predator killed this guy. I wasnt there and I am not a quarterback(I hate monday's and I also wasnt there) but obviously he was gnalled on. to some peoples dismay, there is a predator problem in some parts of the US.

Come on walt, lets try to act like adults. Grant it wolf attacks are real rare.

As for the kanai bear problems, you know as well as I do,its a people problem. if you can give a solution to people moving into criiter areas I'm all ears. people are part of the problem.