7 ms·

Survivors of rare wolf attack recount how animal tried to drag man from tent

39 points by curtis 7y ago

Dowwie 7y ago
>>> The attack happened at the Ramparts Creek campground on the Icefields Parkway north of Lake Louise, around 1 a.m. on August 9. - No cell phone coverage at Rampart Creek or at any campgrounds on the Icefields Parkway This is a much more primitive campground than those catering to a larger population in Banff. Lake Louise campground is surrounded by an electrified bear fence, and bear-proof bridge, and has staff patrol the area at night.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
And this is why you pack heat when you're camping/hunting/fishing/hiking/whatevering in remote areas where carnivorous animals large enough to eat humans are known to be. They might not do it often but it's not rare enough to totally discount. If you have kids with you the pool of animals that may consider you a food source is much lower. You can get a HiPoint for like $100ish. That's cheaper than a lot of other gear.
- craftyguy 7y ago
  Or just carry bear spray...
  - adamredwoods 7y ago
    Effective against mountain lions, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzOBrzGpYw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzOBrzGpYw
  - Trav5 7y ago
    It depends on why you are being attacked. From what I've read, Bear spray may not stop an attack. Especially if you are being seen as a food source for an animal in need. Edit: Another google search just found a 2012 article [0] that is pro Bear spray to protect against Bears. (I did not read it all...) I'm more worried about Mountain Lions in my area. I do not carry bear spray or a gun. But I have thought about it quite a bit because I love being out there... The problem with Mountain Lions is that they are stealth hunters. So you you may not know they are there until it's too late. "Horizontal jumping capability from standing position is suggested anywhere from 6 to 12 m (20 to 40 ft)." [1] [0] https://www.outsideonline.com/1899301/shoot-or-spray-best-way-stop-charging-bear https://www.outsideonline.com/1899301/shoot-or-spray-best-wa... [1] https://twistedsifter.com/2010/09/top-ten-cougar-facts/ https://twistedsifter.com/2010/09/top-ten-cougar-facts/
    - sp332 7y ago
      According to https://web.archive.org/web/20160820020105/http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/sites/default/files/bear_spray.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160820020105/http://www.polarb... and https://web.archive.org/web/20161222090849/http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/sites/default/files/efficacy_of_firearms_for_bear_deterrence_in_alaska_2014_01_29_15_23_07_utc.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20161222090849/http://www.polarb... Injuries were far more likely in incidents with firearms (56%) compared to bear spray (4%) with n = 352.
      - AdrianB1 7y ago
        The first study is interesting, but not relevant: 83 cases have a huge variance. The second one is even more interesting, showing that in the majority of the cases the firearms were not used for various reasons or improperly used. This is a bit surprising because carrying a firearm in the bear country and not using it properly suggests a serious lack of proficiency that I cannot explain. The second study is lacking in determining any important factors of the firearm, just splitting into handguns and long guns is not telling anything about efficiency. In 25% of the cases the user was not able to use the gun (it was empty, safety on or too close) which is highly dependent of the magazine capacity, loading and safety mechanism (ex: bolt action), readiness (empty chamber of full chamber), carrying style (on the shoulder, in a closed holster, open holster). For the other cases caliber, one of the most important parameters in stopping power, is missing. So the studies are an interesting reading, but not proof of comparative efficiency.
      - i_am_proteus 7y ago
        Please read papers thoroughly before citing! You are drawing a conclusion from these two studies that the authors themselves did not draw. Note that during an overwhelming majority of the encounters in the bear spray study, the bears were classified as "not aggressive." Contrast this with the firearms study, which specifically looks at bear attacks in which the human defended him/herself with a firearm. One should not be surprised that the study of bear attacks yields more injuries to humans! Most of the bears in the bear spray study were doing things like rummaging for food, not attacking people. The best takeaway, in my opinion, is in the conclusion of the firearms study: >Firearms should not be a substitute for avoiding unwanted encounters in bear habitat. Although the shooter may be able to kill an aggressive bear, injuries to the shooter and others also sometimes occur. The need for split-second deployment and deadly accuracy make using firearms difficult, even for experts. Consequently, we advise people to carefully consider their ability to be accurate under duress before carrying a firearm for protection from bears. No one should enter bear country without a deterrent and these results show that firearms are not a clear choice. We encourage all persons, with or without a firearm, to consider carrying a non-lethal deterrent such as bear spray because its success rate under a variety of situations has been greater (i.e., 90% successful for all 3 North American species of bear; Smith et al. 2008) than those we observed for firearms. Carry the deterrent or deterrents of your choice, try to avoid encounters in the first place, and practice using whatever it is that you carry, because neither firearm nor spray works if you miss.
- briga 7y ago
  Millions of people get by just fine in the national parks without carrying any firearms every year. Maybe carrying a tiny gun could help, but with a large animal like a grizzly or a wolf it could just as easily escalate the situation.
  - i_am_proteus 7y ago
    Not all national parks are the same. Carrying a self-defense weapon in backcountry where grizzlies range is a smart idea. I agree with you that it should be a large bore weapon, something like .45-70 or .44 magnum.
  - AdrianB1 7y ago
    Carrying a tiny gun is pointless, a .22LR handgun is practically useless against a wolf (please, don't come with the 1 in a billion exception). If millions of people get by just fine it does not mean you should never take any precaution because "it will not happen to me either". With this mindset it is better to carry some salt and pepper and prepare yourself to be tastier :)
    - rolltiide 7y ago
      > If millions of people get by just fine it does not mean you should never take any precaution because "it will not happen to me either" I used to be with a woman that was on the extreme end of "it won't happen", and in some cases was outright denial of bad things happening mention any precaution and she would always resort to saying that Americans are so afraid of everything so I did a little introspection while I was with her, and there was a bit of truth to what she said, I've had great experiences that I would have avoided, and it is clear that many of my American friends and colleagues are overly cautious on a cultural level but at the same time you still have to call it. some of the stuff she was talking about was dumb and fraught with disaster.
    - uwagan 7y ago
      millions of poeple fly on airplanes too yet dont wear a parachute.
- wstrange 7y ago
  AFAIK, firearms are not allowed in Banff National Park.
- onemoresoop 7y ago
  >If you have kids with you the pool of animals that may consider you a food source is much lower Can you please explain this?
  - catherd 7y ago
    at a guess: because they tend to emit disturbingly high levels of noise, and most animals generally don't like that. not sure where that argument goes when everyone is sleeping, though.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      More like the difference between "wow, that meal looks like a challenge" and "I can totally pull this off".
- scotty79 7y ago
  I could bet more people died from a bullet while being in remote areas with animals than from attacks of those animals. Human stupidity is way more dangerous than any natural predator.
eitland 7y ago
I've been pointing out for a while that animals that are fully capable of hunting and eating reindeer and moose are also fully capable of hunting and eating humans. To which people answer that the wolf is afraid of humans. AFAIK this misses the point as the reason why wolves shun people is because they instinctively know we are going to hurt them. i expect more attacks on people unless action is taken to keep wolves scared of people. By that I don't necesarily mean kllling wolves but ratheruse pepper spray, elctro shock etc etc.
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  Not in and from Canada. Why would there be more attacks ?
  - dmoy 7y ago
    Wolf populations are bouncing back significantly after decades of culling was dropping the population very low. At least in MN where I'm from. I assume Canada too.
    - wavefunction 7y ago
      There aren't very many historical examples of wolf attacks in North America even at much greater levels of population in the past.
      - dmoy 7y ago
        There wasn't much written history before people rolled through with guns. I guess when I said decades of culling I should have said centuries.
        eitland 7y ago
        Also it seems to me modern scientists has this habit of declaring that wolves doesn't attack humans. This means any account of that can be dismissed as untrustworthy, meaning there are no trustworthy accounts of wolves attacking humans. At least this is my feeling here in Norway.
johnchristopher 7y ago
Why was it necessary to kill the wolf after ? To check for transmittable diseases ?
- zatertip 7y ago
  General principle. We're the top of the food chain. Bad policy to let other species get ideas.
- tdb7893 7y ago
  My guess is that if it attacked someone once it might try again, at least that's the theory with dogs who attack people
  - jdm2212 7y ago
    With lions, there's something similar IIRC. Once they realize how easy humans are to kill, they won't eat anything else.
    - GuiA 7y ago
      This sounds like an exaggerated claim, although it’s hard to search for this and get any meaningful results proving it or disproving it. If it were to happen with humans, you could expect it to happen with other species. Does a lion who taste (say) another lion get similarly hooked on lion flesh? If not, what would be special about human flesh? Some suggest that animals hunting humans would likely do so because they’re older/injured animals who have a harder time catching their natural prey.
      - AdrianB1 7y ago
        Why would a lion try to eat another lion if humans are so easy to hunt? And how would a lion taste another lion? Killing cubs? It happens, but the lioness is putting a strong fight, it is easier to eat humans.
        7y ago
La-ang 7y ago
You're in wolf territory, so what do you expect?
- munificent 7y ago
  What a thoughtless comment. Wolf attacks on humans are incredibly rare. According to Wikipedia, there have been only nine wolf attacks in North America in the past hundred years. You are more likely to be struck by lightning twice than you are to be attacked by a wolf. Saying people should expect wolf attacks simply because they are in a place inhabited by wolves is like saying you should expect to be attacked by a whale because you happen to be in the ocean.
  - vesinisa 7y ago
    Exactly. This comment is not even an exaggeration, wolf attacks on humans are exceedingly rare. People fear wolves usually either out of ignorance or for economical reasons (livestock).
    - willhslade 7y ago
      To be completely fair, weren't wolves aggressively eradicated and only recently reintroduced in some areas of North America? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_distribution
  - La-ang 7y ago
    [You should expect to be attacked by a whale because you happen to be in the ocean.] Indeed. You just confirmed what I said. And do you have a peace treaty with wildlife that you should be at peace when in their territory? Quit being a snowflake.
aaron695 7y ago
Goanna attacks elderly couple in 'horrific and freak ordeal' https://amp.abc.net.au/article/11420144 https://amp.abc.net.au/article/11420144

39 points by curtis 7y ago

>>> The attack happened at the Ramparts Creek campground on the Icefields Parkway north of Lake Louise, around 1 a.m. on August 9. - No cell phone coverage at Rampart Creek or at any campgrounds on the Icefields Parkway This is a much more primitive campground than those catering to a larger population in Banff. Lake Louise campground is surrounded by an electrified bear fence, and bear-proof bridge, and has staff patrol the area at night.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

And this is why you pack heat when you're camping/hunting/fishing/hiking/whatevering in remote areas where carnivorous animals large enough to eat humans are known to be. They might not do it often but it's not rare enough to totally discount. If you have kids with you the pool of animals that may consider you a food source is much lower. You can get a HiPoint for like $100ish. That's cheaper than a lot of other gear.

craftyguy 7y ago
Or just carry bear spray...
- adamredwoods 7y ago
  Effective against mountain lions, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzOBrzGpYw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzOBrzGpYw
- Trav5 7y ago
  It depends on why you are being attacked. From what I've read, Bear spray may not stop an attack. Especially if you are being seen as a food source for an animal in need. Edit: Another google search just found a 2012 article [0] that is pro Bear spray to protect against Bears. (I did not read it all...) I'm more worried about Mountain Lions in my area. I do not carry bear spray or a gun. But I have thought about it quite a bit because I love being out there... The problem with Mountain Lions is that they are stealth hunters. So you you may not know they are there until it's too late. "Horizontal jumping capability from standing position is suggested anywhere from 6 to 12 m (20 to 40 ft)." [1] [0] https://www.outsideonline.com/1899301/shoot-or-spray-best-way-stop-charging-bear https://www.outsideonline.com/1899301/shoot-or-spray-best-wa... [1] https://twistedsifter.com/2010/09/top-ten-cougar-facts/ https://twistedsifter.com/2010/09/top-ten-cougar-facts/
  - sp332 7y ago
    According to https://web.archive.org/web/20160820020105/http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/sites/default/files/bear_spray.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160820020105/http://www.polarb... and https://web.archive.org/web/20161222090849/http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/sites/default/files/efficacy_of_firearms_for_bear_deterrence_in_alaska_2014_01_29_15_23_07_utc.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20161222090849/http://www.polarb... Injuries were far more likely in incidents with firearms (56%) compared to bear spray (4%) with n = 352.
    - AdrianB1 7y ago
      The first study is interesting, but not relevant: 83 cases have a huge variance. The second one is even more interesting, showing that in the majority of the cases the firearms were not used for various reasons or improperly used. This is a bit surprising because carrying a firearm in the bear country and not using it properly suggests a serious lack of proficiency that I cannot explain. The second study is lacking in determining any important factors of the firearm, just splitting into handguns and long guns is not telling anything about efficiency. In 25% of the cases the user was not able to use the gun (it was empty, safety on or too close) which is highly dependent of the magazine capacity, loading and safety mechanism (ex: bolt action), readiness (empty chamber of full chamber), carrying style (on the shoulder, in a closed holster, open holster). For the other cases caliber, one of the most important parameters in stopping power, is missing. So the studies are an interesting reading, but not proof of comparative efficiency.
    - i_am_proteus 7y ago
      Please read papers thoroughly before citing! You are drawing a conclusion from these two studies that the authors themselves did not draw. Note that during an overwhelming majority of the encounters in the bear spray study, the bears were classified as "not aggressive." Contrast this with the firearms study, which specifically looks at bear attacks in which the human defended him/herself with a firearm. One should not be surprised that the study of bear attacks yields more injuries to humans! Most of the bears in the bear spray study were doing things like rummaging for food, not attacking people. The best takeaway, in my opinion, is in the conclusion of the firearms study: >Firearms should not be a substitute for avoiding unwanted encounters in bear habitat. Although the shooter may be able to kill an aggressive bear, injuries to the shooter and others also sometimes occur. The need for split-second deployment and deadly accuracy make using firearms difficult, even for experts. Consequently, we advise people to carefully consider their ability to be accurate under duress before carrying a firearm for protection from bears. No one should enter bear country without a deterrent and these results show that firearms are not a clear choice. We encourage all persons, with or without a firearm, to consider carrying a non-lethal deterrent such as bear spray because its success rate under a variety of situations has been greater (i.e., 90% successful for all 3 North American species of bear; Smith et al. 2008) than those we observed for firearms. Carry the deterrent or deterrents of your choice, try to avoid encounters in the first place, and practice using whatever it is that you carry, because neither firearm nor spray works if you miss.
briga 7y ago
Millions of people get by just fine in the national parks without carrying any firearms every year. Maybe carrying a tiny gun could help, but with a large animal like a grizzly or a wolf it could just as easily escalate the situation.
- i_am_proteus 7y ago
  Not all national parks are the same. Carrying a self-defense weapon in backcountry where grizzlies range is a smart idea. I agree with you that it should be a large bore weapon, something like .45-70 or .44 magnum.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  Carrying a tiny gun is pointless, a .22LR handgun is practically useless against a wolf (please, don't come with the 1 in a billion exception). If millions of people get by just fine it does not mean you should never take any precaution because "it will not happen to me either". With this mindset it is better to carry some salt and pepper and prepare yourself to be tastier :)
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    > If millions of people get by just fine it does not mean you should never take any precaution because "it will not happen to me either" I used to be with a woman that was on the extreme end of "it won't happen", and in some cases was outright denial of bad things happening mention any precaution and she would always resort to saying that Americans are so afraid of everything so I did a little introspection while I was with her, and there was a bit of truth to what she said, I've had great experiences that I would have avoided, and it is clear that many of my American friends and colleagues are overly cautious on a cultural level but at the same time you still have to call it. some of the stuff she was talking about was dumb and fraught with disaster.
  - uwagan 7y ago
    millions of poeple fly on airplanes too yet dont wear a parachute.
wstrange 7y ago
AFAIK, firearms are not allowed in Banff National Park.
onemoresoop 7y ago
>If you have kids with you the pool of animals that may consider you a food source is much lower Can you please explain this?
- catherd 7y ago
  at a guess: because they tend to emit disturbingly high levels of noise, and most animals generally don't like that. not sure where that argument goes when everyone is sleeping, though.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    More like the difference between "wow, that meal looks like a challenge" and "I can totally pull this off".
scotty79 7y ago
I could bet more people died from a bullet while being in remote areas with animals than from attacks of those animals. Human stupidity is way more dangerous than any natural predator.

eitland 7y ago

I've been pointing out for a while that animals that are fully capable of hunting and eating reindeer and moose are also fully capable of hunting and eating humans. To which people answer that the wolf is afraid of humans. AFAIK this misses the point as the reason why wolves shun people is because they instinctively know we are going to hurt them. i expect more attacks on people unless action is taken to keep wolves scared of people. By that I don't necesarily mean kllling wolves but ratheruse pepper spray, elctro shock etc etc.

johnchristopher 7y ago
Not in and from Canada. Why would there be more attacks ?
- dmoy 7y ago
  Wolf populations are bouncing back significantly after decades of culling was dropping the population very low. At least in MN where I'm from. I assume Canada too.
  - wavefunction 7y ago
    There aren't very many historical examples of wolf attacks in North America even at much greater levels of population in the past.
    - dmoy 7y ago
      There wasn't much written history before people rolled through with guns. I guess when I said decades of culling I should have said centuries.
      - eitland 7y ago
        Also it seems to me modern scientists has this habit of declaring that wolves doesn't attack humans. This means any account of that can be dismissed as untrustworthy, meaning there are no trustworthy accounts of wolves attacking humans. At least this is my feeling here in Norway.

johnchristopher 7y ago

Why was it necessary to kill the wolf after ? To check for transmittable diseases ?

zatertip 7y ago
General principle. We're the top of the food chain. Bad policy to let other species get ideas.
tdb7893 7y ago
My guess is that if it attacked someone once it might try again, at least that's the theory with dogs who attack people
- jdm2212 7y ago
  With lions, there's something similar IIRC. Once they realize how easy humans are to kill, they won't eat anything else.
  - GuiA 7y ago
    This sounds like an exaggerated claim, although it’s hard to search for this and get any meaningful results proving it or disproving it. If it were to happen with humans, you could expect it to happen with other species. Does a lion who taste (say) another lion get similarly hooked on lion flesh? If not, what would be special about human flesh? Some suggest that animals hunting humans would likely do so because they’re older/injured animals who have a harder time catching their natural prey.
    - AdrianB1 7y ago
      Why would a lion try to eat another lion if humans are so easy to hunt? And how would a lion taste another lion? Killing cubs? It happens, but the lioness is putting a strong fight, it is easier to eat humans.
      - 7y ago

La-ang 7y ago

You're in wolf territory, so what do you expect?

munificent 7y ago
What a thoughtless comment. Wolf attacks on humans are incredibly rare. According to Wikipedia, there have been only nine wolf attacks in North America in the past hundred years. You are more likely to be struck by lightning twice than you are to be attacked by a wolf. Saying people should expect wolf attacks simply because they are in a place inhabited by wolves is like saying you should expect to be attacked by a whale because you happen to be in the ocean.
- vesinisa 7y ago
  Exactly. This comment is not even an exaggeration, wolf attacks on humans are exceedingly rare. People fear wolves usually either out of ignorance or for economical reasons (livestock).
  - willhslade 7y ago
    To be completely fair, weren't wolves aggressively eradicated and only recently reintroduced in some areas of North America? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_distribution
- La-ang 7y ago
  [You should expect to be attacked by a whale because you happen to be in the ocean.] Indeed. You just confirmed what I said. And do you have a peace treaty with wildlife that you should be at peace when in their territory? Quit being a snowflake.

aaron695 7y ago

Goanna attacks elderly couple in 'horrific and freak ordeal' https://amp.abc.net.au/article/11420144 https://amp.abc.net.au/article/11420144