Lots of people talking who never had to deal with wolves here. Bottom line to remember about any wolf studies is this: they don't transfer to other wolf locatio

Lots of people talking who never had to deal with wolves here. Bottom line to remember about any wolf studies is this: they don't transfer to other wolf locations. This paper is relevant for Wisconsin only. Secondarily, since this topic inevitably comes up as people say stuff like "it's silly to be afraid of wolves", all the claims that wolves don't attack people are lies, using almost exclusively US based data where the wolves were killed until under control for that very reason. For a less ideological understanding of the real danger of wolves look at the statistics in Siberia, etc. My saying for those who harp on this is "It's easy to claim refuge in statistics until you are in the middle of nothing and hear a pack a ridge or two over. Or hear them circle and yip your camp at night. Then statistics don't offer nearly the same comfort." ... Things I have experienced first hand. Slightly off topic but one of the most visually exhilarating things ever for me was to stumble across a wild pack feasting on a fresh kill... I grew up in a wolf re-intro zone and have had to deal with all the changes to the forest that came with it, many, if not most, of them bad. It wasn't until I was older I went back and re-read the justification papers and they were absolutely horrid science. There is quite a history of wolf related papers being used to justify political actions far outside what the papers support. Please don't fall into that same trap here. This is an interesting paper about the Wisconsin wolf population from a particular angle of study (not a holistic study), that's it.