
In defence of the wolf - thg
https://theconversation.com/in-defence-of-the-wolf-this-big-bad-animal-is-more-prey-than-predator-118946
======
mauvehaus
Book recommendation: Never Cry Wolf, by Farley Mowat. It takes a pretty close
look at wolves (among other things) in the Canadian far north in a highly
readable book. Hilariously funny at times, Mowat comes to largely the same
conclusion as the article: that wolves have more to fear from us than us from
them. He nonetheless, like the author of TFA, finds it hard to overcome the
primal fear we seem to have of wolves.

~~~
neonate
It's semi-fictional and partially plagiarized, though.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Cry_Wolf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Cry_Wolf)

------
PrimalDual
I frankly don’t understand why we would want to reintroduce a predator like
this. From the article it seems the only benefit they bring is to control deer
populations at the expense of farmers and causing discomfort to the general
population. Instead of having wolves why not simply have humans hunt the
excess deer? If you can test the game for undesirable pathogens it could even
be a good business opportunity. Ultimately humans are always in control of the
environment even if we choose to do nothing. Our technology and resources are
too great to claim we have “unmanaged wilderness”.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Instead of having wolves why not simply have humans hunt the excess deer?_

A possible argument would work like this:

1\. Why not automate it by having drones hunt excess deer?

2\. Why build drones when there are perfectly good natural ones, such as
wolves?

~~~
PrimalDual
1\. I doubt we have the technology to automate deer hunting yet; however, it
would be very useful to have drones hunt the deer and have humans pickup the
spoils. I did say it would be great if we could buy hunted deer as long as
it’s tested for the nasty pathogens wildlife tends to have.

2.Having humans hunt the deer is preferable because they obey laws, don’t
scare people, wont eat the farmer’s animals and, again, we also get to keep
the meat.

~~~
uxp100
Hunting is decreasing in popularity, possibly due to awareness of CWD.

And I don't think there are people clamoring for venison. If you have friends
or family that enjoy hunting, you can get quite a bit of venison for free. The
best cuts are tasty, if your processor is good the summer sausage or hot
sticks will be good, but I ate ground venison sloppy joes and chili not that
many times before I personally never want it again.

> Having humans hunt the deer is preferable because they obey laws, don’t
> scare people,

Hunters are scary. Not that Hunters as people are scary, but I would avoid
wilderness where I know there to be hunters active, even if I am wearing blaze
orange. Accidents happen. Probably more often to the hunters themselves than
to strangers, but they do happen.

~~~
GreenJelloShot
> Hunters are scary.

How do you feel about wolves?

~~~
uxp100
A few people saw a wolf a handful of few times in an area I regularly walked
through one summer, and I started carrying a bat if I was alone, but mainly
trying to walk with dogs or another person. Both can be scary, even though
both are less likely to harm you then a car.

------
mothsonasloth
For anyone interested, there is an ongoing debate to re-introduce Wolves to
the Scottish Highlands. We have a major issue with deer overpopulation (which
comes with Lyme disease and damaged trees).

So gameskeepers are receptive to the idea although sheep farmers are
concerned.

[https://www.conservationjobs.co.uk/articles/wolf-
reintroduct...](https://www.conservationjobs.co.uk/articles/wolf-
reintroduction-in-scotland/)

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/08/wolves-s...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/08/wolves-
scotland-reintroduction-lister-alladale)

------
nradov
In my neighborhood people are freaking out and demanding the city "do
something" just because coyotes have killed a few pet cats. It's ridiculous.

~~~
Harvey-Specter
I've never understood why cats are allowed to roam the world unsupervised to
kill birds and poop in my tomato garden.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Because, along with birds, cats kill a lot of rodents. Rodents both carry
disease and eat stored human food. Thus humans have, historically, been better
off with cats around, and may in fact still be better off.

~~~
onychomys
Empirical evidence shows that they're unbelievably terrible at killing rodents
(...in at least one specific case):
[https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/rats-and-
cats](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/rats-and-cats)

~~~
carapace
Cats catch _mice_. For rats you want a terrier.

~~~
ljf
Or a hungry cat that is used to catching prey. Our cat (on a small farm) used
to bring in small rabbits to eat.

------
mcv
I live in Netherland, were, as the article notes, wolves seem to be returning
among some controversy. On the one hand it looks like a sign that nature is
recovering in central and western Europe. Netherland in particular is known
for only having highly managed nature, and the only piece of wild, unmanaged
nature is on a piece of land that didn't even exist a couple of decades ago.

So wolves returning feels to me like a sign that we're doing something right,
giving more space for wild animals.

But it's undeniable that it also comes with some challenges. Wolves might be
welcome in the Oostvaardersplassen, but I don't know how they should ever get
there. Instead, they're in areas where farmers and shepherds graze their
sheep.

~~~
Harvey-Specter
Reading about the Oostvaardersplassen is interesting, it seems to have a lot
of major problems, mostly related to being too small. I'm not sure that
introducing wolves is a good idea, don't they typically need more space to
roam?

~~~
mcv
They probably do. On the one hand, there are a lot of herd animals that we're
supposed to leave alone but could probably do with some predation, and we've
got predators in need of prey. But I don't think we can get them together; too
isolated, too far away.

------
ip26
_Using the image of the wolf as a bloodthirsty, uncontrollable killer..._

 _In South Carolina, state Sen. Stephen Goldfinch (R-Georgetown) is foregoing
science for a call to arms. Goldfinch, who declined to comment for this story,
told WMBF News in Myrtle Beach that killing coyotes should be South Carolina’s
top priority._

 _“The state’s perspective is every coyote needs to be a dead coyote. Trap
them, shoot them . . . however you want to get rid of them,” Goldfinch said.
“. . . This is now about going to war with the coyotes._

When predator control comes up I always find myself wondering- _sorry, which
one was supposed to be the bloodthirsty killer?_

(I realize the Goldfinch quotes reference coyotes, but it's all the same
story)

------
gubbrora
Making 1kg of wolf requires way more than 1kg of prey. A rule of thumb I've
heard is a step in food chain has only about 10% efficiency.

If wolves were more prey than predator populations would decline very quickly.

~~~
thebeefytaco
They're only "more prey than predator" because humans have fought back against
them.

A wolf wouldn't think twice about killing a human.

~~~
Avshalom
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks_in_North_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks_in_North_America)

"There have been only two verified documented deaths from wild healthy wolves
in North America"

now as the list demonstrates "verified...wild healthy" leaves a hell of a lot
of wiggle room but even then lists are not long.

~~~
jandrese
Historically wolf culling has been more about protecting livestock and pets
than people. It's also helpful for hunters to make sure they're not competing
for deer.

------
andrewvc
> _it’s putting nature back to the way it was before humans altered its
> course._

This sentiment is appealing, but there's little backing it. Humans have always
shaped nature, and regardless of people, ecosystems are dynamic (1). We should
be asking ourselves what sort of world we want to live in, and what we want
our impact to look like. We should not harken back to a pre-human influenced
time that never really existed. (Most restoration plans don't plan on
restoring ecosystems to a fully pre-human state, but rather to some time where
humans were present, but not as numerous).

We should instead say things like "this ecosystem was better 300 years ago,
and we should try and return to something closer to that". That's wholly
different from the narrative of natural being everything but human. It does,
however, force us to qualitatively analyze what we're doing. Instead of saying
"we changed it, now we have to restore it", it forces us to think about what
the costs and benefits of restoration are.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_ecology#Human-
media...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_ecology#Human-
mediated_disturbance)

~~~
sandworm101
>> Humans have always shaped nature

Tell that to Antarctica, or to Everest, or to the vast oceans. Until the last
century mankind's presence was slight. We lived in the nice places that we
convenient for us. Now we live everywhere, or at least our trash does. The
idea that humans are part of the natural world, that we need not curtail our
behavior because we were put here too, is quasi-religious dogma promoted by
climate deniers. Humans _are_ different. We have abilities vastly beyond any
other species. That comes with responsibilities, responsibilities that cannot
be sidestepped by declaring us just another mammal looking for food.

~~~
kaybe
It's true, more or less depending on region. In Europe we have shaped the
landscape for millenia, and the ecosystems have developed accordingly.

Without humans, almost everything would be covered by forests and swamps, not
the wide range of biomes we now find, with open fields, grasslands, and
patches of forests. Many local insects, birds and plants need these. Our
responsibility here is not to stop, but to keep everything in good condition
(not like now where there is far too little slack in the system and no space
left for this wildlife).

~~~
balaam
Humans do this to a different degree than other animals but other animals also
shape the environment; beavers can redirect rivers, some bird purposefully
spread wildfires and so on.

------
Ericson2314
Interesting choice of gif. One bison in stampede mauls the baby one giving
wolves free meal?

Also, "guard llamas".

~~~
ip26
I hear guard llamas trample coyotes, flat as a pancake. They are used to
protect alpaca.

Makes me wonder if they are really just furry camels.

------
projektfu
We do have to fear grizzly bears and mountain lions. And I'm not gonna lie,
I'm pretty nervous if I'm all alone in the forest and I hear a wolf. :) I'd
like us not to kill them, though, unless in self defense.

~~~
Mikeb85
Not really. I've spent many hours, days, weeks at a time in the wilderness in
the Canadian Rockies and West Coast, with some of the densest population of
all 3 of these predators, and it's pretty damn easy to avoid them. No need for
guns down here either (maybe in the Arctic, Polar bears are actually
aggressive).

~~~
quadcore
Can you elaborate please? How do you avoid a grizzly?

~~~
Mikeb85
The easiest and most obvious way is to travel in groups and be noisy. Bears
are opportunistic more than they're predatory, meaning they're risk averse and
avoid confrontation. Next is to avoid their feeding areas - so don't stick
around next to carrion, pass through their favourite meadows carefully but
quickly, and don't hang around their berry bushes or obvious dens. Obviously
stay away from cubs.

If you do encounter them, back away slowly (don't turn your back), they'll
pretty much always also go the other way. I've encountered plenty in the
backcountry, usually at fairly long distances and they always move on.

Also note that this applies mainly to BC, Alberta, and south of US. They do
get slightly more aggressive up north due to having less easy food sources.
Also, black bears are a different story, as are polar bears.

~~~
saalweachter
It's kind of hilarious that when you think of a fictional woodsman, their
ability to move through the forests silently is a major, salient feature.

But for most of us for most of our uses of the woods, we're better off
learning to be kind of noisy kind of constantly.

