Talk:Wolf attack

Outline for category section Feel free to edit

• Rabid -
• Not-rabid -
  • Provoked -
    • Accidental encounters, (Victim stumbled upon wolf kill, den, or pups)
    • Naive encounters, (Trying to feed or befriend wolf, take its picture)
    • Aggressive approaches
      • Wolf hunters, trappers
      • Hazing or harassing, "driving off"
      • Wolf biologists trapping, darting, collaring wolves.
  • Unprovoked
    • Predatory - motivated by hunger, wolf eats human
      • Child lifting
    • Agonistic - motivated by anger, not eaten
      • Eliminate competition - territorial
      • Establish hierarchy - captive animal, researcher habituated into captive pack, family pet, McNay's "disciplinary" attack

Signed and dated for archiving. William Harris • (talk) • 09:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Fear of humans

I have read that wolves which have not grown up with humans are naturally afraid of us. At least this holds true for the wolves we have here in Northern Europe (Eurasian wolf, Canis lupus lupus). Is there any difference between different subspecies?

2015-01-03 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.158.174 (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could ask USER:Mariomassone, he seems to be the one most familiar with the available WP:RSes on that subject. Use few words; he seems to be a busy man. For example you could ask him "Is there a source for the statement "Some subspecies of wolves are temperamentally more prone to run from/attack people than others"?" proceeded or followed by a few very brief niceties.

I'm somewhat but not as familiar with the sources as Mario, but I haven't seen anything explicitly stating that some subspecies are naturally more or less likely to flee from or approach/attack humans. Having said that, however, it seems to me that there is some evidence for it, because some subspecies attack people relatively more often than others. For example, there has been some discussion about why wolves in North America don't seem to attack as often as Old World wolves. This has been explained in several ways, including the fact that Americans tend to have guns than people in India or France. This would logically select for a genetic predisposition to fear people, but would imply evolution of this trait in just a matter of centuries and one tends to expect evolution to take longer than that. Chrisrus (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Humans have been capable of killing wolves since pre-humans invented big game hunting 1.65 million years ago. So at least Old World wolves could have evolved an instinctive fear of us. However, wolves are relatively intelligent animals. If you have seen your family members killed by a certain species would you not be afraid of that species? I think wolves are also capable such thought processes. There are even areas in Africa were the lions are afraid of humans because the locals have hunted lions for centuries.

2015-01-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

This illustration tells a lot of why wolves may attack humans. It is worth noting that such attacks are common in India but uncommon or rare are here in Europe. The real problem we in Sweden have with wolves is their tendency to attack livestock. I know a woman whose parents-in-law had a sheep killed by a wolf. I told here that there are at least one breed of dog breed for the purpose of protecting livestock from wolves. Not long afterwards her parents-in-law actually bought two out of such a breed.

2015-01-05 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Signed and dated for archiving. William Harris • (talk) • 09:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Another Indian Attack?

My Google News settings suggested this article http://www.amarujala.com/uttar-pradesh/lakhimpur-kheri/crime/recruitment-injured-wolf-attack as a wolf attack, but I don't speak this language. Please help! Chrisrus (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Size

Hi there. I don't have much experience suggesting wikipedia edits and am sorry if the format is incorrect.

The article says that grey wolves are the largest species in the canis family. However, I believe this is incorrect considering very large dogs such as the Great Dane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.157.37 (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

All dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) form a subspecies of the grey wolf (Canis lupus). You have provided a good example as to why the grey wolf is the largest species of the Canis family. Also, 80-100kg of English Mastiff would be another example. William Harris • (talk) • 12:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean to say why the grey wolf is NOT the largest species of the Canis family.? North8000 (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the grey wolf is the largest species of the Canis family, and the dog is a member of the grey wolves Canis lupus. William Harris • (talk) • 10:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I read you right you are saying that a Great Dane is a gray wolf because it is a subset of Canis lupus. I could see that as a technical argument but IMO not by common meaning. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow your "common meaning". As soon as the IP editor raised the word "species", we enter the realm of canid taxonomy and MSW3, where the dog is classified as Canis lupus, it is no other species. According to Fan 2016, the dog is both taxonomically and genetically a grey wolf - nobody has written a paper rebutting that statement. William Harris • (talk) • 09:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean that the common meaning of wolf is that critter that lives in the wild, and does not include a pekinese or a poodle. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in lede needs rewrite

The third sentence in the lede is awkwardly written and needs some work. It reads "Gray wolf attacks are rare because wolves are often subsequently killed, or even extirpated in reaction by human beings." First, it is nonsensical to state an outcome (attacks) and then state that is is rare because of something that "subsequently" happens in reaction to it. An outcome follows a cause; in this case, attacks seemingly are rare because of the relatively small number of wolves allowed to live in proximity to humans. Second, "extirpated" is an obscure word and would better be replaced with a more commonly-used synonym such as "exterminated" or "eradicated". Third, it is unnecessary to use the term "human beings". There is no other subcategory of "humans" that needs differentiation here; saying "humans" is sufficiently specific. I propose that the sentence be rewritten to something like "Because gray wolves are commonly exterminated as threats in areas where humans live, attacks on humans have become rare." Bricology (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your criticism. But your remedy seems to be to replace conjecture with conjecture. I plan to take out the problematic stuff and than we could work on a replacement, if any. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)