>>> 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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
> 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.
> with a large animal like a grizzly or a wolf it could just as easily escalate the situation.
Perhaps, but this is unclear. I've seen tests that corroborate and contradict the statement that "a .22LR can't penetrate a big bear's skull".
I've read more stories about .22LR's killing bears than the wielders perishing. It could be argued that people eaten by animals don't do much writing. Truth be told, I can't find data to pin to the bushy mustachioed alaskan guides who suggest "don't go in bear country without something that shoots ammo with a "4" in it.
Since I love being obstinate, I'm definitely comfortable arming myself for the Alaskan wilds with my 7.62x51mm rifle, and 10mm side arm. If I ever made it in the paper, maybe the "4" police would get curious enough to learn more about metric.
If you're going into country inhabited by natures best predators, it's a risk analysis problem that should be evaluated individually. If the idea of getting devoured by gnashing teeth and claw is more unsettling than the rarity of such events is comforting, might I suggest defense in depth?
Air horn, bear spray, and yes -- maybe a high velocity long range paper hole punch. I wouldn't recommend the last one lightly. Carrying a gun with which you aren't intimately familiar and well practiced is stupid and dangerous.
The data shows that way more than caliber, shot placement determines "stopping power". That's why practice is more important than your gear. Being able to bring a gun up to eye level, sights aligned, from muscle memory, has to be learned through practice. There's also flinch control, malfunction clearing, gear proofing, accurate and prompt follow up shots.. It's a lot of things you have to learn if you want to carry right. (Start with the 4 rules..)
Whose the better guide into Alaska. Pat, who hits up the local range regularly, IDPA sometimes, and carries a self assembled custom .223, or Robin who saw happy feat, bought a .50cal and decided to take the fight to the bears?
Robin pays 16$ a round and only carries match grade armor piercing incendiary. Robin's gun should be able to bore a kevlar bear stem to stern, from 2 miles away, through a cinder block wall.
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.
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.
Electroshock to wolves is a very unrealistic idea, they are strong, fast and hunt in packs. Similar to pepper spray. Putting fear into wolves is not something you can do in a year and it does not last long, they are hunters for thousands of generations and some pepper spray will not change that overnight (or ever).
Wolves don't know what stun batons or pepper sprayers are. They do know what a rival pack is.
Act like a bigger, stronger pack, and they will retreat to their own territory. Stay with the group. Be aware of situation and surroundings. Call for help. Coordinate the response using language. The Canadian human/dog pack has millions in it. It's just out of sight and downwind right now.
A wolf will never be afraid of a lone human, in their own pack's territory, no matter how many weapons they may carry. It understands forward-facing eyes, large ears, and sharp incisors. It understands when you stare it down while your buddies move to flank it and cut off escape routes. They aren't afraid of humans, per se; they are afraid of better wolves. So to trigger that fear, you have to be the superior pack-hunting apex predator.
You can't teach one wolf to fear one human. You have to teach the whole pack to respect our pack's territory.
Recently listened to a hunting guide on a podcast talk about a run in with a group of wolves:
They were somewhere in the Rockies and were being stalked by a pack. The alpha held their attention fixed, while several other wolves flanked them on both sides.
They ended up having to take a shot at the alpha and that broke off their attack.
I guess I'm collecting downvotes from the other side of what I'm used to. Normally in local debates people will immediately try to frame someone as "kill all wolves" the moment one points out wolves are dangerous so that phrase was a defense against that, but it goes the other way as well:
By all means: do shoot if you are surrounded by a pack!
And maybe electroshock won't work ever, in which case we'll need to come up with something else.
My point is:
Wolves are dangerous but saying so doesn't mean I'm saying we should kill all wolves.
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.
That initial line of reasoning makes sense, but then it becomes another argument.
If it's about opportunity (makes sense, catching a human does seem easier than an antelope) rather than anything intrinsic to human flesh, then why would killing them so that they don't reproduce matter? "Opportunity" does not get transmitted genetically.
I think the actual argument is about learned behavior, not genetics. Lions who realize humans are easy prey will eat nothing else. So you must get rid of the lion somehow, and killing it is the easiest way. Otherwise the same lion will hunt humans again.
Male lions kill cubs as part of their natural lifecycle. When a new male lion takes over a pride, by killing or driving away the former leader, it will kill all cubs. I don't think lionesses are very successful at preventing this.
From Wikipedia (article: Lion):
"When one or more new males oust the previous males associated with a pride, the victors often kill any existing young cubs, perhaps because females do not become fertile and receptive until their cubs mature or die. Females often fiercely defend their cubs from a usurping male but are rarely successful unless a group of three or four mothers within a pride join forces against the male."
What you say is true however: lions won't select other adult lions as their prey, for obvious reasons.
Basically because an animal that has attacked humans once will do it again. Plus it doesn't hurt to reinforce the idea that people aren't food by killing off predators that think otherwise. For social animals, the others in the group may learn there are consequences. On an evolutionary level, we cull any genes that may make an animal more likely to consider humans as prey.
It's estimated the pair killed 28-31 humans during a 9-month span in 1898. Several theories suggest that the lions became accustomed to humans by first eating the remains of the deceased before moving on to full out attacks on the living.
Amazingly, recent research compared the Δ13C and Nitrogen-15 isotopic signature of the lions with other references and mostly confirmed the above estimate for the number of humans consumed.
1. Humans are dangerous prey (eventually). The attack means the wolf was desperate enough to risk its life on a big gamble in order to eat. It was probably hoping to grab one of the kids and get away with him before one of the parents killed it. Even though the attack was unsuccessful, a desperate animal will do otherwise stupid things to survive. Even if it didn't attack another human, it would certainly go deep into human territory and try for livestock.
2. A humane cull of an unfit, packless individual is better than leaving it to die from a starvation spiral.
3. A necropsy would provide useful data on the health of the local pack.
To capture it was the right thing; is necessary to discarding Rabies. To kill it was a possibility, but not the only, having in mind that there was not humans killed or irreversibly damaged in this case.
Wolves could learn that humans are food, but can learn also that humans are help, and they are grateful for life in this case. The dog and the wolf is the same animal, and is one of the animals that we humans understand best psychologically. When people repeat that a wolf that attacked an human once will became a serial killer, forget that attacks can be triggered for many reasons and that dogs can learn from its mistakes also. There was not kill in this case, so if the wolf learned something is that humans team and are not easy to kill, not the opposite.
It was an elder and disperate animal, probably without a supporting pack and with months, maybe a couple years of life at best. Maybe would had deserved a second opportunity. Could had been a good candidate for a wolf sanctuary and end this days in captivity perfectly.
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.
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).
[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.
53 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] thread- 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.
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-wa... [1] https://twistedsifter.com/2010/09/top-ten-cougar-facts/
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.
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.
I agree with you that it should be a large bore weapon, something like .45-70 or .44 magnum.
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 :)
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.
Perhaps, but this is unclear. I've seen tests that corroborate and contradict the statement that "a .22LR can't penetrate a big bear's skull".
I've read more stories about .22LR's killing bears than the wielders perishing. It could be argued that people eaten by animals don't do much writing. Truth be told, I can't find data to pin to the bushy mustachioed alaskan guides who suggest "don't go in bear country without something that shoots ammo with a "4" in it.
Since I love being obstinate, I'm definitely comfortable arming myself for the Alaskan wilds with my 7.62x51mm rifle, and 10mm side arm. If I ever made it in the paper, maybe the "4" police would get curious enough to learn more about metric.
If you're going into country inhabited by natures best predators, it's a risk analysis problem that should be evaluated individually. If the idea of getting devoured by gnashing teeth and claw is more unsettling than the rarity of such events is comforting, might I suggest defense in depth?
Air horn, bear spray, and yes -- maybe a high velocity long range paper hole punch. I wouldn't recommend the last one lightly. Carrying a gun with which you aren't intimately familiar and well practiced is stupid and dangerous.
The data shows that way more than caliber, shot placement determines "stopping power". That's why practice is more important than your gear. Being able to bring a gun up to eye level, sights aligned, from muscle memory, has to be learned through practice. There's also flinch control, malfunction clearing, gear proofing, accurate and prompt follow up shots.. It's a lot of things you have to learn if you want to carry right. (Start with the 4 rules..)
Whose the better guide into Alaska. Pat, who hits up the local range regularly, IDPA sometimes, and carries a self assembled custom .223, or Robin who saw happy feat, bought a .50cal and decided to take the fight to the bears?
Robin pays 16$ a round and only carries match grade armor piercing incendiary. Robin's gun should be able to bore a kevlar bear stem to stern, from 2 miles away, through a cinder block wall.
The answer is Pat.
Can you please explain this?
Human stupidity is way more dangerous than any natural predator.
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.
At least in MN where I'm from. I assume Canada too.
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.
Act like a bigger, stronger pack, and they will retreat to their own territory. Stay with the group. Be aware of situation and surroundings. Call for help. Coordinate the response using language. The Canadian human/dog pack has millions in it. It's just out of sight and downwind right now.
A wolf will never be afraid of a lone human, in their own pack's territory, no matter how many weapons they may carry. It understands forward-facing eyes, large ears, and sharp incisors. It understands when you stare it down while your buddies move to flank it and cut off escape routes. They aren't afraid of humans, per se; they are afraid of better wolves. So to trigger that fear, you have to be the superior pack-hunting apex predator.
You can't teach one wolf to fear one human. You have to teach the whole pack to respect our pack's territory.
You can't really domesticate an animal population without killing of those who resist domestication.
They were somewhere in the Rockies and were being stalked by a pack. The alpha held their attention fixed, while several other wolves flanked them on both sides.
They ended up having to take a shot at the alpha and that broke off their attack.
Good luck using pepper spray in that scenario.
I guess I'm collecting downvotes from the other side of what I'm used to. Normally in local debates people will immediately try to frame someone as "kill all wolves" the moment one points out wolves are dangerous so that phrase was a defense against that, but it goes the other way as well:
By all means: do shoot if you are surrounded by a pack!
And maybe electroshock won't work ever, in which case we'll need to come up with something else.
My point is:
Wolves are dangerous but saying so doesn't mean I'm saying we should kill all wolves.
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.
If Lions who attack humans always get killed, only the ones that don't survives and reproduces.
If it's about opportunity (makes sense, catching a human does seem easier than an antelope) rather than anything intrinsic to human flesh, then why would killing them so that they don't reproduce matter? "Opportunity" does not get transmitted genetically.
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.
From Wikipedia (article: Lion):
"When one or more new males oust the previous males associated with a pride, the victors often kill any existing young cubs, perhaps because females do not become fertile and receptive until their cubs mature or die. Females often fiercely defend their cubs from a usurping male but are rarely successful unless a group of three or four mothers within a pride join forces against the male."
What you say is true however: lions won't select other adult lions as their prey, for obvious reasons.
Predators often select the weak within their natural prey, such as the young or the old. So it does happen with other species.
> Does a lion who taste (say) another lion get similarly hooked on lion flesh?
Lions won't select other lions as prey because lions are notoriously dangerous game. Unarmed humans are very easy targets, however. That's the "hook".
It's estimated the pair killed 28-31 humans during a 9-month span in 1898. Several theories suggest that the lions became accustomed to humans by first eating the remains of the deceased before moving on to full out attacks on the living.
Amazingly, recent research compared the Δ13C and Nitrogen-15 isotopic signature of the lions with other references and mostly confirmed the above estimate for the number of humans consumed.
1. Humans are dangerous prey (eventually). The attack means the wolf was desperate enough to risk its life on a big gamble in order to eat. It was probably hoping to grab one of the kids and get away with him before one of the parents killed it. Even though the attack was unsuccessful, a desperate animal will do otherwise stupid things to survive. Even if it didn't attack another human, it would certainly go deep into human territory and try for livestock.
2. A humane cull of an unfit, packless individual is better than leaving it to die from a starvation spiral.
3. A necropsy would provide useful data on the health of the local pack.
Wolves could learn that humans are food, but can learn also that humans are help, and they are grateful for life in this case. The dog and the wolf is the same animal, and is one of the animals that we humans understand best psychologically. When people repeat that a wolf that attacked an human once will became a serial killer, forget that attacks can be triggered for many reasons and that dogs can learn from its mistakes also. There was not kill in this case, so if the wolf learned something is that humans team and are not easy to kill, not the opposite.
It was an elder and disperate animal, probably without a supporting pack and with months, maybe a couple years of life at best. Maybe would had deserved a second opportunity. Could had been a good candidate for a wolf sanctuary and end this days in captivity perfectly.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_distribution
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/11420144