HOME | DD
paramoreSUCKS — Wolves are dangerous
Published: 2010-03-21 20:45:34 +0000 UTC; Views: 14003; Favourites: 737; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
HURURUIOH*SADOIHISHFDOISH| I HAVE BEEN IN AN ENCLOSURE WITH WOLVES!!!!!!OUH!OUH!OIH YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT U R TALKIN ABOUT RETARD! WOLVES ARE LOVING AND GENTLE NOT DANGEROUS!!!! FUCK YOU WOLF HATER!!!!I am beyond sick of these retards. I dare you to go out and play with a pack of wild ones. You will probably be another headline splashed across page one about someone getting killed by wolves. But they if they are so loving and gentle, you should not have anything to worry about.
Look at Candice Berner's story. They are not so gentle and loving are they? She was jogging and they attacked her because she was something that did not have horns, claws or fangs. She was easy dinner. They did not do it out of 'revenge' because she was a trapper. They did not do it because they were pissed off, they did it because that is how they are programmed. They are predators. This goes for ANY predator. It is how they are programmed.
'
This also goes out to hybrids. It is the wolf in them that causes them to have that looming threat.
[link] <- known fatal wolf attacks on humans.
No, I do not hate wolves. I like wolves pretty well but I know what they are unlike these uneducated twits who act like they know everything about them. IE. Self-proclaimed wolf expert!
HEY! The Drama Llama paid me a visit!
Related content
Comments: 1443
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Maybe in cartoons, but not in real life. Of course not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I owned a wolf dog hybrid..the dog was given to me as a present.. it was the best dog I ever had.. and like a wolf it was Loyal. Respectful to the family as it's pack.
Kind and gentle.. I could cuddle with him... he left my children crawl all over him... he was smart and worked hard too and was easy to train.. they are a great animal.. they do belong in the wild and I wouldn't recommend them to just anyone.. but.. you have to give them the loyalty respect and love of a pack back...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was probably just a dog
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I used to have a wolf hybrid German Shepard
So loyal
His name was Jack Jack
He was half wolf
We got his blood checked I loved him ..
But he is a Shepard dog and you know how Shepard dogs mop at you when you are running , well he tried to nip a girl on a bike or trike and he went to hard and we had to sell him or he would be put down 😣
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
List of possible reasons why wolves might attack someone:
- He or she is too close to their territory
- Easy prey in the winter (But I think that would be a last resort.)
- The wolf sees him or her as a threat
- The person is too close to a mother's cubs
- The person provokes the wolf (ex: a kid pokes a wolf with a stick, and it bites to make him or her stop.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Or they're just easy prey and wolves are opportunists...?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
no, Humans are far to boney, have no real amount of fat (I know we have obese people but what's the odds of them running into contact with a wild wolf). not worth the effort. same goes for most opportunistic hunters (sharks are another good example of this)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And yet pretty much all verified fatal attacks by non-rabid wolves began with stalking behaviour and ended with the wolves eating their victims.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A very similar story goes for oceanic whitetips. A behavior brought out by desperation.
Wolves can and have killed and eat humans, but we are not on their Primary menu, bit like horses, they can be eaten, but aren't considered a natural part of their diet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I was going to put that there, but I thought they probably wouldn't because wolves tend to stay away from humans. (But, I see your point.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wolves are no more dangerous than their descendants.
Yeah, I called dogs descendants. Get over it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
dogs are descendants, any one with animal planet knows that yes but i highly, highly, HIGHLY doubt a wild apex predator is 'no more dangerous' than a dog
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Stats disagree with you dogs attack people more than wolves.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No shit dogs attack more than people because there's, I dunno, more of them and there's a higher chance of coming into contact with them? That doesn't mean wolves are safe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I didn't say they were safe, the reason for more attacks being because of more contact is EXACTLY a point in favor of dogs being more dangerous. Its the same logic as to why Bull sharks are considered more Dangerous than Oceanic White Tips, one (the White tips) will certainly try to eat anything, but the other has far more likely to be encountered.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The complete ignorance is strong.
a wolf will only attack if you have violated their territory.
You cannot just barge in someone's house uninvited expecting to not be thrown out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
what about when they're in someone else's house, like a ranchers?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You have a point, but other than that they aren't really that hostile unless they are provoked.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
They aren't dangerous. They're animals. Like humans are. Do you call humans dangerous in general?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
over all yes, i think that men in black quote about a person being smart but people are dumb, dangerous, panicky animals that sums it up pretty well
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
that is true, however if u mark ur territory, they will respect it and give u your space.
thats why jackals and foxes are better =3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not always. Wolves have been known to attack humans outside of their own territory, and even enter human villages on rare occasions. And foxes and jackals don't kill adult humans, but they're known child-lifters. Especially jackals are known to enter African and Indian villages, where they scavenge garbage, kill pets and occasionally steal a human baby.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not really. They have been known to attack humans unprovoked. In North-America, such cases are rare with only two fatal attacks in recent years. In the Old World, its very common. Research shows that wolves, out of all predatory mammals, are the second-most likely to become maneaters in the Old World. In case your wondering, the first place goes to the members of the Panthera genus, which includes the lion, tiger, leopard, jaguar and snow leopard. The latter two of the five pantherines don't have a long or rich history of attacking humans, but that's a differant subject.
The most recent attack in North-America was the Candice Berner accident in Alaska, in 2010. The attack happened near a town where Candice Berner was jogging on a road near a village. The research and evidence shows that this wasn't a defensive attack. There were no pups, dens or kills nearby, and the wolves attacked Candice like she was a prey animal, killing her and dragging her off the road where they started eating her. After the responsible wolves were killed, DNA research confirmed that the culprits were infact wild, fullblood wolves with no hints of rabies or any other disease. They were also not starving, as there were plenty of deer and elk in the area. There were no reports of escaped wolves or wolves being fed before the accident, meaning this was a predatory attack where the wolves viewed Candice Berner as a prey animal. www.adn.com/alaska-news/articl…
The other attack happened in 2005, and is known as the Kenton Joel Carnegie Wolf Attack. This attack was also predatory, but the reason is more obvious. The attack happened at a campsite where wolves had been known to eat what campers left behind, which made them lose their fear of humans. The area already had a bit of a history of wolves attacking humans, although this was the first time someone died. They found his body, surrounded by wolf tracks and the corpse showed sign of consumption. There was no evidence of suicide or homocide, and there were signs of an attack. Bears hadn't spotted in over a month in the area, and the attack took place while they were hibernating. No sign of pumas either. Even David Mech, the lead sciencetist on the field of wolves and whom is often considered to be the founder of modern wolf science, confirmed that this was a predatory attack.
As far as I know, these are the only two fatal, unprovoked attacks in recent years. In North-America, that is. In the Old World, as I said before, wolves have a long history of attacking and preying on humans without being provoked.
A report from Japanese Korea in 1928 showed that wolves killed 48 people, which was more then the tiger, leopard, bear and wild boar attacks of that region combined at the time. Now let's look at some famous wolf attacks. The Wolves of Ashta were a pack of Indian wolves that , between the last quarter of 1985 to January 1986, killed 17 children in Ashta. The attacks continued untill the entire pack was culled, where the hunters and tribesmen confirmed the culprits had been Indian wolves. During the time they lived, villagers were so terrified that many refused to let their children go outside, yet the killing continued. I once heard that the Wolves of Ashta went as to far break into huts and drag their victims outside, but I have my doubts about that claim. It seems more like something a leopard would do.
In 1944–1954, the Kirov Wolf Attacks happened. These wolves weren't afraid of humans and killed around 22 children between age 3 and 17. During this period, wolves were the most common predators in Russia (They still are, infact) and were often regarded as dangerous pests. Which, by the way, they still are in Russia. While some of these attacks were comitted by rabid wolves, the vast majority were predatory attacks done by wolves that weren't afraid of humans and saw the people of that region, Kirov Oblast, as prey.
The Wolves of Hazaribagh killed 13 children aged from 4 to 10 years between February and August 1981. They had gotten the taste of human meat because they dug up corpses that were burried at a local morgue. This attracted pariah dogs, golden jackals, striped hyenas and eventually Indian wolves. The pack eventually started hunting live humans.
In France, historical records compiled by rural historian Jean-Marc Moriceau indicate that during the period 1362–1918, nearly 7,600 people were killed by wolves, of whom 4,600 were killed by non-rabid wolves.
In Turku, Finland, the Wolves of Turku killed 22 children that were around 5 to 6 years old in the spam of one year, 180-1801.
In Iran, 98 attacks were recorded in 1981. Records of wolf attacks in India began to be kept during the British colonial administration in the 19th century. In 1875, more people were killed by wolves than tigers, with the worst affected areas being the North West Provinces and Bihar. In the former area, 721 people were killed by wolves in 1876, while in Bihar, the majority of the 185 recorded deaths at the time occurred mostly in the Patna and Bghalpur Divisions. In the United Provinces, 624 people were killed by wolves in 1878, with 14 being killed during the same period in Bengal. In Hazaribagh, Bihar, 115 children were killed between 1910-1915, with 122 killed and 100 injured in the same area between 1980-1986. Between April 1989 to March 1995, wolves killed 92 people in southern Bihar, accounting for 23% of 390 large mammal attacks on humans in the area at that time.
Here is a list of all several reported wolf attacks. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_… Notice how the majority of the predatory attacks take place in the Old World? And also notice how the majority of these victims are either children or young women? In other words, easy prey for a large, pack-hunting apex predator. Like all predators, wolves go after the easiest meal. This means old, sick, pregnant and young animals, although they aren't above taking down healthy adults either. And children and young women are easy prey. Its not a coincedence they are the majority of the victims. The aricle also provides links to things such as official reports.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...Really? That's your argument? Repeating an insult? I mean, I exspected it, but I was hoping you would either be smarter or more creative then I thought. But in that case, tell me why I'm wrong. Can you give me actual, proven arguments that are backed by science and history that prove these events that survivors, biologists, hunters, tribesmen, conservationists, wolf experts and predator experts have confirmed or witnessed?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Piece of shit, would have been an insult, bullshit isn't, and i won't loose my time arging invalid bullshit written by prehistorical people, or digging into scientifict inexacts always changing facts, i won't tell you nor the stories of my ancestors about their life with this aniimals, nor tell you the stories of retarded alcoholic shepperd that doesn't understand it is easier to keep an eye on a 300 sheep while being at side of them into the mountain instead of "keeping" 3000 sheeps herd with electric fence agressive dogs while they are complaining about some attack often due to those wandering dogs while they are down in the valley drinking with each others, no i won't, i will just repeat another tuime, simply...Bullshit
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In other words, you don't have any actual arguments or evidence to prove that these facts are 'bullshit', and instead try to act clever by evading the question with vague stories about a very specific location.
I somehow doubt you read the evidence I presented to you, nor checked out the links I sended.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i don't have anything to prove to deaf ones with bullshit links and copy past knowledge didn't read those..Bullshit
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you claim I'm deaf, yet you didn't read my evidence, didn't try to see for yourself why the events happened and you didn't even read the given information or do research yourself?
I rest my case. Honestly, it kinda sounds like you are the deaf one in this conversation. And it sounds like you do have something to prove. I claim that wolves, as large apex predators, have been known to attack humans unprovoked, just like other large predators such as crocodiles and pantherines have. I'm not saying that they are bloodthirsty monsters that only hunt humans like in the fairy tales, which they are defenitely not, but evidence has confirmed that wolves have been known to attack humans unprovoked on several occasions, especially in the Old World. You claim that is 'bullshit', therefore claiming that wolves don't do that. Yet you can't even back it up with even the slightest bit of information.
Honestly, this is very amusing. How you exspect anyone to take you seriously is beyond me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are deaf and your cup is full, don't throw stone to other 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...Good god, I fell for a troll. Or an idiot. I'm leaning towards a mix of the two. Thanks for amusing me with your stupidity though. It was fun while it lasted. I'm kind of hoping you are a genuine idiot instead of a troll though. That would make this all the more hilarious.
You're also right. I did copy the information...From one of my own posts that was used in a discussion about maneaters and predator conservation. All the information is still 100% true though. But considering you can't process the information appearently, I guess you'll never find out. But that does remind me...If you aren't interested in debating or proving you're right about wolves though, why contact me at all? Aww, you do care! I mean, I don't think I should be happy about, but still.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh common, your tons of bullshit again?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Its a shame you can't post GIFs on DeviantArt posts, or edit them. Otherwise, I would have made a parody of Oprah saying 'That's bullshit! And that's bullshit!'. It would be hilarious XD
Still, I find it rather interesting how you can claim things that you have never even read are bullshit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So what is this xDDD -> Lol : D
Oh, what do we have, an intelligent wise brain that is discussing agaaaain with an idiot troll? So you have this much to prove to yourself
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Honestly? You amuse me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
xDDD deal. With It xDDD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Always respect a wild animal's personal space and observe them from a distance. Wild animals are called such for a reason. They are not domesticated and they are best left alone unless you are a) a qualified wild animal veterinarian/foster parent/wildlife rehab individual WITH training/licensing, b) there is no option b. Even then, you must be exceptionally careful and know exactly what you're doing. There isn't room for mistakes.
Furthermore, I had a huge fascination with wolves as a teenager, but I always knew that the chance of me getting close to one was close to zero, due to how dangerous they can be. Wolves are predators. Not pets. It doesn't matter if one person has a wolf as a " pet ". It will never forget its instincts and the moment something triggers it, you're fucked. I don't care how cute you think they are. They are not cuddly wuddly pets. So you can stop trying. Wolves in zoos are not 100% tame or domesticated. Its impossible . Even if you raise the damn thing from birth, instincts are instincts. Those don't go away.
*edit: wtf is grammar.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Most animals are dangerous so we should respect their personal spaces.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It all depends on how it was raised. Feral animals will attack. Tame ones typically will not. It'd be the same with humans, health and social care student here, feral humans have existed and have been violent.
If you raise a wolf or dog kindly and with respect, it'll treat you back.
If you let the wolf or dog raise itself, it's going to be feral.
How you are raised determines a lot.
Humans have a habit of doing this, even worse than wolves do. Attack what you don't know and what you don't understand.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
theres no such thing as a tame wild animal.
"If you raise a wolf or dog kindly and with respect, it'll treat you back."
really human-izing that wolf aren't ya
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A wild animal can become tame, that's how we have animals in zoos that weren't born there. A human raised feral can become tame, so can another animal. But it'd take extensive treatment to do so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The thing is that wild animals no matter where they live are just that, wild animals. You can't take the wild out of a wild animal. There is no such thing as a tame wild animal, but there is such thing as "human-friendly" wild animal. Wild animals at zoos are pretty used to seeing the humans that care for them which is one of the reasons why attacks aren't that common. Another reason is that zoo keepers don't spend that much time with the animals so that they're allowed to fulfill their own needs without unnecessary human interaction. Also when it comes to dangerous predators such as big cats, bears, reptiles and canines a lot of precaution is taken when working with them. After all, if given the opportunity these animals will attack and the way that the animal is raised doesn't matter. Attacks can happen for many reasons. It could either be predatory, acts of aggression, attempts to be dominant, rough play or fear. This is why wild animals shouldn't be pets since they weren't bred to be our companions and are pretty much every that you don't want in a domesticated animal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
They are both, actually.
Well, NOT cuddly. But they have their good side with their own kind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Stop using the word retard. That's a very bitchy thing to say.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
shut up retard
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>