Hacker News Reader

Comment by DavidPastrnak | Hacker News Reader

I'm a resident of Estes Park, Colorado, what is essentially Rocky Mountain National Park, and my partner in life is a biologist in RMNP where she tracks and monitors elk and moose populations. This has been on the forefront of our minds for awhile. While I’ll leave my personal opinion out of it, I do want to add a couple of notes.

Wolves have been crossing the boarder into Colorado for some time - the state is not completely void. Additionally, they have already released a handful in the last couple of weeks that were brought in from the PNW.

The topic of reintroduction is extremely complex and has led to heated and polarizing debates with residents across the state - even stretching into Wyoming politics where hunters are using electronic calls to lure them back across the border for hunting. This has resulted in a lot of confusion as to what the research outlines.

If anyone is curious, I have found this paper to be a great introduction to the topic. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2...

Please remember that this is an extremely complex issue that is worth having constructive discussion on. I have faith that HN can keep it civil where other platforms have failed to.

View on HN

Thanks David. I'm just a few miles downhill (Masonville) and I agree that it's a complex issue. The intentional introduction of any species raises many ethical questions. Humans have completely altered the ecosystem by removing wolves over the last 100 years. We understand this now, and the "reintroduce wolves to restore the ecosystem" reaction is a very reasonable public response. But it's only a start, let's not get distracted by charismatic megafauna.

We cannot pin ecosystem health on the presence/absence of a single species. This is not ecosystem restoration, it's a political accounting trick to manage species counts ... and pretend that's a proxy for a balanced ecosystem (without understanding habitat fragmentation and loss, energy and nutrient cycling, climate change pressures, etc). So the challenge is, can we sustain an ecosystem to support new wolves and ourselves?

To those of us who want to produce the land for economic gain - I applaud you, homo economicus. But when our market demands every last watt of productivity be directed to human markets, there's not much room to allow wolves to roam amongst livestock. If you're competing in the modern financialized agriculture markets, you're already under debt pressure and committed to a full-scale unconditional war against every non-human species - reintroduction of wolves is a direct attack.

I'm not for or against wolf re-introduction. I'm for ecosystem restoration and a sane economy. I'm for humans taking care of the land, meeting our needs AND carving out areas where wolves and other large mammals are allowed to "make a living". And that goes much deeper than just busing a few wolves into Colorado.

> remember that this is an extremely complex issue

Hmph. No possyfooting. Apex predators are essential for properly functioning ecosystems. We know this know, there isn't any doubt. Want an ecosystem that isn't on the verge of collapse? Introduce some appropriate apex predators. There is no argument. Is the issue complex? Yes, because humans don't like competition in their status as apex predators, and god forbid, a human could be hurt by a wolf, or a famer could lose a few heads of lifestock.

Remember, 97% of terrestrial vertebrate biomass is humans and their livestock. If don't do what's needed to maintain that last 3%, well, then humans and our livestock will soon be 100% of terrestrial vertrbrate biomass.

Ya but what if the wolves eat that last 3%?

Is a legit concern, but biodiversity does not work like that.

To start, predators block the spreading of diseases that would kill its preys.

Wolves will also reduce the amount of common preys, creating opportunities for the less common preys, will reduce the number of small predators and probably exile them to the frontiers of its territory, will boost tree grow, and will create new temporary ecosystems based on carcasses.

This last can seem gross, but it sustain thousands of invertebrates and help raptors and small vertebrates to survive winter

The comment you're addressing seems like an ecosystem equivalent to what economists call the "lump of labor fallacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

"Lump of biomass" fallacy might be a name for it.

As for the carrion bit, apparently when they returned wolves to Yellowstone, it wasn't just the invertebrates and raptors. Even the bears started putting on weight because the wolves were surplus hunters and would leave a lot of meat lying around for the bears to scavenge before winter.

It’s not ecologically complex, it’s socially complex. Flat out steamrolling the ranchers just because you can is foolish, and will create generations of simmering resentment. Actual governance involves hearing and recognizing their concerns and, where appropriate, addressing them as possible.

Bearing in mind I’m not American, but isn’t the issue:

- someone wants to be a farmer - we need to destabilise the ecosystem.

One of those is a bit stronger than the other, why is “tough luck, build a fence” not a valid argument? They chose to be out there, they accept the risk and requirements of operating in these conditions. This now includes wolves.

It's not just the building of the fence, it's having to maintain it. Wolves are clever, they can figure out ways around. What's more is livestock need to graze, they can't stay in fenced enclosures at all times, nobody owns that much land. Factory farmed livestock live like that, and we rightly view it as cruel to raise animals that way.

Protecting them would likely require more proactive countermeasures, but that can also be fatal to the wolves which we don't want and will get the ranchers hit with a hefty fine.

The most realistic option is a subsidized insurance or reimbursement scheme if the wolves do take livestock. But then you have all the issues with fraud and perverse incentives to worry about.

Colorado already has a program like you describe

> Introduced with bipartisan support, the SB23-255 Wolf Depredation Compensation Fund appropriates $525,000 over the next two years to cover livestock losses.

> Under the state’s final plan, ranchers will be compensated for vet bills to treat injured animals, including herding dogs, with up to $15,000 for animal deaths.

Montana has a similar program, which paid out for 97 head last year. Montana is home to over 2 million cattle.

Part of the problem is the ranchers don’t have good tools to repel the wolves. They can’t kill them. Wolves get around fences, kill guard dogs, etc. They are persistent, smart, and learn, so they can learn to defeat traps, and quickly lose their fear of non-lethal deterrence.

You might be tempted to say, ok tough luck then, ranching is just over. But the public does like the product (beef), and ranchers will fight all the harder if your proposal is an existential threat to their way of life.

With time, the loss program, and involvement with wildlife management, hopefully good methods will be found.

If it was as simple as build a fence and tolerate a little risk, we wouldn’t be stuck in this debate.

True. But financial markets produce a strong incentive to consume that last 3% as fast as possible, and that's exactly the problem. It has nothing to do with individual farmers, it's a systematic problem.

Last numbers I know (12/2022) are 4% wild, 96% humans and livestock. Not trying to pedantic but if you have another source than this one can you share it ? Those numbers are so close that they seems to consolidate each others.

https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass

The 97%-3% numbers came from the top of my head from an article I read some years ago (so slightly outdated) and obviously these kinds of estimates have a significant error bar, but also the ourworldindata page you link to talks about something slightly different; they talk about all mammals, which includes marine mammals but excludes other vertebrates, like birds and reptiles. My numbers were, at the time, cited (as I stated) as "terrestrial vertebrate biomass", which would exclude marine mammals but include birds and reptiles. I think all birds would be considered terrestrial vertebrates because even penguins have to come on land to breed.

Thanks for the clarification! That makes sense.

The moose was reintroduced and it has brought havoc to the beaver habitat, especially in rocky. We need wolves or something to balance the moose. It has become a very different park since the moose has invaded

Yes! However, there is some good news I'd like to add - they made some progress on the beaver habitat over the last few years here in Rocky. Still so so far to go but a small win to celebrate.

How did the moose damage the beaver habitat? Do they forage the same plants and outcompete the beavers at them?

That is a big piece of the puzzle - overgrazing of willows.

https://www.rockymountainnationalpark.com/gallery/moose/#:~:....

https://www.nps.gov/articles/beaver-occupancy-in-rocky-mount...

Thanks for commenting David! I’m based in CO too and appreciate your insight.

The best state! In fact, I just went to Estes Park on Saturday for a tour of The Shining Hotel (Stanley Hotel) and our guide went on a bit of a background speech about these Colorado wolves, didn't expect it here - but glad to see a discussion!

> While I’ll leave my personal opinion out of it, I do want to add a couple of notes.

What's your opinion, if you don't mind me asking?

Personally I can't believe anyone is against this project. It's a complicated issue but the removal of wolves has had damn near catastrophic impact on pretty much everyone east of California from deer to ticks to elk. Even the ranchers are better off in the short run and especially long term.

(I lose livestock every year to mountain lions so I'm no stranger to the cost of keeping apex predators around)

The people against this have valid reasons. For example, ranchers who don't want their livestock eaten by wolves that they can't defend against, legally.

Like I said I have to deal with the same issue thanks to mountain lions. I don't think it's a valid reason, it's a supremely selfish and shortsighted one.

The regulations on wolves are different. You can only get permission to use legal force on a case by case basis if they are attacking livestock (or if you catch them in the act).

You can use force against a wolf attacking a working dog or yourself, but not a pet.

In all other cases, you must use non-lethal detergent methods.

I live in California so the only minor difference is that you can use lethal force if a mountain lion is attacking a domestic animal but the CDFW will be on your ass and you better be sure it was the only option or you'll get prosecuted for poaching. (I just shoot a shotgun into the air which scares them off)

Otherwise you need a depredation permit that are "must issue" if you have evidence of a mountain lion attacking your livestock but only one in ten applicants are granted a lethal depredation permit. The rest must use non-lethal deterrents because lethal force is only authorized if there's a genuine threat to public safety.

For a rancher or someone living in a rural area, lethal permits are rarely issued. In several parts of the state like the Santa Monica and Santa Ana mountains permits are no longer issued at all.

In a different post, someone mentioned that livestock lost to wolves receive compensation. Is it the same for mountain lions? That seems like an excellent way to reduce requests for "depredation permit". (LOL: What a term!)

No, but mountain lions aren't pack hunters that can really threaten commercial livestock. They usually only predate solitary animals on smaller farms and even though it's far more traumatic for us than a rancher losing one head of cattle out of hundreds, we don't want to kill them. The state doesn't have to bribe us. They're basically sacred in this state and some like P22 even become mini celebrities.

(The term depredation comes from military attacks on helpless villages so the term is very fitting, both in terms of the mountain lion attacking livestock and humans hunting mountain lions)

Wow, thank you to share about mountain lion P-22 from Los Angeles valley. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-22

Livestock predation is a common threat around the world. Are ranchers in Colorado uniquely unequipped to adopt any of the solutions used by ranchers elsewhere?

Colorado ranchers absolutely are uniquely unequipped to deal with predation. In fact, I heartily suggest that you meet one in person and try suggesting it.

> Colorado ranchers absolutely are uniquely unequipped to deal with predation.

Zero trolling: I don't understand this sentence. Are you saying that ranchers in other states have different options to deal with apex predators? If yes, can you please explain. I am curious to learn more.

A previous commenter asked “Are ranchers in Colorado uniquely unequipped to adopt any of the solutions used by ranchers elsewhere?”. I interpret this as snark and was answering in kind. Here in the western USA ranchers have been very, very adept at dealing with predators, human and otherwise, for 150+ years. It’s the stuff of movie and TV legend, most recently in shows like “Yellowstone”.

The options are restricted mostly by law and local custom.

> A previous commenter asked “Are ranchers in Colorado uniquely unequipped to adopt any of the solutions used by ranchers elsewhere?”. I interpret this as snark and was answering in kind.

It seemed like an honest, innocent question, not snark at all. The response seemed dismissive and snarky, though.

This is a good reason to not try to get revenge for what you believe to be "snark": you might be totally wrong in your judgement. Best to just respond honestly and straightforwardly.

You’re probably right. Rereading it still feels like snark to me, but that’s not a great reason to reply as I did. Thank you for pointing it out.

They are making a joke that ranchers in Colorado are trigger-happy cowboys and will murder someone like me for suggesting that their current ranching methods are bad and need to be updated.

The joke is based on a very Hollywood-informed idea of what this region is like (think Wild West movies and TV shows). It is not a reflection of reality.

Untrue but I genuinely like your prose style

Not being in or from the region, my impression from brief interactions with the lobbyists they send up to Washington has been that many of the ranchers are, themselves, trying to cosplay a Wild West fantasy. But this is probably largely overrepresenting the "gentleman ranchers" (who are actually just heirs to oil money or something) who own a ranch as a lifestyle aesthetic rather than a livelihood.

However, it does seem that these guys have a dramatically outsized influence in political representation around these interests unfortunately.

Ranchers are compensated for livestock lost to predation. In Montana, 137 livestock were lost to grizzlies, wolves, and mountain lions in 2023. [1]

For comparison, roughly 25000 cattle are lost to cold every year in Montana.

[1] https://liv.mt.gov/Attached-Agency-Boards/Livestock-Loss-Boa...

Are livestock lost to cold also compensated? Because that seems like it would create a perverse incentive not to build shelter (i.e. barns) for your livestock.

The common method in Europe is just to move or left the carcasses out, so they are scavenged by several animals. After a week wolves appeared and left traces, so it was paid as "wolf kill". This was known because some people put hidden cameras.

When bear kills started to being paid by an ecologist group there was an awful lot of scam attempts also. I think that paying for predator damage are counterproductive at best, and at worst "fossilize" as a system to scam taxers and reinforce scammers.

Is not much different than expecting to be paid if you go for a beach day and you are stung by a jellyfish, or it rained that day. There are old proven solutions to reduce drastically this loses, is just that farmers choose not to use them.

> For example, ranchers who don't want their livestock eaten by wolves that they can't defend against, legally.

I recall listening to NPR one day on this topic, and they pointed out that ranchers lose several orders of magnitude more livestock due to other preventable causes that are mostly in their control. It's not likely they care that much about their livestock.

On the other hand this is sort of like saying, you already spend hundreds of dollars on unnecessary entertainment and other discretionary spending so you shouldn't be complaining when a new mandatory "entertainment tax" is established. Whether a business (or a person) is accepting of any given set of losses does not obligate them to be accepting of further losses.

> further losses

Losses that are generally compensated by the government

Eminent domain requires the government to compensate you for your losses too, that doesn't usually make people happy about the losses.

Sheep are generally fungible, land and real estate not so much

Quite an unrelated point. This isn't asking them to spend more on what they're already spending on. It's about them claiming something that isn't true. The data indicates they really don't care that much about their cattle.

Shepherd dogs, enclosures and buildings are very effective defending cattle.

And government can promote the common good, saving all taxers millions, even if this means that one farmer will lose a thousand. This is how being in a society works. In a recent study, European Wolves attacked around 0,063% of the total sheep. A really small price to pay for reducing your chances to die in a deer car crash, or catching lyme disease.

I've been pretty consistent with leaving my opinions out when discussing the topic, mainly because of how polarizing it is here, and instead encouraging people to establish their own viewpoints based on solid sources. With that said, I'm heavily in favor of reintroduction. I believe the pros of intervention outweigh the cons of not doing so significantly and that the threat to Colorado ranchers is exaggerated - I'll leave it at that.

> even stretching into Wyoming politics where hunters are using electronic calls to lure them back across the border for hunting

I think there's an argument to be made if the hunting method extends into the state where it's illegal (sounds waves traveling) then you're in violation of that state, since the lil would not have happened if the hunting method didn't traverse state lines.

Enforcement is perfectly impossible. Source: lived in Wyoming.

It’s hard, not impossible. We need enforcement like we enforce endangered rhinos in Kenya from poachers.

I have a sound localization project that can help with that

https://github.com/hcfman/sbts-aru

You need to be able to hear the sound from three or more recorders. And normally localization is better within the polygon of microphones but there’s an area of better localizability extending outside of a vertex.

Do we really? Elk herds are fine. Seems like a waste of resources to have rhino-like enforcement for elk. Colorado has almost 300,000 elk.

I believe the previous poster meant that the wolves should have the rhino-like protections.

Spend a significant amount of time in the state and get back to me about what's possible. I'll wait. Note you're talking about an area only slightly smaller than New Zealand with roughly identical population numbers to Santa Barbara County, 1 third of whom are either students at UWyo or migrating roughnecks with no dog in that fight. Ignoring the handful of millionaires clustered around Jackson Hole the rest of the population of the state are (taken in aggregate) heavily armed and utterly disinterested in the federal government's position on anything. You send a handful of well-intentioned game wardens from out of state into that mess and you're gonna have folks start disappearing.

I don't know how that would work or if there's any precedent for that. Generally states enter into agreements and different laws about enforcement. Or they sue each other in federal court (eg cannabis issues recently).

I guess a precedent would be noise pollution laws. You can create sound waves on your own property but be prosecuted for their effects outside of it

To my knowledge that doesn't extend across state lines. I wanted to see precedent of someone doing something in one state and being criminally prosecuted for that act in a different state.

As a counter example, it's extremely common for people to hunt (or fish) on the legal side of boundaries with a restricted area using calls (or scents, bait, chum) to lure game to the area they can legally be in.

Any case law for shooting a bullet across state lines and hitting someone?

I assume you would still run into jurisdiction issues If it is legal to call in Wyoming, and the hunter is in Wyoming.

Disagree. I'm vegan and anti-hunting, but I don't think states should be able to enforce their laws outside of their states. That would lead to some real crazy stuff.

Any sort of cross border crime is regulated by the feds. Like if you steal a car and drive across the state border, it becomes a state offense. The feds could make cross border hunting illegal as well, but they would have to put in resources to enforce it.

Right. Colorado law should not be enforced in Wyoming. An animal call in Wyoming isn't hunting in Colorado.

> if you steal a car and drive across the state border, it becomes a state offense

Tiny nitpick: Did you mean to say "it becomes a federal offense"?

Yes.

I was also vegan for years, but not anti-hunting. While not a vegan today, my meat consumption is down by ~98% from childhood. Why are you anti-hunting? Usually, hunters are strong environmentalists. Plus, they are taking animals from their natural habit, instead of crowded feed lots.

I haven’t found it to be the case that hunters are environmentalists except for some post hoc rationalization. It really just reduces to a hobby of killing animals at least with anyone I ever hunted with in my teens. And they were all right wing Texans, definitely not anyone who would sign on as an “environmentalist” except when in cases where they can glamorize their hobby.

> hunters are using electronic calls to lure them back across the border for hunting

What does this mean?

It's legal to hunt them in Wyoming but not in Colorado. The wolves don't know this, so the hunters are able to lure them across the border so they can shoot them.

Do you have any opinion on the recent reintroduction of coyotes from Arizona into the area?

off topic, but how is living in Estes Park?

It only seems complicated in-so-far as ranchers who are making millions off running cattle at least partially on public lands are concerned they may take a 5% hit in their profits to the occasional cattle lost to wolves (which could be prevented by actually having staff following them vs just letting them roam).

Other than “but I want to make even more money” I haven’t heard a lot of arguments against.

This is wildly over-simplifying the issue. Obviously you'd not be ok with me releasing wolves into your back yard, the difference here is only one of population density. The issue has subtleties and soundbite reductiveness does nobody any favors.

I’d be perfectly fine with it, I would scare them off and that would be it. These aren’t grizzly bears. Wolves aren’t hunting humans unless they have literally no other options. I have no doubt they’d happily feast on deer vs finding out if the warning shot was a bluff.

We have wolves in my state. I’ve never once been concerned about my safety when it comes to wolves.

Plenty of ranches (privately owned) use livestock waste for farming and to improve the soil. You're arguing that we should allow wolves -- that the government introduces -- to wipe out the main component of their ranch (livestock). In my eyes that's an insane proposition and it directly benefits the big industrial operations that frequently compete with these newer styled ranches. In the end you'd have more run-off and more pollution and a lot more carbon because the soil would be shot (thanks to monocrop farming).

> to wipe out the main component of their ranch (livestock).

Wipe out??? Do you think they’re introducing 40k wolves or do you just have no idea how wolves work?

There is literally 0 chance the livestock is wiped out, even without any management by the government. And there will absolutely be management of the population.

Yep, also the free range and organic ranchers are the ones who are hardest hit, which makes it more expensive.

This issue is just way more complicated and nuanced than most people want to make it. As an environmentalist I have a natural reaction against the ranchers, but having dove into many of these types of issues, I've been amazed at the complexity and second, third, and fourth order impacts and unintended consequences. Hot takes on HN are aggravating to read for someone who is actually informed on this and other issues.

> to wipe out the main component of their ranch (livestock). In my eyes that's an insane proposition

In my eye this claim you’re making is more than insane. Wolves are not going to wipe out anything. We can spend time coming up with totally unsubstantiated imaginary scenarios like this but it’s not really helpful.

Wolves are extremely skittish animals who are only really willing to come near humans when they are desperate and starving. A few guard dogs and/or other commonly used approaches are perfectly sufficient to deter them in 99%+ cases

Please don't take HN threads into flamewar. The GP comment did a great job of avoiding this, which is what other commenters should do too.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note these:

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

> even stretching into Wyoming politics where hunters are using electronic calls to lure them back across the border for hunting

I wonder, in a Hannibal Lecter sort of way, what would be the essence of the mindsets of such hunters.

I’m not a hunter, but I can picture myself doing it. Hunting something I couldn’t eat does seem off though.

I've seen people go completely apeshit when elk hunting. It's just an awful selection cycle for people with low self esteem, rarity, FOMO, needing to prove something, and being far from consequences most of the time. Not all hunters are like this, but hunting naturally selects for people that are the most like that because it's the only blood sport left, really. And elk are the biggest thing. It's not unheard to pay $30,000+ for a "sure thing" bull elk hunt.

Most hunters are responsible and care deeply about wildlife imo

I'd agree but it's not like 99%/1%....more like 80%/20%. Bad encounters are basically gauranteed to happen if you hunt.

That’s fair and I’m sure that just a few can do a lot of damage

Trophy hunters are like stamp or coin collectors. They search and search for the rarest animal (record setting whitetail deer being the most common) to kill and hang in their wall. People don’t like it but that’s about what it is, rare collectibles.

"While I’ll leave my personal opinion out of it, I do want to add a couple of notes."

Do you believe that humans and (packs of) wolves can coexist in the same space ?

I am genuinely curious to hear what you think of an area inhabited by packs of wolves - would you engage in hiking/camping/recreation in that area after dark ?

I am in favor of wolf reintroduction, in general, and think it is a noble goal.

However, I believe that my support of wolf reintroduction is creating zones of non-habitation for humans. This is because my reading of the history of wolf/human interactions - throughout European and North American history - supports this very traditional view.

What worries me is that many people may not understand that their support of wolf reintroduction creates an exclusion zone for humans. Certainly after dark. It is possible that not everyone would accept that trade-off the way that I have.

> I am genuinely curious to hear what you think of an area inhabited by packs of wolves - would you engage in hiking/camping/recreation in that area after dark ?

My personal answer to this is yes - I have hiked / backcountry skied on multi-day tours in areas with active wolf populations. I also currently live in a small mountain town with an active mountain lion population that regularly makes its way through our roads and yards.

I am more concerned with people, moose, and avalanches than I am either of those two. Of course, not everyone is going to have those same views.

Same here. The notion of wolves as a safety issue has literally not occurred to me until this person asked. I'm very alert to grizzly, moose, and mountain lions. Is there evidence that I should add wolves to that list?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks

Attacks around the world: “Presumably a wolf ate a small boy, never to be seen from again”

Attacks in the US: “A wolf approached a hunter who shot it to death, no injuries.”

In all seriousness. I lived in Colorado for a long time as well. Up in the bowls of Silverthorne and Loveland. Boulder and the Estes Park region. Wolves will have the same safety precautions as bears, moose, and mountain lions. I’m more afraid of mountain lionesses than I am a wolf. At least with a wolf you’ll hear it coming.

Wolves seem somewhat scary in a different way in that they can work together. I just posted that link since someone asked. I would be inclined to guess this won't be a big issue while the numbers are relatively small and there is plenty of non human food for them.

For those that want to dig into these numbers more, there was a study completed by the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research on global wolf attacks between 2002–2020.

Here is an excerpt from the text regarding Yellowstone but there is a lot of good information so I suggest taking a peek if this interests you.

--- After many decades of absence wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park in 1995 and 1996. Wild Canadian wolves were used as the source, and animals were only exposed to minimal human contact before release. Since their release the population has rapidly expanded, and wolves have been surprisingly visible to tourists from the park’s road network. With over 4 million visitors a year the wolves of Yellowstone must be among the wolf populations in the world with the highest exposure to humans. Most wolves display a high degree of tolerance to humans, especially those on the road, but most do not approach people, and will keep a distance if people approach. Since reintroduction a total of 55 wolves have displayed behaviours that park authorities refer to as “habituated” (Anon 2003), implying that they approach people or do not move away when approached. Of these, 17 only displayed the behavior on a single occasion. 38 others were subject to hazing, or aversive conditioning, actions that ranged from loud noises to rubber bullets and cracker shells. In almost all cases this hazing changed the behavior of wolves such that problems ended. For two wolves however the park had to intervene and shoot them. Both appeared to have become food habituated, associating humans with food, with one wolf ripping open some hikers’ backpack to access food and another chasing a bicycle. Most of the wolves which needed hazing were yearlings, a life cycle stage when individuals are most prone to learning new habits. Despite the large wolf population and the huge numbers of visitors there have been no attacks on people (Smith et al. 2020). ---

REF: (PDF WARNING) https://y86aca.p3cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/20...

If you'd like to look up the PDF on your own, the title is "Wolf attacks on humans: an update for 2002–2020"

That would be a wonderful outcome, if so. We need to protect our ecosystems from humans if they're to survive.

However, it won't happen because of wolf attacks. The big bad wolf is a fairy tale... Moose are orders of magnitude more dangerous to humans than wolves, and their reintroduction in Colorado does not keep humans away from wild spaces.

In Montana, where this is a very hot issue, I have never heard of any concerns about the safety of humans around wolves, even from very vocal anti-wolf parties. The conflict arises from wolves' impact on our hunting and ranching interests. They also kill domestic dog breeds (coyotes do this as well).

FWIW, there are multiple wolf packs in Glacier National Park. There is mandatory grizzly safety education and you are required to carry bear spray when venturing into the backcountry. Nobody ever said a word about wolves.

Replace wolf with bear. Do you draw the same conclusions? This already exists in many places in North America.

I hike around mountain lions, bears (including grizzlies), venomous snakes, etc... I think this argument is compelling only to someone who doesn't go outdoors in the first place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com