Wolf attack at Banff National Park, Alberta

Around 1:00 a.m. on August 9, Matt and Elisa Rispoli jol­ted awake when they felt the side of their tent move vi­ol­ently. Matt as­sumed it was a black bear so yelled and struck the tent where the an­im­al was push­ing on it. The an­im­al bit Matt’s hand and pro­ceed to tear open the tent. As their shel­ter col­lapsed around them, Elisa threw her­self over the New Jersey couple’s two young sons.

Through the new open­ing in the tent, Matt saw a wolf about a metre (three feet) away. Then it lunged at him, grabbing him by his up­per right arm. Matt, tried to punch the wolf in the throat but that didn’t de­ter it. As the wolf tugged the po­lice of­ficer out of the tent, his wife grabbed his leg and tried to pull him back.

The scream­ing woke up the Fees who were camp­ing nearby. Russ’s wife handed him a lan­tern and he sprin­ted to­ward the noise. The Calgary res­id­ent saw what looked like a large dog and us­ing the mo­mentum of his run, kicked it in the hindquar­ters. The an­im­al let go of Matt but didn’t leave.

With blood run­ning down his arm, Matt crawled out of the ruined tent, bran­dish­ing a tent pole. The two men threw rocks from the fire circle and yelled at the wolf un­til it backed off enough for the Rispole fam­ily and Russ and his wife to seek sanc­tu­ary in the Fee vehicle. The wolf fol­lowed Matt but the two men were able to keep it at bay.

Wolves are of­ten wary of people but can be curi­ous or even bold. They have entered tents — with and without people in them — but un­til this at­tack at Banff National Park, have al­ways been at­trac­ted to food or per­son­al be­long­ings of people — not the people them­selves. Although the wolf in this photo taken by Paul Sokoloff on Ellesmere Island did dam­age the tent, no people were injured.

Both fam­il­ies were badly shaken by the or­deal and Matt is re­cov­er­ing from bite marks and punc­ture wounds to his hand and arm. The next day a park em­ploy­ee found a wolf about a kilo­metre (half mile) from the at­tack site. When he got out of his vehicle the wolf ap­proached him and was shot and killed. DNA re­vealed it was the wolf that had at­tacked Matt.

Although wolves have at­tacked people in two Canadian pro­vin­cial parks and else­where in Canada, this is the first doc­u­mented wolf at­tack in a Canadian na­tion­al park. And the in­cid­ent has wild­life of­fi­cials some­what puzzled. There were no sig­ni­fic­ant at­tract­ants in or near the tent at the Rampart Creek Campground and no re­ports of a food-con­di­tioned or ha­bitu­ated wolf in the area, which are the primary cause of neg­at­ive human/​wolf in­ter­ac­tions in North America.

Results of a nec­ropsy de­scribed the con­di­tion of the wolf as old, ex­tremely ema­ci­ated (35 kg/​78 pounds) and with worn teeth. Unless fur­ther evid­ence of a conditioned/​habituated wolf comes to light, the mo­tiv­a­tion for this pred­at­ory at­tack ap­pears to be starvation.

The Rispoles and Fee did everything right. They made lots of noise, ag­gress­ively fought back and got to a safe place. Based on evid­ence avail­able at the time of this post­ing, this was an ex­tremely un­usu­al situ­ation that no one could have foreseen.

Two tools that may   have stopped the al­ter­ca­tion soon­er are bear spray and/​or a fixed blade knife. (It’s il­leg­al for any­one oth­er than staff to carry fire­arms in Banff National Park.)

There have been some com­plaints about the wolf be­ing shot. But, the real­ity is, the wolf would have been a danger to any hu­man it en­countered. And shoot­ing it meant a quick death, rather than a long, linger­ing one.

This un­for­tu­nate in­cid­ent is a good re­mind­er to be pre­pared when in wild areas and that wolves are large, strong pred­at­ors that can, on oc­ca­sion, be dan­ger­ous to humans.

 

Small but big difference between wolves and dogs

There are, of course, many dif­fer­ences between wolves and dogs. Some are cog­nit­ive, such as a wolf’s will­ing­ness to be trained, while oth­ers in­clude phys­ic­al traits such as the predator’s ex­traordin­ar­ily long legs and huge paws.

A lot of phys­ic­al char­ac­ter­ist­ics have been spe­cific­ally cul­tiv­ated in dogs to en­hance their ap­peal to hu­mans. For in­stance, many people are at­trac­ted to dogs with floppy ears and short muzzles so breed­ers have se­lect­ively en­cour­aged these traits. Wolves have these en­dear­ing fea­tures as pups but, as they ma­ture, their ears be­come erect and their snouts lengthen.

A re­cent study found an­oth­er small but sig­ni­fic­ant dif­fer­ence between wolves and some dogs – their eye­brow muscles.

Whether they own a dog or not, many people are fa­mil­i­ar with that sad sack stare some dogs seem to be able to sum­mon at will. This is the look guar­an­teed to tug firmly on the hu­man heartstrings. And to of­ten foster for­give­ness for any trans­gres­sions that may have occurred.

This im­plor­ing gaze is gen­er­ated by a dog’s abil­ity to move a prom­in­ent muscle that runs along the out­er edge of the eye up and inwards.

Dr. Juliane Kaminski, a psy­cho­lo­gist at the University of Portsmouth in England, dis­covered this while try­ing to un­der­stand why some dogs are ad­op­ted from an­im­al shel­ters soon­er than oth­ers. Apparently, it’s all in the eyes. Those who used their lev­at­or an­guli oculi me­dial­is muscle were first out the door to a new home.

Researchers then stud­ied the fa­cial mus­cu­lature of ca­da­vers of sev­er­al breeds of dogs, as well as those of wild grey wolves. They found a pro­nounced eye­brow muscle in all of the dogs but not the wolves.

This arc­tic beauty has a typ­ic­al wolfish gaze and no sign of sad sack eyes.

Unlike short snouts and floppy ears, the eye­brow muscle was not in­ten­tion­ally in­tro­duced by hu­mans but evolved nat­ur­ally over 20,000 years or more of the hu­man and dog relationship.

Kaminski, who has con­duc­ted sev­er­al stud­ies on the ways hu­mans and dogs com­mu­nic­ate, notes that eye­brows play an im­port­ant role in hu­man body lan­guage. And though it’s not known if dogs move their eye­brow muscle on pur­pose, the res­ult def­in­itely ap­pears to at­tract humans.

 

 

When wolves kill sheep

One morn­ing earli­er this month a Wisconsin farm­er dis­covered three dozen of his sheep had been at­tacked by wolves. Some were ly­ing in the pas­ture; oth­ers had been car­ried over the fence. Some were dead; some had to be euthanized.

Scenes like this aren’t un­usu­al when it comes to wolves and live­stock. Depending on the size of an op­er­a­tion, los­ing thirty an­im­als, half a dozen or even one can severely af­fect the profit mar­gin. Finding in­jured or dead an­im­als takes an emo­tion­al toll, too. There’s also the re­duced sale value of oth­er an­im­als due to stress-re­lated weight loss, the time spent treat­ing in­jured an­im­als, live­stock that don’t con­ceive or abort due to stress and so on.

Hunting is learned be­ha­viour for wolves. Killing live­stock is much easi­er than tak­ing down wild prey and once done, is likely to con­tin­ue. Sometimes guilty pack mem­bers can be des­troyed soon enough to pre­vent oth­er pack mem­bers from learn­ing bad habits but of­ten the en­tire pack needs to be destroyed.

The prob­lem is killing wolves doesn’t al­ways work. Killing one or both of the breed­ing pair of a pack can splinter the so­cial or­der, which may res­ult in more an­im­als breed­ing and lead to more wolves, not less. Eliminating the en­tire pack simply opens up the ter­rit­ory for a new one to move in.

And killing wolves is com­plic­ated or im­possible if a farm is loc­ated in areas where wolves are con­sidered en­dangered and are thus pro­tec­ted by le­gis­la­tion. But some farm­ers are suc­cess­fully rais­ing live­stock in wolf coun­try; they rarely have prob­lems but neigh­bour­ing ranches do.

A key ele­ment of their suc­cess ap­pears to be live­stock guard­i­an dogs (LGDs). But there needs to be enough of them and a vari­ety of breeds.

Liesl Lockhart, co-own­er of Candll Lamb & Cattle Co., raises sheep and cattle in north­ern Saskatchewan near Prince Albert National Park where wolves are pro­tec­ted. The Lockharts usu­ally have around el­ev­en LGDs, a mix of five breeds in­clud­ing Great Pyrenees, Kangals and Anatolian shepherds.

If a predator’s close, one dog will sound the alarm in the pas­ture,” Lockhart ex­plains. “The Pyrenees will gath­er the flock to­geth­er in a tight group. They’ll stay with the sheep and bark. Then there’s a staggered line of dogs mov­ing away from the sheep to cre­ate a buf­fer zone. The Kangals are the ones that go out the fur­thest and chase the predators.”

The Lockharts have lost LGDs to pred­at­ors, es­pe­cially in the be­gin­ning when they didn’t have as many dogs or breeds as they needed. As well as pur­chas­ing ad­di­tion­al LGDs, they began us­ing spike col­lars. These, they found, pro­tect the dogs from that of­ten fatal bite to the throat.

LGDs aren’t enough on their own; oth­er strategies are also re­quired. These can in­clude elec­tric fen­cing, fladry (red flag­ging) and noise makers like ra­di­os. Some ranches em­ploy old-fash­ioned range riders who keep the herd close to­geth­er and whose very pres­ence can de­ter a pred­at­or. Sometimes a gov­ern­ment agency will mon­it­or a collared wolf in a nearby pack and let a farm­er know when they need to step up their protection.

Louise Liebenberg and her hus­band raise sheep, cattle and horses on Grazerie, Canada’s first pred­at­or-friendly ranch. Liebenberg gives present­a­tions through­out North America and Europe on rais­ing LGDs and co-ex­ist­ing with wolves.

The ranch has lost one ewe and one calf to wolves over the last ten years, mostly due to a hu­man man­age­ment er­ror. Liebenberg usu­ally un­der­stands why an in­cid­ent has oc­curred and al­ters their man­age­ment plan to pre­vent it from hap­pen­ing again.

You can’t just use one man­age­ment sys­tem all the time due to ha­bitu­ation; you need to com­bine vari­ous meth­ods,” she says. In 2017, a wolf gave birth to sev­en pups in the middle of the farm. “It was very stress­ful and we had to be su­per vi­gil­ant un­til the fall when the pack moved on. Now I have to change my strategy to make sure that doesn’t hap­pen again.”

In Switzerland they have an emer­gency pro­gram to help farm­ers ex­per­i­en­cing prob­lems. A team of people show up with elec­tric fen­cing and LGDs and sup­port the farm­er un­til the wolves move on. They also teach the farm­er dif­fer­ent ways to pro­tect their livestock.”

As wolf pop­u­la­tions re­bound, many farm­ers are deal­ing with the pred­at­or after an ab­sence of 50 or 100 years. It’s a new era in live­stock pro­duc­tion that of­ten in­volves a steep learn­ing curve, as well as time and money to work out the kinks. Ranches that abut for­es­ted land will have more prob­lems and small op­er­a­tions will take a harder hit. As long as there are wolves, pred­a­tion will be a problem.

There’s no one solu­tion that fits all; each ranch needs a per­son­al­ized pred­a­tion pro­gram and must be pre­pared to modi­fy it over time. Fortunately, most, if not all can ob­tain fin­an­cial and/​or phys­ic­al sup­port from or­gan­iz­a­tions such as Defenders of Wildlife and the USDA Wildlife Services.

Photos cour­tesy Liesl Lockhart.

Wolves share more than dogs

When it comes to gen­er­os­ity, wolves win tales down. A sci­entif­ic study led by Rachel Dale, an­im­al be­ha­viour spe­cial­ist at the Wolf Science Center in Vienna, Austria, de­term­ined that wolves are more apt to provide treats for oth­er wolves than dogs are to oth­er dogs.

The Center hand-raises wolves and dogs and then con­ducts tests in­volving coöper­a­tion and cog­ni­tion in an ef­fort to un­der­stand the dif­fer­ences and com­mon­al­it­ies of the two species.

A re­cent study test­ing coöper­a­tion placed a wolf or a dog in a room with a touch screen con­tain­ing a couple of im­ages. Another wolf or dog was placed in an ad­ja­cent room that was vis­ible to the an­im­al be­ing tested.

When the test an­im­al pressed the “giv­ing” sym­bol, their part­ner in the oth­er room re­ceived a treat. Wolves nudged the sym­bol with their nose far more of­ten than the dogs.

As a con­trol, some­times the part­ner was placed in a room where it wouldn’t re­ceive a re­ward even if the giv­ing sym­bol was pushed. Wolves pressed the sym­bol less un­der those circumstances.

But they pressed the sym­bol even more if they knew the wolf in the ad­ja­cent room and saw it get a treat. Dogs were less gen­er­ous on all counts.

The res­ults of the study in­dic­ate that do­mest­ic­a­tion may have al­lowed dogs to lose their coöper­at­ive nature as they de­pend on hu­mans for food, not oth­er dogs.

Although the wolves used in the study are fed by hu­mans, their ge­net­ic makeup is much closer to that of wild wolves and they ap­pear to have re­tained their close bonds with and re­li­ance on pack mates for survival.

Photograph by Rooobert Bayer, Wolf Science Center, Austria