Skip to comments.Teen recovering after apparent wolf attack at northern Minnesota campground
Posted on 08/27/2013 5:08:29 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
Wildlife officials on Monday were investigating a reported wolf attack on a 16-year-old boy camping last weekend in northern Minnesota
The attack reportedly occurred early Saturday in a campground along the shore of Lake Winnibigoshish in the Chippewa National Forest.
The teen, who was sleeping at the time, suffered nonlife-threatening cuts to his head and puncture wounds to his face.
If confirmed, it would be the first documented wolf attack of such severity in Minnesota and likely in the continental U.S.
A wolf believed responsible for the attack was trapped overnight Sunday and destroyed Monday morning.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
My thought sexactly...lol
It wasn’t a wolf attack. It was a Miley Cyrus after-party.
Couldn't have been. His genitals were left intact.
” The officer fired at the wolf, but missed, and the wolf ran off.”
But, but, but, they got all that practice ammunition.
it’s still not a dog.
Did the wolf confess prior to his execution?
“first documented wolf attack of such severity”
I didn’t realize wolf attack stats were kept for different levels of severity ! How about the public being told about Each & Every wolf attack in CONUS?!?! And not just those that keep biologists happy by reintroducing these killers to the wild. There’s a reason that state and federal entities put a price on each wolf’s head in the early days. THIS IS WHY !
You're right...they're not. Wolves, especially the Canadian Gray variety we have here in Idaho, are the serial killers of the animal kingdom. Just last week, two...TWO...wolves killed 167 sheep in one night in Eastern Idaho. They partially ate one sheep, and killed the rest just for the hell of it, apparently. They've wiped out the elk here in Idaho, and are working on wiping out the deer and moose. They need to be re-eradicated.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
The two wolves killed about 10 sheep and ate one. The rest, mostly lambs, were suffocated or trampled trying to escape.
Agree with you, though, about allowing large killer animals to roam our country. California banned hunting of mountain lions and now all of our parks have huge signs warning against them. Hiking alone can be really scary here even though the chances of encountering a lion are very slim.
By definition, predators don't "wipe out" prey animals.
The elk population may have been artificially increased by the absence of predators, which human hunters obviously prefer. But the ecosystem is probably healthier as a whole with prey/predator balance in place.
Michael Crichton wrote some excellent stuff about our various and varied attempts to "manage" the ecosystem of Yellowstone over the last century+. Has not been pretty.
Provided, of course, the wolf didn't have rabies or some other lovely pathogen in its saliva...
Predators can eliminate the population of prey. But I am aware of the predator/prey cycles and how they are usually in a state of equilibrium. But that doesn't make it true 100% of the time.
That’s not a wolf attack, it’s acne.
Why do we still have such menacing beasts like wild wolves in our great country? Gotta be the EPA, PETA, NBA, or CNN. Liberal-vegan wolf hugging idiots.
Sorry, I should have said animal predators. Humans are different. And thinking about it even that isn’t accurate.
Introduced predators have indeed wiped out native species with no defenses many places around the world.
But I think what I said is almost always accurate for native predator/prey relationships.
There is a long-standing theory that humans wiped out most of the native mega-fauna of the Americans around 12000 years ago. I used to think this was ludicrous. Just too large an area and too many animals.
But read an article about a consistent trend. Humans reach Madagascar, Oz, New Zealand, etc. and within a century or two the megafauna disappear. Very consistent pattern. The Americas would just be the largest example.
Only exception is Africa/Eurasia, where the theory is that the megafauna co-evolved with modern humans and were therefore less vulnerable.
And what do you think the introduction of the large, pack-hunting, non-native wolf into Yellowstone was, other than "an attempt to manage"?
Since the advent of the Canadian wolf the Northern Yellowstone elk herd has been knocked down from nearly 20,000 elk to under 3,000, with the possibility of a complete collapse very possible, inasmuch as the wolves kill mostly the calves and cows first.
This has been a management process I wish every smug, self-important wolf advocate had been forced to watch in person.
Of course in recent years they have slaughtered great numbers of the bulls too by herding them into deep snow and running/bleeding them to death. Again, this is the kind of handiwork that a certain very special brand of predator/nature lover really ought to watch up close.
A herd of 20,000 rapidly approaching elimination. The rancher-hating, hunter-hating, human-hating enviromental left see this as great progress.
Obviously you do too.
I hate to burst your bubble about the eco system but the wolves that have been “re-introduced” to that area are not the indigenous wolves that used to live there. They are Canadian timberwolves. Huge animals up to 200 lbs and much more aggressive than the orginal gray wolf. They kill for sport not just to eat and they are wiping out the Elk herds bigtime. They are also killing hunting dogs and attacking people. They need to be removed.
He was “bored”.
I propose changing our local NBA team’s name lest it perpetuate more hate and violence.
Do you seriously believe wolves are not native to the Yellowstone ecosystem? They were reintroduced.
I’m no expert on the subject, but possibly somewhere around 3000 is the “natural” population of this herd, with normal predation. It is possible this number will rebound, as the elk adapt to the presence of wolves and become harder to find and kill. Eventually a balance is reached. The number of wolves in the park is already down by more than 50% from their peak.
I’m agnostic on whether this is progress or not. I do know it is “natural” for wolves to kill elk. You may prefer non-natural alternatives, and I might agree with you.
“Natural” isn’t always something we view as good. There is nothing more natural than dysentery bacteria killing people. But that we don’t like the results doesn’t make them any less natural.
The record Mackenzie Valley Wolf, the subspecies (re)introduced into Yellowstone, weighed 175 pounds. Males weigh from 120 to 170 pounds.
The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf subspecies, the one extirpated in the Yellowstone region, is on average somewhat smaller, weighing generally 75 to 135 pounds.
If they were available, I certainly think they should have reintroduced the original subspecies.
Non-native Canadian wolves were introduced into Yellowstone Park and the surrounding areas.
They are much larger, they pack hunt and like any excitable predator they will in large numbers kill in a frenzy.
Ranchers and older hunters will tell you that prior to this entire devastating debacle there were still Rocky Mountain gray wolves to be seen from the Yellowstone Park border all the way to the Canadian border.
The introduction of outside wolves was just another romantic, expensive, destructive, highly bureaucratized disaster from the federal government and its friends on the hard left.
Where on earth did you get the idea that 3,000 elk is the "natural" number of elk for the area? From the government? Did your government-provided info packet also tell you why federal, state and local authorities are now panicking, and are drastically increasing the hunting and trapping of wolves and, in Idaho, shooting wolves from aircraft and even (surreptitiously) poisoning them?
How does that fit into your concept of "natural" and, for that matter, of government expertise in this area?
Two points: One, I was in Montana at the very beginning, and listened to federal officials give their version of what was going to take place with the wolves, and also to the version predicted by the ranchers and hunters and outfitters on the ground.
One version was an out-and-out lie, and continues to be until this day. The other was dead (so to speak) on.
I will let you guess which was which.
Two, people like you, experts, opiners, "nature" lovers, government employees and pro-government "fixers," never want to talk about one crucial fact: PEOPLE LIVE HERE NOW. People live here in greater numbers than the "natural" days you so pine for.
With people here in the present numbers--and guess what? an unholy number of them are "nature" lovers just like you--the wildlife are going to have to be managed, just as they have been forever, in one way or another. And the management can be done wisely, or foolishly, politically and vindictively, as it is now.
As regards the question at hand, the choice is simple: you can either allow the wolves to kill off the region's elk, moose and bighorn sheep populations (as well as drive countless ranchers and outfitters out of business) or you can set about killing a hell of a bunch of wolves.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Six in one, half the other. The result is the same...a rancher is out 176 sheep because of two wolves. Had it not been for those two wolves, those sheep likely would not have died.
Whether our elk have been killed off or displaced, the result is the same...elk are getting scarce in Idaho, whereas once upon a time you drive almost any highway in the state and see them roaming up in the hills.
Wolf reintroduction has been a disaster for Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, and now they're spreading to Oregon, Washington, and even California. They need to be re-eradicated.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Here's another great website to open people's ignorant eyes about what Canadian Gray wolves are doing to Idaho's ungulate population, and what they're capable of doing wherever they spread to.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Your tax dollars at work. Now let’s re-introduce 19th Century buckskinners to the area.
First feeding, She’d have been back for more.