I posted this on the canadian Hunting forum but thought it could go here as well.


Wolf attack likely killed man, police say
Last Updated Nov 10 2005 01:34 PM CST
CBC News
It was likely wolves that killed an Ontario man in northern Saskatchewan earlier this week, the RCMP says.

The body of the 22-year-old man was found at Points North Landing near Wollaston Lake two days ago. The community is about 450 kilometres northeast of La Ronge.

An autopsy indicated he was likely killed by animals, according to RCMP spokesperson Heather Russell.

"All of the injuries discovered in the autopsy are consistent with animal bites. But you can't completely rule everything out until the investigation is complete," she said.

Russell said the autopsy hasn't confirmed what sort of animals attacked the man, but noted wolves have been sighted in the area and there were tracks – believed to be wolf tracks – around the body.

It was likely those animals that killed him, she said.

The RCMP haven't released the name of the victim. He was from Oshawa.

If it's confirmed that wolves killed the man, it would be the first time in recent history that's happened in North America.

A 2002 study of wolf attacks in Alaska and Canada done by the Alaska Fish and Game Department found no examples of human deaths attributed to wolf attacks for more than 100 years.

Wayne Galloway, a veteran outfitter in northern Saskatchewan, said he wouldn't be at all surprised if wolves attacked and killed a human.

He said in recent years, he's seen an increase in wolf numbers and a decrease in the wildlife they prey on.

"They're a predator and I guess if man happens to be something that they'll take a pass at, they'll do it," he said. "



..........

Earlier this year a worker at a mine in the area was attacked and bitten several times.

Very interesting article, Murf.

Keep in mind, however, that there are several documented cases in Alaska and Canada where wolves have attacked humans. I imagine that none have died to wolves, but some have been badly bitten, and the wolves have ran because they have been repelled by others near the person being attacked.

The Liberal Media likes to use the 100 year thing for wolves and bear attacks even though thing have changed dramatically in the last 10-15 years. It helps their averages. They define things as closely as possible as to no paint a bad picture of animals doing anything wrong. It is important that animals are afraid of humans other wise we are just a handy lunch if they want it.

Even if 1000 people die a year from wolves what's the point? Thousands die from flu, thousands die from cars, thousands die from smoking. (I smoke--this is not an anti-smoker "venting" ) When I hear stories like these I find that both sides of the wolf argument try to manipulate the point to their own advantage.

Interesting story but I don't think it is indicative of a trend one way or the other.

IV

Idaho Vandal,

I thinks its "Save a Mule Deer....Kill a Wolf.."

Unfortunately, whitetails may be more harmful to mule deer than wolves are (its a long story)......

Idaho the point is that just as with most of the false hoods put forth my the pro wolf growd.

That this is just one other of their lies are proven false.

Wolves were reduced in numbers by are fore fathers for good and vaild reasons.

They are not the good and freindly woodland critters the anti's would have you belive.

I guess if people are dumb enough to believe that wolves are "good and friendly woodland critters" than they deserve to be eaten by them. Our "forefathers" may have reduced them for "good reason" but I would prefer to have more wolves in the woods and (in turn) have fewer "bunnyhuggers" in the woods, and if the bunnyhuggers think the woves are good and friendly, maybe a few should get eaten. By extirpating wolves all were doing is taming the land and encouraging these dipshits to enter it unprepared......

IV