Colorado Wolves Reintroduction

[supranihilest]

Pictures of disemboweled bovine. So hot right now.

I like this quote:

"According to the latest research, which studied worldwide data from 2002 to 2020, the risks associated with a wolf attack are “above zero, but far too low to calculate.” "

https://wolf.org/wolf-info/factsvsficti ... to-humans/

So sorta along the lines of winning the lottery. Ain't gonna happen.

This statistics is for sparsely populated area (Alaska - 773k spread over a huge territory). Now we're talking about Colorado - nearly 6 mln people crammed into what looks like a suburban sprawl between Denver and Vail, with a bunch of ski towns.
p.s. you kinda defying your nickname by being so brave on the wolves issue.

Dawg, the quoted excerpt is literally one sentence and states that the research "studied worldwide data". I'll give you a couple of additional hints from the abstract of the research paper:

This report seeks to update our knowledge for the period 2002 to 2020. We searched the peer-reviewed literature, technical reports, online news media sources and contacted regional experts to gather as much information as possible. Our coverage for Europe and North America is likely to be high

and

Attacks were found in Canada, USA, Croatia, Poland, Italy, Iran, Iraq, Israel, India, Kirgizstan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Russia, Mongolia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and Saudi Arabia.

That's where the researchers found credible attacks and is not an exhaustive list of places they looked. Either way, the statistics are for far more than Alaska and in places far more highly and densely populated than Alaska and the numbers are still extremely low.

[Jorts]

I've heard that wolves will kick rocks down on climbers, gnaw through ropes, and enter deceptively positive trailhead and condition reports.

Deceptively positive trailhead and condition reports are the worst. This puts me firmly in the anti-wolf camp. And the howling after sundown has to stop.

[SkaredShtles]

That's where the researchers found credible attacks and is not an exhaustive list of places they looked. Either way, the statistics are for far more than Alaska and in places far more highly and densely populated than Alaska and the numbers are still extremely low.

Bottom line: you don't need to worry about being attacked by wolves. Here or anywhere else.

[SkaredShtles]

lol I always read that username as, "Shared Skittles".

You're not the only one.

[SnowAlien]

There is definitely some irony to discussing the risks of wolves on a forum about inherently risky activities. Surely wolves aren't the thing tipping the risk scale.

Humans are notoriously bad at estimating risks. The same people who support wolf reintroduction were the exact same people who cried wolf about Covid, wore masks outdoors for years and took 2-3 experimental "safe and effective" shots, while vilifying the rest of us who didn't. Nobody ever admitted anything wrong with their approach or apologized. Same herd mentality is at play here, and they still believe turning up the screaming volume would do the trick here?
Which leads me to believe wolf issue is just *thinking* (or whatever passes for it nowadays) across the ideological lines and regurgitation of the talking points they picked up elsewhere, without giving it much thought.

[HikerGuy]

Which leads me to believe wolf issue is just *thinking* (or whatever passes for it nowadays) across the ideological lines and regurgitation of the talking points they picked up elsewhere, without giving it much thought.

This belongs on r/SelfAwarewolves, haha.

[SkaredShtles]

There is definitely some irony to discussing the risks of wolves on a forum about inherently risky activities. Surely wolves aren't the thing tipping the risk scale.

Humans are notoriously bad at estimating risks.

The irony of your post is absolutely mind-numbing.

[supranihilest]

There is definitely some irony to discussing the risks of wolves on a forum about inherently risky activities. Surely wolves aren't the thing tipping the risk scale.

Humans are notoriously bad at estimating risks. The same people who support wolf reintroduction were the exact same people who cried wolf about Covid, wore masks outdoors for years and took 2-3 experimental "safe and effective" shots, while vilifying the rest of us who didn't. Nobody ever admitted anything wrong with their approach or apologized. Same herd mentality is at play here, and they still believe turning up the screaming volume would do the trick here?
Which leads me to believe wolf issue is just *thinking* (or whatever passes for it nowadays) across the ideological lines and regurgitation of the talking points they picked up elsewhere, without giving it much thought.

lol

[mtree]

Humans are notoriously bad at estimating risks. The same people who support wolf reintroduction were the exact same people who cried wolf about Covid, wore masks outdoors for years and took 2-3 experimental "safe and effective" shots, while vilifying the rest of us who didn't. Nobody ever admitted anything wrong with their approach or apologized. Same herd mentality is at play here, and they still believe turning up the screaming volume would do the trick here?
Which leads me to believe wolf issue is just *thinking* (or whatever passes for it nowadays) across the ideological lines and regurgitation of the talking points they picked up elsewhere, without giving it much thought.

I swear I read this somewhere before.

[two lunches]

i can no longer tell who is being serious and who is trolling

carry on

[Istoodupthere]

What a world we currently live in. People have their beliefs and any other opinion that is even slightly different is laughed off or sarcasm is used to belittle the opposing person. Classy stuff

[gb]

There is definitely some irony to discussing the risks of wolves on a forum about inherently risky activities. Surely wolves aren't the thing tipping the risk scale.

Humans are notoriously bad at estimating risks.

The irony of your post is absolutely mind-numbing.

11/10 on the irony scale