Yes and no. In Germany they have a county that at least helps to make the wolves fear people, by actively go after them with dogs, while in the Netherlands people are waiting for the first fatal victim before action will be taken, as currently the animal concerns outweigh those of people. For now, farmers have to pay the price; while they get a small compensation from most governments it will never offset the loss. So yeah, this is a heated topic.
Note: https://youtu.be/hmVowVaWUms about the German shepherd (in Dutch, but CC can help to understand). Just search on YouTube for Wolf Germany or Europe. And yes, the place I am from these wolves have started to enter urban areas (Veluwe).
Are you a farmer speaking out of experience? I can tell you from family that your perception is wrong.
This subsidizing is not a EU standard practice, and not for all sectors of agricultural development. This idea that subsidizing offsets the loss of livestock sounds weird to me, as is the risk of a human attack. Europe is far more densely populated than most other places that have to deal with bears, coyotes or so, plus... You are allowed to take precautions, that we are not; a spray might harm the animal.
The EU has a €300B program directly subsidizing farmers [0]. To quote the wiki page:
The [EAGF] consumes a large part of the general budget of the European Union.
Apparently the overarching CAP program consumes something like 30+% of the budget, so I'd love to know what you consider "heavily subsidized" if this doesn't merit.
Is this, however, because humans rarely encounter wolves? I can see wolves attacking a large man, but can see them picking a kid if he is walking alone to school.
We have a solar powered thermal local AI wolf detection system that’s been in a field in Belgium for more than 8 months now, monitoring the wolves there. Thermal image motion detection can detection them at much greater distances than PIR sensors and of course in complete darkness.
The biggest barrier at the moment to living with wolves, if you true away the human resistance to the idea, is reliable detection for early warning prevention.
This is not such a hard problem with computer vision at the level that it is these days. We’ve made it more effective by coupling it with thermal imaging camera modules.
Now we just need people willing to want to want to work with such pilot project, which turns out to be a pretty big problem.
However, it’s possible that a few influential success stories can bring change to the situation. But there has to be a start first and certainly when this started to be a problem, anything along the lines of prevention was seen as a barrier towards killing them which is what the solution in many people’s eyes is.
Cameras do not actively protect people or livestock, it just monitors and retroactively actions are taken. I prefer the German method where they make the wolves fear people.
That is a glorified trail camera, really does very little to help people live with wolves. What does is a strict hunting quota; the government decides how many wolves there should be, rather than nature.
And no, it's not a glorified trail camera. Very different.
Everyone wants to kill before trying measures to keep people and their animals apart.
I don't think you can say it does nothing to help people live with wolves because it's not being tried. It's not being tried, because people being convince the only thing that helps is killing everything that requires a bit of effort to live with. I realize it's very human to destroy and kill, but I think we should strive to do better.
Humans have already stolen so much from nature and the animals, don't you think a little effort to do better would be a good thing?
That's a fine attitude for squirrels which are ultimately harmless, but wolves can attack people, although that's somewhat rare, not like bears which attack you every time.
Wikipedia says wolves are more likely to attack humans if they've been living around humans for a while - they learn that humans are viable prey, not that humans are harmless.
Some years ago people also said “Japanese bears are harmless, shy and fear humans” and now the country is experiencing a slowly approaching bear-pocalypse, with bear attacks occurring in densely populated suburbs. I don’t see how wolves in Europe would be uniquely different if it follows the same trajectory.
It is the ignorance or pleasing all attitude in the government that creates these situations. In the Netherlands they have a minority coalition, so they hand the other smaller parties whatever they want to get their vote. And what happens, they allow wolves to attack livestock and pets, as free-roaming wolves are more important than people... Until the day comes that it's not the dog that gets attacked, but a little boy or girl while walking the dog. They have already started to enter the borders of a few cities in the area where I am from in the Netherlands. Rightfully so, German shepherds have mentioned: "we thought the Dutch were smarter", as they allow this to happen without measures in place.
Are you allowed to take precautionary actions, like a weapon or spray? As in Europe that is not even considered/disallowed for the safety of the animal.
I see those nearly daily. some of those are not that little. They've killed dogs and attacked humans. Government as usual does not give a flying fuck. Well I am pretty sure if one of them or their relative gets killed they would instantly declare a war against coyotes.
No, because predators follow exponential curves leading to prey collapses during winters where hungry animals will abandon shyness to hunt for humans in suburbs.
Wikipedia says wolves don't habitually attack humans but they will, and the more contact they have with humans, the more likely they are to attack them (they learn that humans are not wolf predators which makes them viable targets)
Oh there no denying that they are a threat to live stock that are not protected. And sometimes even when they, as the sometimes can get over fences.
In the Netherlands there are 14 wolf packs and 144 wolves in a geographical small area where the surrounding farms are often full of a lot sheep.
But it’s also easy to imagine that if you can become aware of the presents of wolves sufficiently early enough and reliably enough before they attack your animals then you have a chance to prevent an attack. And if you prevent enough attacks it becomes maybe harder than sticking to natural prey.
Wolves don't like taking risks. Interacting with humans is definitely risky. Detecting wolves reliably early and responding, either in person if that can be done quick enough, or setting off responses, ideally followed up by a human visit could well result in the wolves avoiding that farm in any case. The extend to which this can work in practice is something that needs to be determine through research and pilots. Wolves are very smart, so if tech is going to be able to help here, then the tech has to be very capable. The start with pilots and research two elements are needed. People with tech, but also people in the affected areas with a willingness to collaborate.
The current highly polarized environment is throwing road blocks against such collaboration.
The current situation is such that owners are unaware of the presence of wolves at their borders, so there is currently also not a lot of perceived risk associated with attacking live stock. A useful goal is to start to change that. And the people who read hacker news I'm sure that think of many ways to change the status quo. My system is one example.
Sadly, a lot time went by without trying these methods. None the less, one should try.
I the past I have offered free equipment to people to test who had been publicly expressing concern about the arrival of the wolf but they would not accept it.
> Are wolves even a threat? Outside of movies theyre pretty harmless.
Are you kidding? Humans often had a fear of wolves throughout history. And rightfully so.
But the reverse is also true. Hence wolves tend to stay away from people so encounters are rare. But where not, human-wolf close encounters can end deadly sometimes. Even for the humans (especially children).
1. Wolves were basically exterminated in the continental US for most of the 20th century
2. There were still deaths from wolf attacks in North America during that time
What are you talking about? There's tons of wolves in my county. They aren't 'basically exterminated' at all. And there's zero human attacks. Lots and lots of cow attacks though.
Yellowstone park rangers killed the last wolves there in 1926, and by the middle of the 20th century, the total population in the Lower 48 had been reduced to a few hundred in Minnesota and Michigan.
Wikipedia suggests hundreds of deaths in various regions around the world - more common in the past, which suggests, I think, more wolves = more deaths.
Yes and no. In Germany they have a county that at least helps to make the wolves fear people, by actively go after them with dogs, while in the Netherlands people are waiting for the first fatal victim before action will be taken, as currently the animal concerns outweigh those of people. For now, farmers have to pay the price; while they get a small compensation from most governments it will never offset the loss. So yeah, this is a heated topic.
Note: https://youtu.be/hmVowVaWUms about the German shepherd (in Dutch, but CC can help to understand). Just search on YouTube for Wolf Germany or Europe. And yes, the place I am from these wolves have started to enter urban areas (Veluwe).
A healthy, non-rabid wolf killing a human is way less likely than being killed by a lightning strike.
Farmers are also heavily subsidized in Europe.
Are you a farmer speaking out of experience? I can tell you from family that your perception is wrong.
This subsidizing is not a EU standard practice, and not for all sectors of agricultural development. This idea that subsidizing offsets the loss of livestock sounds weird to me, as is the risk of a human attack. Europe is far more densely populated than most other places that have to deal with bears, coyotes or so, plus... You are allowed to take precautions, that we are not; a spray might harm the animal.
The EU has a €300B program directly subsidizing farmers [0]. To quote the wiki page:
Apparently the overarching CAP program consumes something like 30+% of the budget, so I'd love to know what you consider "heavily subsidized" if this doesn't merit.[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Agricultural_Guarante...
Is this, however, because humans rarely encounter wolves? I can see wolves attacking a large man, but can see them picking a kid if he is walking alone to school.
Never fear. We have the technology to help people live with wolves.
https://wildlifesecurityinnovations.com/projects/wolves-belg...
With the most wolf videos here.
https://youtube.com/@hcftube1
We have a solar powered thermal local AI wolf detection system that’s been in a field in Belgium for more than 8 months now, monitoring the wolves there. Thermal image motion detection can detection them at much greater distances than PIR sensors and of course in complete darkness.
The biggest barrier at the moment to living with wolves, if you true away the human resistance to the idea, is reliable detection for early warning prevention.
This is not such a hard problem with computer vision at the level that it is these days. We’ve made it more effective by coupling it with thermal imaging camera modules.
Now we just need people willing to want to want to work with such pilot project, which turns out to be a pretty big problem.
However, it’s possible that a few influential success stories can bring change to the situation. But there has to be a start first and certainly when this started to be a problem, anything along the lines of prevention was seen as a barrier towards killing them which is what the solution in many people’s eyes is.
Cameras do not actively protect people or livestock, it just monitors and retroactively actions are taken. I prefer the German method where they make the wolves fear people.
https://youtu.be/hmVowVaWUms
That is a glorified trail camera, really does very little to help people live with wolves. What does is a strict hunting quota; the government decides how many wolves there should be, rather than nature.
There's the killing again.
And no, it's not a glorified trail camera. Very different.
Everyone wants to kill before trying measures to keep people and their animals apart.
I don't think you can say it does nothing to help people live with wolves because it's not being tried. It's not being tried, because people being convince the only thing that helps is killing everything that requires a bit of effort to live with. I realize it's very human to destroy and kill, but I think we should strive to do better.
Humans have already stolen so much from nature and the animals, don't you think a little effort to do better would be a good thing?
> There's the killing again.
Do you not understand how ecosystems work? Or how populations of predator/prey are in various (usually) oscillatory states?
> Humans have already stolen so much from nature and the animals
I'm confused, are you saying humans are somehow not part of nature?
A lot of people are like that when dealing with nature. Oh I don't want squirrels in my backyard, let me put some poison...
We really don't deserve a place on this planet
That's a fine attitude for squirrels which are ultimately harmless, but wolves can attack people, although that's somewhat rare, not like bears which attack you every time.
Wikipedia says wolves are more likely to attack humans if they've been living around humans for a while - they learn that humans are viable prey, not that humans are harmless.
same with mosquitoes, let's just spray or fog and kill all the other bugs too... including ones that kill mosquitos
I’ll argue mozzies are responsible for more suffering than humans any day of the week. They need to go. Lets just get our targeting good enough.
... What do you think wolves do all day?
Some years ago people also said “Japanese bears are harmless, shy and fear humans” and now the country is experiencing a slowly approaching bear-pocalypse, with bear attacks occurring in densely populated suburbs. I don’t see how wolves in Europe would be uniquely different if it follows the same trajectory.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj41vn9q81ko
It is the ignorance or pleasing all attitude in the government that creates these situations. In the Netherlands they have a minority coalition, so they hand the other smaller parties whatever they want to get their vote. And what happens, they allow wolves to attack livestock and pets, as free-roaming wolves are more important than people... Until the day comes that it's not the dog that gets attacked, but a little boy or girl while walking the dog. They have already started to enter the borders of a few cities in the area where I am from in the Netherlands. Rightfully so, German shepherds have mentioned: "we thought the Dutch were smarter", as they allow this to happen without measures in place.
And in Canada we've been having a moment with wolves littler cousin:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/child-bit-coyote-whit...
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/orleans-park-closed-coyote-at...
Are you allowed to take precautionary actions, like a weapon or spray? As in Europe that is not even considered/disallowed for the safety of the animal.
I see those nearly daily. some of those are not that little. They've killed dogs and attacked humans. Government as usual does not give a flying fuck. Well I am pretty sure if one of them or their relative gets killed they would instantly declare a war against coyotes.
No, because predators follow exponential curves leading to prey collapses during winters where hungry animals will abandon shyness to hunt for humans in suburbs.
I live in an extremely rural county. There are plenty of wolves here. None of them hunt for humans. Ever.
Wikipedia says wolves don't habitually attack humans but they will, and the more contact they have with humans, the more likely they are to attack them (they learn that humans are not wolf predators which makes them viable targets)
outside of nature preserves, all species that threaten humans should be exterminated with extreme prejudice.
Start with humans
If they keep writing articles about this, eventually nobody will believe them.
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
Highly recommend the book 'Of Wolves and Men' by Barry Lopez
Are wolves even a threat? Outside of movies theyre pretty harmless.
Oh there no denying that they are a threat to live stock that are not protected. And sometimes even when they, as the sometimes can get over fences.
In the Netherlands there are 14 wolf packs and 144 wolves in a geographical small area where the surrounding farms are often full of a lot sheep.
But it’s also easy to imagine that if you can become aware of the presents of wolves sufficiently early enough and reliably enough before they attack your animals then you have a chance to prevent an attack. And if you prevent enough attacks it becomes maybe harder than sticking to natural prey.
Wolves don't like taking risks. Interacting with humans is definitely risky. Detecting wolves reliably early and responding, either in person if that can be done quick enough, or setting off responses, ideally followed up by a human visit could well result in the wolves avoiding that farm in any case. The extend to which this can work in practice is something that needs to be determine through research and pilots. Wolves are very smart, so if tech is going to be able to help here, then the tech has to be very capable. The start with pilots and research two elements are needed. People with tech, but also people in the affected areas with a willingness to collaborate.
The current highly polarized environment is throwing road blocks against such collaboration.
The current situation is such that owners are unaware of the presence of wolves at their borders, so there is currently also not a lot of perceived risk associated with attacking live stock. A useful goal is to start to change that. And the people who read hacker news I'm sure that think of many ways to change the status quo. My system is one example.
Sadly, a lot time went by without trying these methods. None the less, one should try.
I the past I have offered free equipment to people to test who had been publicly expressing concern about the arrival of the wolf but they would not accept it.
But maybe that can still change.
My system has on two occasions alerted my wolves showing an interest in a field of horses instead of just travelling by.
Both times I alerted the farmer who went out in his car and then a little while later they dispersed.
My grandmother would tell me how her mom was terrified of wolves in her small village. It was a true problem back in the day
> Are wolves even a threat? Outside of movies theyre pretty harmless.
Are you kidding? Humans often had a fear of wolves throughout history. And rightfully so.
But the reverse is also true. Hence wolves tend to stay away from people so encounters are rare. But where not, human-wolf close encounters can end deadly sometimes. Even for the humans (especially children).
Looks like zero documented death by wolves in the entirety of the 20th century in the contiguous North America.
1. Wolves were basically exterminated in the continental US for most of the 20th century 2. There were still deaths from wolf attacks in North America during that time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks_in_North_...
What are you talking about? There's tons of wolves in my county. They aren't 'basically exterminated' at all. And there's zero human attacks. Lots and lots of cow attacks though.
Yellowstone park rangers killed the last wolves there in 1926, and by the middle of the 20th century, the total population in the Lower 48 had been reduced to a few hundred in Minnesota and Michigan.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/wolf-managemen...
This map shows how now there are nearly 7,000 in the contiguous states of the USA:
https://nywolf.org/learn/u-s-wolf-populations/
Wikipedia suggests hundreds of deaths in various regions around the world - more common in the past, which suggests, I think, more wolves = more deaths.