Wolf attacks on humans: an update for 2002–2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linnell, J. D. C., Kovtun, E. & Rouart, I. 2021. Wolf attacks on humans: an update for 2002–2020. NINA Report 1944. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research.\nThe degree to which wolves pose a threat to human safety has been a central part of the public controversy surrounding wolf recovery in Europe for the last three decades. 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, but for the rest of Eurasia we have at best found a good sample of events, especially for the period after 2015. We identified relatively reliable cases involving 491 human victims. Of these 67 were victims of predatory attacks (9 fatal), 382 were victims of rabid attacks (14 fatal), and 42 were victims of provoked / defensive attacks (3 fatal). 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. In addition, we found an almost equal number of cases that we could not include because of poor documentation as well as cases that we could clearly reject based on evidence, for example where the attack was actually caused by dogs.\nThe distribution of attacks by rabid wolves closely follows the distribution of rabies cases in humans and other wildlife species. As such this represents a very low risk for Europe due to the near eradication of rabies. The predatory attacks had move diverse etiology. Some clusters, such as those from western Iran, appeared to be linked to landscapes with low wild prey density, high density of humans living in poor socio-economic conditions, and where livestock were the main prey of wolves. A single case appeared to be due to an injured wolf in poor health. A range of other cases though were associated with situations where wolves had been demonstrating fearless behaviour and had been utilising anthropogenic food sources over time before the attacks. Such cases represent a close parallel to the risk factors that are known from other large canids like coyotes in North America and dingoes in Australia. Finally, a single and well-documented fatal attack from Alaska involved a group of healthy wolves in an area with no previous history of fearless wolves or feeding.\nThere is an urgent need to learn more about the behaviour of “bold” or “fearless” wolves and understand at what point a harmless degree of habituation to humans (which is necessary to live in human-dominated landscapes) can lead to potentially dangerous behaviour. There is also a need to develop clear management procedures to both prevent dangerous situations from developing (i.e. feeding) and to react to such situations when they appear. Finally, there is a need for increased communication and awareness raising in this area, both to the public and to medical, veterinary and wildlife management institutions. As our understanding of wolf attacks increases there appears to be a high degree of convergence with the much better understood risks associated with bears, which allows for a more consistent multi-species communication strategy.\nWhile being aware of the potential risks associated with wolves it is also crucial to place this into context. In Europe and North America we only found evidence for 11 attacks, of which 2 (both in North America) were fatal, across a period of 18 years. Considering that there are close to 60.000 wolves in North America and 15.000 in Europe, all sharing space with hundreds of millions of people it is apparent that the risks associated with a wolf attack are above zero, but far too low to calculate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".