January 27, 2012 in Outdoors, Idaho

State biologist dreads Hollywood portrayal of wolves

Attacks on humans, implied in movie’s trailers, extremely rare

Becky Kramer The Spokesman-Review

Tags:Gary Wilesgray wolvesLiam NeesonThe GreyWashington Department of Fish and Wildlifewolf attackswolf management

Associated Press photo

From left, Dallas Roberts, Dermot Mulroney and Liam Neeson perform in a scene from “The Grey.”
(Full-size photo)

Inside

• Reviews of “The Grey” and other weekend releases can be found in in today’s 7 section.

Wolf attacks

Since 1950, wolves are known to have killed nine people in Europe, which is home to 10,000 to 20,000 wolves, and eight people in Russia, which has about 40,000 wolves. Human deaths have also been reported in India, where wild prey is scarce and livestock is heavily guarded. In North America, home to about 60,000 wolves, two human deaths have been attributed to wolves in the past 60 years.

• More information on human-wolf encounters is available in Washington’s Wolf Management and Conservation Plan (Chapter 7) at

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/ mgmt_plan_process.html

Wolves are coming to the big screen today in “The Grey,” a man-versus-beast thriller starring Liam Neeson.

When their plane crashes in Alaska’s frozen wilderness, a bunch of oil-field roughnecks fight for survival. Not only do the men combat cold and hunger, they’re stalked by a wolf pack.

Film previews feature eerie howls and shots of feral eyes glinting in the darkness. When carnage ensues in this R-rated film, the wolves are usually the winners.

But the movie’s portrayal of wolves as man-eaters dismays Gary Wiles.

“My first reaction was, ‘Oh, no!’ ” said Wiles, a wildlife biologist for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. “It looks totally like a Hollywood-contrived movie: something to strike at people’s basic fears.”

Based on what he’s seen in movie trailers, Wiles describes wolf behavior in the film as “pretty far-fetched.”

Despite the presence of 60,000 wolves in North America, only two human deaths from wolves have been documented in the past 60 years.

One person was killed in Saskatchewan in 2007; the other death occurred in Alaska in 2010. The Saskatchewan death involved wolves that had become habituated to people.

“The facts are so much different than what I suspect is portrayed in the movie,” said Wiles, who helped write Washington’s recently adopted wolf management and conservation plan. “I always say show me the evidence that people are being attacked.”

Washington is home to at least 27 wolves, including three successful breeding pairs. The wolf management plan calls for a minimum of 15 breeding packs throughout the state.

Wiles authored the plan’s chapter titled “Wolf-Human Interactions.” Wolves usually avoid people, he said, noting that no attacks on people have been reported in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming since wolves were reintroduced to the Northern Rockies.

But it’s a different story for domestic dogs. Wiles encourages people hiking with dogs to keep them on a leash and to be especially alert when they’re in the territory of a wolf pack. Wolves have killed at least 144 dogs in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming since 1987. Nearly all of the dogs were running loose when they were attacked.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Joe Carnahan, director of “The Grey,” said he wasn’t trying to demonize wolves or portray them as vicious killers.

“I never intended (the wolves) to be the aggressor; I look at them as defenders,” he said. “I think these guys are in a very territorially sensitive place. (The humans) were trespassing and intruders.”

“The Grey” opens today at Regal NorthTown Mall, according to movie website Fandango. Wiles, who works out of Fish and Wildlife’s Olympia office, doesn’t plan to see the film. As a matter of principle, he boycotts wildlife horror flicks. “Anything that makes wildlife look far worse than they really are, I avoid,” Wiles said.

18 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

Newbie on January 27 at 3:32 a.m.
I was an Assistant Director of an animal shelter in another state—there are far worse animals in our world than wolves in their natural habitat! We all know these other animals as “humans”.
MrBloggy on January 27 at 6:21 a.m.
The mighty Idaho Gray Wolf is our spirit-brother
he admonishes those who would create fear
distrust and create riches from lies
he thanks the dog owners who
give up their pets as edible blessings
to him and his pack
they are tasty!
kbonds on January 27 at 9:07 a.m.
It’s Hollywood. Get over it. If you read too much into peoples (imaginations) especially in film, your going to waste your time fighting for something thats really nothing.
Note_to_Self on January 27 at 10:39 a.m.
Hollywood has become so un-original. Remember the movie “The Edge” with Anthony Hopkins? Plane crashes in the Alaska wilderness, bunch of guys fight for survival while being stalked by a Grizzly Bear. Yawn!
RedCedar on January 27 at 10:39 a.m.
Exactly. Hollywood thrives on stereotypes, exaggerations, impossibilities, and general made-up stuff. We go to movies to see things that would never happen in real life. Nobody watched “Jaws” to learn about the actual biology and habits of sharks, any more than they learned about whales from “Moby Dick”. So what if wolves are as inaccurately represented in this movie as they are in Little Red Riding Hood?
It sounds like wolves are in this movie as one of the decorations that makes the scary wilderness scene scary. If the movie was set in the tropics, they’d probably have snakes, giant spiders, and maybe a tiger, all portrayed inaccurately as well.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on January 27 at 11:10 a.m.
Ahhh, leave it to the crazies on the right to try and bring Obama into this and make it political…..1111, just stop it.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on January 27 at 12:47 p.m.
HAHAHA…..yeah, again, this article has NOTHING to do with Obama and you are trying to bring politics into this, all I am saying is stop it and instead you now try to argue with me by attacking my screen name?
Dude, seriously, grow up, I think your diaper needs changing.
If you want to continue arguing about this, fine, go ahead, but I am done replying to idiots like just trying to pick fights about nothing.
Cheers!
detroitdude on January 27 at 1:06 p.m.
This article is dumb. It’s a movie, the wolves will not be shown in a realistic light, just as humans are not shown in a realistic light in most big budget films.
“It looks totally like a Hollywood-contrived movie: something to strike at people’s basic fears.”
That’s exactly why people go to scary movie lol. I can’t see anyone watching this and going batsh*t or developing an unnatural fear of wolves.
BrianDC on January 27 at 1:25 p.m.
Why is the Spokesman Review trying to pursuade its readers with an opinion regarding wolves (or her company’s opinion). They are a vicious and ALWAYS violent animal. When wolves need to eat, the intent is always to kill. When working in packs, it is almost always fatal. When unarmed humans are involved, the result is no different. It would have to be one of the worst ways to die for beast or person. This is all fact, why try to slant it.
Does anybody else find the humor of this article. Biased reporting (again). Opinionated pursuasion (again). Not reporting both sides (again). Trying to substantiate their position by quoting a person with a similar opinion like the state biologist (again). Come on editors … the readers in Spokane challenge you to release some quality reporting for once.
Loudin on January 27 at 3:25 p.m.
Brian,
Nobody has gun to your head…if you dislike the S/R, don’t read it.
BTW: You gripe about bias and then you go on a biased tangent about wolves killing humans. You are the thing you hate (not the wolves, the S/R).
Move on, bro!
Loudin
PS: Let me guess…North Idaho resident w/persecution issues?
tunnelman on January 27 at 3:36 p.m.
Uh-oh! It’s that darn liberal media again. We all know that the Spokesman is widely known to be at the hub of the liberal, socialist, animal and tree hugging movements.
I am so grateful that this article was released. For once we get to hear someone speak publicly on the wolf “issue” from a purely scientific angle. The myth about the wolf being this demon beast who hides in bushes, waiting to devour your toddler is exactly what biologists like Wiles are trying to dismiss.
There’s nothing partisan about this article. He is speaking strictly from a scientific viewpoint — which is derived through research, collecting data, etc…
I guess those who disagree with this article would rather see more anecdotes or stories that some guy heard from some other guy…aka: myths that are impossible to back up with objectively-rendered facts….
RedCedar on January 27 at 4:47 p.m.
Using a low-budget adventure movie as an excuse to argue for or against wolves is like using King Kong as an excuse to argue about gorillas.
REDDOG1984 on January 27 at 4:52 p.m.
If a person should encounter a wolf in the wild, here are some basic survival techniques.
#1. Pat the wolf gently but firmly on the top of its head.
#2. Feed the wolf any tasty snacks that you may have on hand.
#3. Engage the wolf in a friendly game of “fetch the stick”.
#4. Give the wolf self affirming praise by saying “Nice doggie”
If none of these proven tactics appear to be working, run like hell. Remember you don’t have to outrun the wolf, just the other members of your expedition.
rrslack48 on January 27 at 5:04 p.m.
Well, it’s a wonderful thing to have someone who is in the scientific field speaking out about the in-accurices of this movie ! Only thing is I wish he would join us in requiring the director, and producers to insert a disclaimer that this mivie is based in fiction and not fact ! And to Louden ! Great reply to brians ignorance and sheer stupidity ! You Rock !!!!!
sebek556 on January 27 at 9:47 p.m.
I do not see what the problem is with this movie at all. According to the biologist and wolf people “Wolves will only attack sick or injured prey” these guys were in a plane crash so they fit into that catagory just fine.
ljiminimc on January 29 at 7:59 a.m.
This biologist decries the depiction of the “bad” wolf but then goes on to say that “human habituation” caused the death of a Canadian man. Does he not understand that as the wolf population grows that there will be more incidents of “habituation”?
And why does he not decrie the movies that portray the wolves as a friendly cuddly type of hero animal?
TLMule on February 02 at 11:18 a.m.
Where were the biologist critics when “Alpha and Omega” came out? Talk about inaccurate wolf behavior - but that was OK as it portrayed wolves as cute to children. And of course they will deny that people get attacked by wolves - ignoring the recent attacks on people in Tajikistan.
Tajik Granny Escapes Wolf’s Jaws
http://www.rferl.org/content/tajikistan_wolf_attacks/24457676.html
People have been stalked and prey tested by habituated wolves in Idaho - but the new biologists deny and ignore those reports too. Read the McNay report out of Alaska on habituated wolves:
http://www.wildsentry.org/Images/Wolf-Human%20Encounters%20in%20Alaska.pdf
Wolves belong in the wilderness, but not where people live.
earful on February 05 at 7:12 p.m.
Wolf territory? It’s called Alaska and if the big bad wants to wage a war we’d win. Wolves have nothing on the books to defend; goes for all you other aggressor/defender type animals.