Wolf Hysteria
Wolf Headline Shamelessly Preys On Our Own Voyeurism
By Todd Wilkinson, 1-02-06
 | |
|
If there's one thing that readers don't know about journalists, it's that all of us lament the people who write headlines for our stories. You have no idea how much grief we get for the wordsmiths who come up with a teasing sparseness of words to entice readers to read our stories.
The problem is that many readers base their opinions of contemporary events only on a brief perusal of headlines that sometimes lead them to false conclusions. The journalists themselves weren't responsible. Still, we get the blame and we have to answer for it.
In its New Years' eve edition, in a headline on the front page at the top of the fold, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle used a tabloid technique to tell of a wolf in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan killing a human, 22-year-old Kenton Joel Carnegie. Reportedly, it was the first wolf kill of a human in North America (a claim that sounds dubious). It provides yet another reminder that language matters. What role does a newspaper have in not pandering to hysteria?
The headline read: "Wolf May Have Killed Man In Canada." Straightforward enough.
Yes, it was true, but the attack was more than two months old and it was announced in a press release from the International Wolf Center that issued a statement for the sole purpose of preventing hysteria, not inflaming it. The animals that attacked and killed the human were not purely wild wolves but animals habituated to human food, which makes them slightly less than wild. How many habituated wild animals similarly attack people each year (ranging from chipmunks to charismatic megafauna)? I bet it's in the hundreds, if not thousands, at least. How many people are attacked by domestic dogs?
In the Bozeman Chronicle story written by reporter Scott McMillion, his lead paragraph did little to tone down what the headline implied ... that wolves in general now pose a threat to human safety. McMillion even went a step further in drawing a frightening analogy to sharks.
"As if there weren't enough reasons to take proper care of your garbage and camp food, here's another one: failure to do so could chum a wolf to your door," McMillion wrote.
Yes, connect the dots: Food in Camp. Wolves In the Area. No, Make That Bloodthirsty Wolves In the Area. Add to That Theme Music From Jaws. Image of Innocent Children Gathered Around Campfire With GameBoys. Wolves Getting Closer. Clicking Their Fangs. Growling Like Werewolf. Striking Terror. These Servants of Satan. Now Let's See If You Come To The Same Conclusion We At The Chronicle Do: Campers Having Food In Camp Plus Wolves Could Equal Possible Death.
Although the story went on to accurately state what most people already know, that wolf attacks on people are extremely, extremely rare and that those rare events usually occur as a result of lobos being habituated to human food and losing their fear of people, the damage was done in time for it to become cocktail chatter as we enter 2006. At least the story quoted the statement made by eminent wolf expert L. David Mech in the Wolf Center's press release: "Fatal wolf attacks have always been, and will continue to be, extraordinarily rare events," Mech noted. "Mr. Carnegie's death is a terrible tragedy, but one fatal wolf attack in the recorded history of North America does not warrant widespread alarm." The story included the fact: "Researchers have documented 26 wolf attacks in North America. None of them were fatal, and in 21 of those cases, wolves had been obtaining human food. All but five of those attacks occurred since 1970."
Still, the Chronicle had set up a frightening straw man, so that the reporter could then devote space to interviewing a representative from the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department downplaying the threat and creating news where none had existed previously in saying that there hasn't been any reports of wolves hanging around Montana campgrounds threatening people.
Fffeewww. What a relief.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
I keep track of the Canadian press and I read about this attack in Ontario after it happened. Regarding this attack, aside from the problem of habituated wildlife, I wonder whether these particular wolves were wolf-dog hybrids. I have spent considerable time around wild wolves over the last decade and I find the particular facts of this case more reflective of feral dogs than wild wolves, even wolves that might be habituated. The press hasn't attempted to track down this possibility.
Where the story was placed in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, how it was headlined and how it was written was intended to make a cheap sensationalistic splash. I'm sure it did.
Wolves get a needlessly bad rap. They deserve better from the media. Journalists seldom get challenged unless it comes from within our own ranks. I responded to this story because I believe it warranted a reply.
As a Minnesotan (and as a fur trapper as a teenager who checked my traps before school each morning and after hockey practice at night on snowmobile), I lived in a state where wolves were in our backyards. They've bounced back, the deer population (which they prey upon) is generally thriving, and there is not nearly the level of hysteria back there that there is out here. A curious thing I want to explore.
It's interesting but frankly I would have thought there might be more wolf attacks on people than the number reported in the Chronicle story. Certainly those of us who follow wolf-related issues and write about them, have been waiting for the day when someone got killed (though I'm sure that, too, has already happened several times if we go back millennia with native Americans). Of course the worst hysteria will rise when it's a young child who gets attacked and that day, too, will come. It's inevitable. Why? Not because wolves are predisposed to attack humans or are rapidly evolving to look upon people as prey but we are a prolific species and we're going to have encounters. The same with grizzlies and cougars.
The real question for society is what are we going to do about it in response? Do we sanitize the wildland-urban interface (which we are creating through our own invasion of predator range) of wolves, grizzlies and mountain lions? Or do we take a step back, breathe in a deep breath and calmly look at the evidence, concluding that such attacks are so rare as to be fluky? Our ancestors chose the former route.
Putting the wolf story at the top of the front page of the newspaper implies importance and invites extrapolation and based upon the headline and what Scott wrote suggests that wolves are very dangerous animals. The fact is that they are not unless they are fed by people, or cross-bread with domesticated dogs, or cornered or sick. That fact eventually came across in the story.
Just out of curiosity, I googled "moose attack" and found many, many references to people, including kids, getting stomped by moose. The chances of getting injured by a moose in the U.S. are higher than getting injured by a wolf. Where are the banner headlines for moose attacks?
Was the wolf story a story? Sure. But I don't think it deserved to run on page 1, at the top of the page. I would've put it on page 6 or 7.
Finally, despite what people think that journalists think about them, readers are smart. Most know it's not wise to feed bears or wolves or lions. The purpose of the Chronicle wolf story in how it was presented was not to educate. It was to inflame. It gave the people who want to demonize wolves (without any substantiation) another piece of evidence in the form of a newspaper story.
Scott McMillion is a good journalist. I probably owe him a beer for this. But he also knows why he was playfully taken to task, above.
P.S. If you want to read a piece of hairaising writing about predators, buy his book, Mark of the Grizzly.
However, a griz or a wolf pack can have real impact on an individual flock or herd, as Defenders of Wildlife wolf compensation data shows. In 2004, Defenders compensated for 108 cattle and 442 sheep killed by wolves. The figure drops to almost half that in 2005, thanks to proactive investments in electric fences, guard dogs and buying out livestock permits in particularly problematic areas.
Bottom line, it appears that these proactive investments are paying off and that wolf/griz livestock kills are manageable, moreso than coyote kills. I've heard sheep men acknowledge that despite considerable efforts to manage coyote populations, we're holding the line at best and at worst, breeding smarter coyotes.
As the west becomes more settled and other reintroduction efforts succeed, education is the key to keeping reporters in check with their hype and misinformation.
I would correct our way of thinking about wolves getting "less wild" from becoming habituated to human food. I feel they become rather MORE wild from such, as their behaviour deteriorates into the erratic. As truely wild healthy animals, wolves, to me, are far more predictable and very safe to be around. Leaving garbage and foodstuffs within reach of wolves or any other wild animal makes them more dangerous and threatening to human safety. As we settle in greater numbers inside dynamic ecosytems such as the Greater Yellowstone, it is not only our responsibility as educated outdoor enthusiasts and educators to keep our own selves from adversely affecting it's wild health, but to educate and correct those who might either be new to the area, or less knowlegeable as to how their home hygiene might harm that wildness and their own personal safety. Most often they just simply don't understand, and Scott is among them.
I wish our local daily could put professionality and accuracy into more of a priorty along with their profits. Paying a reporter enough to be a accurate and informed reporter seems a challenge for this paper in Bozeman.
Thank goodness for the Todd's to keep us on the right track! Keep it up!