Animation Source Forums

Is it possible that wolves have killed and ate humans? Or do they just go for game animals?

If the wolves are sickly they may attack a human. But they wouldnt eat a human just attack it

Actually, any predator eats human meat if the circumstances are given. They have no reason to deny eating it, as a human isn't a "human" for them, a human is just another animal they could tackle.

Usually it's two things that avoid predators to hunt people: the danger (if they experienced what humans can do to them) or a connectivity in terms of living together with them.

Well, actually wolves have more of a reason to run away from humans than we have to run away from them. I think the only reason a wolf would kill a human is if the human was extremely vulnerabule, weak, unable to defend itself, or if the wolf was doing so in self-defense.

There have been few documented attacks: Why do you think they were? No sane being attacks another just for the fun or to be cruel. One wolf was rabid, and a few others attacked humans because they were too close to their inhabited dens. And no, the humans don't end up dead if they get out of the way.

It isn't really about "statistics" here. It's just factual that animals make no difference between "humans" and "animals". Animals may make their experiences with different kinds, which will make prey favored or denied among predators - but that's it. It has nothing to do with genetics, btw, as wolves belong to those predators who execute learned and trained hunting behavior rather than instinctive behavior, how we could see it in reptiles, for example.

The more negativity is connected with a species, the more the wolf would deny contact with it. It's primarily that what makes them running away from us. Also, predators that rarely or never make any hunting experience on a specific species will prefer to hunt other animals, which they've learned to tackle during their life. Specially animals hunting in packs remain relatively true to their known prey range, which is why you rarely or never hear about wolves claiming people today. However, if the circumstances are given, for example if a mother is weak due to some hunting accident and/or lost her pack (due to whatever reason) and has to feed her young, or only herself, it's quite possible that she chooses to go for "easy" prey. Humans, specially children (which would fit to the prey range of a single wolf), are "easy" prey as long as they have no weapons, because there are no natural ones given by our anatomy. That doesn't really make up a maneater species (which, however, exists in NO animal genus), but it may lead to a maneater family... as that mother could train her cubs to human predation. In the case said mother survives that could easily happen, actually it happens often, more famously in big cats though, as they come along with anatomical features and a body size that automatically includes humans in their prey range.

Although I'm not a person who supports propaganda saying that "wolves or other predators are maneaters", and therefore also don't just believe in hunting reports that supported the extinction of Switzerlands wolves about 100 years ago, I think that we shouldn't just ignore the ancient records of our countries, in which people got attacked and probably even eaten by wolves. These animals do have the potential for human predation, that's simply a fact... of course it doesn't belong to their regular behavior, since man always excludes himself from nature and her environments... but we shouldn't forget that we're also part of a natural ecosystem, and if we enter natural environments, we've to respect natures rules, same as we have to accept the fact that we aren't anything different than another animal, which could be considered being adequate prey for a predator. It's nice if we get to the point to interact with animals, and probably even wild animals - but we have to know what they are, what their capabilities are and under "which circumstances" they're able to do "what".

There has never been an unprovoked attack on a human being by a healthy wolf in North America. Although this story is an exception:

A hunter soaked in deer-scent was tracking deer in the woods. A wolf pounced on him but ran away as soon as it relised its mistake.

This story speaks for itself. Domestic dogs (canis lupus familiaris) are the only dangerous subspecies of wolf.

A "dangerous species" exists among almost NO intelligent "genus". You people keep forgetting the dynamics intelligent life comes along with. You simply can't classify the danger of an animal by species.

It's all about its own life, its history and knowledge. Any dog-like has the potential to attack and kill humans, it simply depends on its handling and training. As long as a wild animal isn't trained for human predation you can't expect it to go for humans. That doesn't exclude the possibility for physical defense though

Same as our captive tigers wouldn't be able to survive in the wild, because they've been taught in "civil life", a regularly trained wolf (or... dog, if you want) wouldn't hunt people...

I never said anything different. But you keep denying the fact that wolves are intelligent predators, which aren't "born" with hunting behavior. That's what they've in common with big cats, and sets similar conditions for them on that matter.


Yes, but wolves also don't just hunt "deer". They have, same as big cats, a prey range, in which they develop preference and strategy. Wolves weren't born with a "human" sense for "morality", hence, they don't know why they shouldn't predate on people, if it's not for the danger or missing knowledge that stops them from doing so.


Yeah - and that isn't a mystery - because they "ADAPT" into that environment. They learn their own behavior, what they should do, what they shouldn't do, what they can't do...

And that's exactly my point: the danger of an advanced, intelligent animal isn't defined in its genetic roots. It's defined in its social system and knowledge.


Dude, this is my job as animal conservationist. I consider everything and check all sides of a story.


Usually that's what releases maneating. Weakness is the first reason to switch to easier prey.


Personally, I'd prefer to study the matter rather than going with something "a human" said, no matter WHO it was


I don't know about you, but that sounds rather illogical


So, to put it short: you think that wolves are dumb, instinctively acting beasts that only predate on a defined type of deer by performing a defined "deer hunting" behavior?

I know different, actually.

Actually, if you know some things about wolves, one of them is they only attack something that is weak (same with coyotes).

If the person is injured, they most likely will attack him/her and maybe eat the person.

For example: if the person was injured while hunting elk lets say, falling out of a tree. The person's leg is bleeding and broken, the person is weak. The wolves will see an opportunity. I really don't think they know the difference between a "human" and a "kill". Now, when they see a person, yes, they will see danger. But if it's weak, well.... You do the math. "Hunting Mode", is what some people call it.

But, I don't think there's any cases (or very few) about wolves actually eating a human being. Don't let the Media sway your knowledge. ;]

Which is something I never implied. And that also isn't the question for this topic. The question was if wolves have eaten or still do eat human meat. The logical answer for this is what I said: yes, they do, if the circumstances are given


Actually, I suggest you to read my older posts again. Because you don't seem to understand my explanation for why your position is wrong.

Other than that, I know some great books from well known field biologists who spend a lot of their time in the field of "maneating behavior", which is more common than you might believe, actually:

# "The Lions of Tsavo - Exploring the Legacy of Africa's Notorious Man-Eaters", Bruce D. Patterson
# "Nine Man-Eaters and One Rogue", Kenneth Anderson
# "Man-Eaters of Kumaon", Jim Corbett

Also, an interesting read would be Col. Patterson's (no connection with Bruce Patterson) original records for the TSAVO event:

"The Man Eaters of Tsavo and Other East African Adventures", Col. John Henry Patterson

Although these books are primarily about pantherines (well, that simply is my own main field these days), they come along with some very interesting sections about other predators, specially canines.


Again - read my old posts again please - I don't retype all of my statements again.


Alright, if what you said were true, that these predators don't have adaptive behavior, how can "people" alter their natural behavioral patterns? Just a thought...


Oh believe me... man is a prey item. Actually it's human naivety that led to the TSAVO event - they didn't expect the lions building new strategy and knowledge, which easily allowed these animals to kill and eat about 135 people over a timespan of 9 months. And that's a historical fact!

Also, as I already mentioned, animals who know the danger coming from mankind, systematically try to avoid contact with humans.