[blisterpeanuts]

One outcome of this interbreeding is that these animals have lost their fear of people, but they retain their predatory instincts, making them quite dangerous.

There are coyotes in the northern part of Nova Scotia that have attacked lone hikers. A woman was killed, in fact a few years ago, and there have been numerous scary encounters in which the animal creeps closer and closer to a wary human, much like a predator approaching its prey.

The coyotes in this part of Canada are said to have interbred with dogs; it's not clear that these are the wolf-coyote-dog hybrids described in the article, but anyway these animals harassing hikers have been hanging out in the forested national park, as wolves would do.

Park rangers have tried to control the population, with varying results. Simply shooting a few of the coyotes actually can backfire; it seems to stimulate larger litters to replenish the population.

We might have to return to the pioneer approach of shooting them on sight, and hope this instills a healthy fear of humans as they once had. It's good having them around, because they control the rodent population which is a vector for disease bearing ticks and other problems. We just don't want them stalking our children in the local park.

[bleakcabal]

Coyotes have only killed two people in North America in all of recorded history (and if you check recorded history for wolf attacks it goes back at least to the 1800s). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_attacks_on_humans

A 3 year old child in 1981 and a 19 year old woman in 2009. Both victims were alone at the time of their attacks. Coyotes killing humans is an exceedingly rare occurrence.

[alexggordon]

Not that it provides much statistical evidence, but the wikipedia[0] article (regarding the 19 year old girl) talking about the coyotes specifically mentions how coyotes didn't use to be in that area of Canada, but were likely there as a result of rapid adaptive evolution[1].

Obviously that doesn't statistically show that they're getting more aggressive, but it's not something you can easily ignore either, given the lack of other coyote attacks.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Mitchell

[1] http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/09...

[crpatino]

You cannot make sense of an emerging phenomenon by looking at century old records of superficially similar phenomena.

The 3 year old case sounds like an outlier, regular coyotes getting at an unprotected child.

The case of the 19 year old may be the canary on the coal mine. A fully grown adult should have scared off the coyotes, but that's not how it happened. We should be asking what was different in this case and why the expectations were not met.

[bleakcabal]

I don't see how you can call 1 case an emerging phenomenon. More over that there haven't been any other cases since.

I don't think we should be afraid, as the OP mentioned, of coyotes stalking our children in the parks because of one isolated incident.

[crpatino]

> I don't see how you can call 1 case an emerging phenomenon. More over that there haven't been any other cases since.

It is really easy, you start with one model of reality, then a piece of evidence comes that does not seem to fit the model.

The first step is to formulate hypothesis that explain that gap between the theory and the practice. Normally, the next step would involve gathering evidence that disproofs each hypothesis, and whichever you cannot disproof, it is the real explanation (which either will confirm your model or provide raw material to refine). Since I have no strong incentive to investigate this particular cases, I will just let be.

However, what I pointed out in my first comment is this: If you brush under the carpet every piece of evidence that do not seem to fit your model, you will end up with a broken model and a very bumpy carpet.

[kenbellows]

> you start with one model of reality, then a piece of evidence comes that does not seem to fit the model

This is not emergence of a new phenomenon, this is an outlier[0]. There are always outliers. Claiming that a new phenomenon is emerging necessarily implies multiple data points to distinguish it from isolated statistical anomalies, which will otherwise be regarded as simple outliers caused by factors isolated to that incident.

There's an important difference between "brushing under the carpet evidence that does not seem to fit your model" and simply regarding such evidence, tentatively and in the short term, as an expected statistical anomaly until there is sufficient data to recognize a trend. There is no trend here, and until there is, it is completely reasonable to treat isolated incidents as outliers.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier

[geon]

These coywolves are twice as big (by mass) as a coyote. It would make them much more dangerous, I'd say.

[novaleaf]

I think that's the point, these are more dangerous than the Coyotes of yore.

[abrookewood]

Well in Australia, death by horse (including falls) accounts for about 20 people a year and death by bee accounts for around 10 .. I don't think there's much to worry about from this hybrid.

[brink2death]

Not to be disrespectful, but after reading your comment I couldn't help picturing something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCdbllHyX9o ;)

[abrookewood]

Lol .. that's pretty funny.

[lvs]

Seems overly anxious, don't you think? Isolated incidents occur between humans and all natural predators on occasion. Obviously humankind isn't currently threatened in a serious way ... until these interbreed with zombies, of course.

[vlehto]

Btw, have you ever considered the real reason why humans so eagerly bury/burn their dead?

It's quite likely because we don't want natural predators to get used to the taste of human flesh.

I live in a country where bears have been hunted for millenia. As a result I've slept about 1,5km away from known bear nest in the woods. It was scouting trip and none of us was really worried. Because we knew that by now, bears really don't like to get in touch with humans.

The point is not to "eradicate" anything. The point is to instill fear. Which these days has allowed so harmonious human-bear relations here, that their numbers are rising.

Hopefully stuff like pepper spray and rubber bullets are used before that shoot on sight is necessary.

[gotchange]

> It's quite likely because we don't want natural predators to get used to the taste of human flesh.

What do you suggest to dispose of human cadavers other than burying them because other methods like incineration and the likes are not as economic as the former method?

[shawabawa3]

There's this method which is used in Tibet and a few other places

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial

[gotchange]

I had no idea that such practice existed, thanks for sharing!

Not to take away any credit from your argument but not all places on Earth have mountains nearby. Also, I assume that since these nations and people live in mountainous terrains, they had to come up with a method to dispose of those cadavers in the face of land scarcity where they live.

[cossatot]

Tibetans also do a water burial. The first time I was there, I was asking about eating fish and birds in addition to mammals, and was told, "Tibetans do not eat fish and birds because fish and birds eat people," which I first thought was a joke.

[mhurron]

> not all places on Earth have mountains nearby

Zoroastrians also left them out to be eaten by nature. They build a small structure for it. Exposure of the dead is not that strange.

[vlehto]

Why would bronze age humans dispose corpses at all? Just drag them away so you don't get diseases.

But every culture we know of disposed bodies in some way that wolves, lions and other big land predators could not eat them.

[kbutler]

Isn't that idea just because we don't find or recognize remnants of burial practices from cultures that did allow predators to consume the bodies?

[6502nerdface]

> What do you suggest to dispose of human cadavers other than burying them...[?]

Have you read Stranger in a Strange Land?

[logfromblammo]

Yeah, I'll do that when my friends' ghosts show up to tell me that I should do it. And even then, they might get run through another link in the food chain first--maybe even two--because I don't want spongiform encephalopathy (kuru).

[smegger001]

Soylent Green: The "miracle food"

[samastur]

Where do you live?

[vlehto]

Finland.

[murbard2]

> One outcome of this interbreeding is that these animals have lost their fear of people, but they retain their predatory instincts, making them quite dangerous.

They're going to find out fairly quickly that this combination is maladaptive. This also explains why dog and wolfs split... you can be aggressive and fear people, or you can be friendly and not fear people, but not both.

[anon4]

Or you can be a stray dog living on the street being just aggressive enough that people don't bother you, but you aren't being killed because you're protected by a treaty for humane treatment of animals and your numbers aren't dwindling fast enough because people aren't spaying their pets and the government doesn't have enough resources to spay every stray. You also learn how to appear cute and harmless when hungry and how to jump on a table, grab a loaf of bread and run at over 30mph uphill.

[haylem]

You could be right, but on the other hand you see to rely only on assumptions as to what comes from the genetics of each species and which bits are going to be retained.

It's not like Dingos in Australia are extremely dangerous for instance. Sure they still are to an extent, like most animals living in the wild, but it's not better or worse in terms of behavior than any other wild animal.

[jobu]

> We just don't want them stalking our children in the local park.

Exactly. I'm all for conservation, so long as it doesn't lead to humans becoming part of the food chain again.

[igravious]

Sharks kill humans annually. So do big cats. And snakes. What are we going to do? Shoot all these on sight? Predate to extinction (and not even for their nutritional value) those species that harm us in even the slightest way? I oppose that. No thanks. That's not the type of world I want to live in. I want to co-exist with these amazing creatures, not drive them to extinction, or only have them alive in captivity.

[jmnicolas]

This kind of reasoning is fine until YOUR child get killed ...

[dalke]

Did you really just argue that if a snake were to kill your child, you would want the species eradicated?

If an automobile driver were the cause of death instead, would you demand the removal of all automobile drivers? Or all automobiles?

If your child were to drown, would you demand the removal of all swimming pools?

[jmnicolas]

Oh common stop putting words in my mouth ...

When a specie is invasive and dangerous you thin it by removing the ones that are too close to human habitat, that's it.

[dalke]

Your response was to the statement by igravious, which highlighted "Sharks", "big cats", and "snakes".

Two of those are not invasive species at all. Of the third, only a few species of snakes are invasive. You'll also notice that sharks have not gotten closer to human habitation in any significant way.

So your response is almost irrelevant to what igravious was talking about.

I assumed it was relevant, and the only way I could figure out how to assume you mean that human (and more specifically child) safety gets priority over everything else.

If someone wants to live in or move to a place with big cats, then your view is that they should kill (or "thin") the species, yes? Eventually this means the extinction of all potentially dangerous creatures, does it not?

[PepeGomez]

Unless we're thinkíng of some apocalyptic scenario, your child is million times more likely to die in a car crash than being killed by a wolf and a hundred times more likely to be killed by your neughbor's pitbull.

[igravious]

I have a child, but think about it this way. Every creature killed was the child of some creature. You're saying it's our children versus their children, all or nothing? But they're non-human animals so tough luck to them. We can do better I believe.

What I'm asking is are we asserting that humanity has claimed the _entire_ globe as its habitat? Where do all the other species go that because of their nature run into trouble with us? Why not share a habitat with the creatures we can and make large wildlife reserves for the creatures we can't. Is this too idealistic? And if our paths do cross they need to be protected from us, not the other way around, because they don't know any better and we do.

[jmnicolas]

I'm certainly not advocating killing everything that moves and I certainly agree that there are too many humans on earth. I have no solution for that except stop making babies.

However when there are dangerous animals around humans I will certainly not blame someone for protecting his / her family, especially in the case of an invasive specie like the coywolf that is not in danger of extinction.

[igravious]

By the way, I never said that I think there are too many humans on Earth. This is a populist viewpoint, and it is not one I share. Even with current technology I believe the Earth could sustain > 10,000,000,000 humans with the caveat that humanity recognises which activities are unsustainable and alters its collective behaviour possibly through regulation if people won't voluntarily change their lifestyles.

Examples: increased urbanisation, cutting meat consumption to increase the amount of land for crops, increased shared use of transport, assuming hydrocarbons and peat-bogs are semi-scarce non-renewable resources then transition away from them as sources of energy to renewables, travel less by using telecommunication, and so on.

[chroma]

Many pathogens and parasites are amazing creatures. Do you take the same stance with those, or are you only in favor of charismatic megafauna roaming wild?

From my point of view, lions, crocodiles, wolves, etc... they're basically microencephalized sociopaths. It would be better if they never harmed any creature capable of suffering. That means either eliminating them or drastically modifying them. Granted, this is currently neither feasible nor a high priority. The world has plenty of other problems that need addressed first.

Still, I'd rather these predators not exist. The harm they inflict on other creatures far outweighs the warm fuzzies we get from seeing them on nature shows.

[haylem]

Interesting. Not wanting to put words in your mouth, but that sounds like trying to impose a vegan lifestyle (for the record: I'm vegetarian and mostly vegan now) to the animal kingdom.

I can understand part of the sentiment, but I'm a bit cautious of 1) the possibility of that happening 2) the impacts 3) the ethics.

[chroma]

That's an accurate representation of my views. Though as I said, it's pretty low on the list of things that need fixing.

One day –hopefully– humanity will have its shit together. Then the majority of suffering will be inflicted by (non-human) animals upon other animals. What do we do about that? I don't have an answer, but I'm pretty sure "let it continue" isn't it.

To bring the discussion back to the present: I think most people don't consider the morality of letting predators exist. If it was a disease or parasite that killed 10 people a year, we'd all agree on eradication. If it was a human being who killed 10 people a year, we'd all want to lock that person away until they died of old age. Nobody would make arguments like, "Your child is 1,000x more likely to be killed by a car than by a serial killer." But give the creature some fur and claws and have it roar or howl majestically... suddenly all manner of rationalizations are brought out in support.

[Swinx43]

The level of damage you will inflict on functioning eco-systems by "engineering" predators out of the equation will be truly catastrophic. What you might not realise is that by removing predators you will also have to change each and every other animal or organism that is currently alive in the world. You are talking about re-engineering almost all living creatures on our planet.

Let me explain by way of an example that is close to home for me. In my country of birth we have many areas which normally used to have free roaming wildlife including predators like lions and leopards. These areas where subsequently taken over as farm land and the big cats removed. This allowed the pray, usually antelope and other herbivores, to breed out of control causing immeasurable damage to the vegetation and if left unchecked would cause these animals to die of starvation in the end. It might sound far fetched but these ever increasing herds do cause damage to the vegetation if their numbers become too big. Given this situation farmers and conservationists either have to organise regular culls of these animals or capture and relocate them. Unfortunately there is only so many place you can relocate them to before the natural environment cannot accommodate them anymore and starvation due to destroyed vegetation sets in.

Predators in these natural eco-systems serve a very necessary function.

I am not talking about Human predators here so please dont confuse the above example with justifying why some human beings prey on others. Human predators need to be removed from our society. We are not animals and have the ability to reason which sets a different standard for us.

What I am trying to illustrate is the logical conclusion of your very well intended desire to reduce suffering. I applaud your desire to reduce animal suffering, of which we humans have a lot of blame for, but to extrapolate that to natural eco-systems could have disastrous effects.

[logfromblammo]

I might be on board with eradicating parasitism from the Earth ecosystem. But there's no way I would agree to eliminate non-human predation, ever.

Yes. Let it continue. It is not your place to eliminate anyone else's suffering, in humans or otherwise.

I once read "Three Worlds Collide" by E. Yudkowsky. There are alternate endings to the story, that I won't spoil. But it is a tale intended to make you think about your own ethics. It is a long hypothetical that sets up the question, "What could it mean to have an ethical imperative to eliminate suffering?"

I didn't like the endings. I think it is unethical to project your own morality onto other species.

And that's the story that made me realize that those who practice veganism because they do not wish to inflict suffering upon other species for their own benefit are perfectly reasonable people, capable of coexisting with others, whereas those who would attempt to enforce that lifestyle upon others are a threat to me. When you cross over that line between "I don't" and "you shouldn't", I become wary. When you move a bit further to "no one should", you become my enemy.

[mod]

> Then the majority of suffering will be inflicted by (non-human) animals upon other animals.

I think this is likely already the case. Most animals killed by humans are killed quickly and efficiently.

A typical kill in the wild, however, can be horrific. Especially when the predator does not dwarf the prey--coyotes killing a deer, for instance.

[PepeGomez]

That doesn't make any sense. You treat a human being as one entity and a whole animal species as one entity. Almost nobody would see any problem with killing a particular wolf that repeatedly attacks people.

Diseases that are part of erradication programs used to kill or cause lifelong disability to millions. Diseases that kill thousands could be recommended to vaccinate aginst for those at risk. There would hardly be any research into a disease that kills 10 people a year.

[lost_my_pwd]

Funny that you mention rationalizing; something these non-human predator can not do. They are simply doing what their instincts drive them to do: hunt and survive.

That is nowhere near the same thing as a human killer that does it for non-survival reasons; anger, entertainment, sexual excitement, etc. Even if we say that human killers are driven by instinct, as animals are, they also have the ability to reason about the motivations, impact, and eventual consequences of those actions.

[pvaldes]

"It would be better if predators where eliminated"

Wrong idea; and the campaigns against predators in journals, just because this sells newspapers, are becoming a big problem in itself.

Anybody people honestly worried by animal and human suffering should definitely welcome predators. Yes, is true that coywolves had unfortunately killed 1 women doing footing some years ago in a national park. One.

But maybe we should be worried also about people killed in car crashes or bleeding in pain before to be rescued. Maybe should be worried also for the more than 100.000 men and women suffering each year in hospitals, with brain inflamation, recurrent fever, chills, diarrhea. Or for pregnant women having miscarriages and stillbirths.

... Yes, people probably should be afraid, very afraid by the beautiful herbivores instead, responsibles of all of this.

When I think in a real microencephalized sociopath that runs blindly trying to grasp any human at sight (children, women and men), something evil and terrifying, that lurks hidden out of your house waiting patiently for your children, I think in deer ticks.

So if you think that to eliminate the predators are a good idea, think again. You will have much more deer ticks around instead (and much more human and animal suffering as consequence).

[pvaldes]

s/are a good idea/is a good idea/

[goda90]

The problem is that every creature harms something else. Every species would eat itself to starvation given the chance. Look up the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone and the diversity and balance it has allowed.

[h1940624]

It would be fairly strange if animals followed human social norms.

[PepeGomez]

But at least they kill cats, so the poor little native rodents won't have to die a gruesome death as often.