Yes and no. In Germany they have a county that at least helps to make the wolves fear people, by actively go after them with dogs, while in the Netherlands people are waiting for the first fatal victim before action will be taken, as currently the animal concerns outweigh those of people. For now, farmers have to pay the price; while they get a small compensation from most governments it will never offset the loss. So yeah, this is a heated topic.
We have a solar powered thermal local AI wolf detection system that’s been in a field in Belgium for more than 8 months now, monitoring the wolves there. Thermal image motion detection can detection them at much greater distances than PIR sensors and of course in complete darkness.
The biggest barrier at the moment to living with wolves, if you true away the human resistance to the idea, is reliable detection for early warning prevention.
This is not such a hard problem with computer vision at the level that it is these days. We’ve made it more effective by coupling it with thermal imaging camera modules.
Now we just need people willing to want to want to work with such pilot project, which turns out to be a pretty big problem.
However, it’s possible that a few influential success stories can bring change to the situation. But there has to be a start first and certainly when this started to be a problem, anything along the lines of prevention was seen as a barrier towards killing them which is what the solution in many people’s eyes is.
Cameras do not actively protect people or livestock, it just monitors and retroactively actions are taken. I prefer the German method where they make the wolves fear people.
That is a glorified trail camera, really does very little to help people live with wolves. What does is a strict hunting quota; the government decides how many wolves there should be, rather than nature.
And no, it's not a glorified trail camera. Very different.
Everyone wants to kill before trying measures to keep people and their animals apart.
I don't think you can say it does nothing to help people live with wolves because it's not being tried. It's not being tried, because people being convince the only thing that helps is killing everything that requires a bit of effort to live with. I realize it's very human to destroy and kill, but I think we should strive to do better.
Humans have already stolen so much from nature and the animals, don't you think a little effort to do better would be a good thing?
That's a fine attitude for squirrels which are ultimately harmless, but wolves can attack people, although that's somewhat rare, not like bears which attack you every time.
Wikipedia says wolves are more likely to attack humans if they've been living around humans for a while - they learn that humans are viable prey, not that humans are harmless.
Some years ago people also said “Japanese bears are harmless, shy and fear humans” and now the country is experiencing a slowly approaching bear-pocalypse, with bear attacks occurring in densely populated suburbs. I don’t see how wolves in Europe would be uniquely different if it follows the same trajectory.
I see those nearly daily. some of those are not that little. They've killed dogs and attacked humans. Government as usual does not give a flying fuck. Well I am pretty sure if one of them or their relative gets killed they would instantly declare a war against coyotes.
No, because predators follow exponential curves leading to prey collapses during winters where hungry animals will abandon shyness to hunt for humans in suburbs.
Wikipedia says wolves don't habitually attack humans but they will, and the more contact they have with humans, the more likely they are to attack them (they learn that humans are not wolf predators which makes them viable targets)
Oh there no denying that they are a threat to live stock that are not protected. And sometimes even when they, as the sometimes can get over fences.
In the Netherlands there are 14 wolf packs and 144 wolves in a geographical small area where the surrounding farms are often full of a lot sheep.
But it’s also easy to imagine that if you can become aware of the presents of wolves sufficiently early enough and reliably enough before they attack your animals then you have a chance to prevent an attack. And if you prevent enough attacks it becomes maybe harder than sticking to natural prey.
Wolves don't like taking risks. Interacting with humans is definitely risky. Detecting wolves reliably early and responding, either in person if that can be done quick enough, or setting off responses, ideally followed up by a human visit could well result in the wolves avoiding that farm in any case. The extend to which this can work in practice is something that needs to be determine through research and pilots. Wolves are very smart, so if tech is going to be able to help here, then the tech has to be very capable. The start with pilots and research two elements are needed. People with tech, but also people in the affected areas with a willingness to collaborate.
The current highly polarized environment is throwing road blocks against such collaboration.
The current situation is such that owners are unaware of the presence of wolves at their borders, so there is currently also not a lot of perceived risk associated with attacking live stock. A useful goal is to start to change that. And the people who read hacker news I'm sure that think of many ways to change the status quo. My system is one example.
Sadly, a lot time went by without trying these methods. None the less, one should try.
I the past I have offered free equipment to people to test who had been publicly expressing concern about the arrival of the wolf but they would not accept it.
> Are wolves even a threat? Outside of movies theyre pretty harmless.
Are you kidding? Humans often had a fear of wolves throughout history. And rightfully so.
But the reverse is also true. Hence wolves tend to stay away from people so encounters are rare. But where not, human-wolf close encounters can end deadly sometimes. Even for the humans (especially children).
Wikipedia suggests hundreds of deaths in various regions around the world - more common in the past, which suggests, I think, more wolves = more deaths.
1. Wolves were basically exterminated in the continental US for most of the 20th century
2. There were still deaths from wolf attacks in North America during that time
What are you talking about? There's tons of wolves in my county. They aren't 'basically exterminated' at all. And there's zero human attacks. Lots and lots of cow attacks though.
Yellowstone park rangers killed the last wolves there in 1926, and by the middle of the 20th century, the total population in the Lower 48 had been reduced to a few hundred in Minnesota and Michigan.