Fatal wolf attack in Alaska

hi all, I lived in Alaska for 25 years, and I still keep up with the news there daily.

A teacher was killed several days ago while running outside of the village of Chignik Lake, on the Alaska Peninsula. Apparently she was running alone, listing to her IPod, and 2 or 3 wolves attacked and killed her.

an updated story at http://www.adn.com/2010/03/12/1181123/wh...g&pageNum=1

The Anchorage Daily News claims that this is the first documented killing of a human in Alaska history. Natives say that wolves have killed in the past.

there may be analogies to recent cougar attacks in the west, with generations of limited human aggression towards wolves.

Sad to hear of anyone dying but I think it is healthy for humans to feel that we are not invulnerable. Humility in knowing we are part of the ecosystem, not masters by default, is IMO healthy. Our position at the top of the food chain is provisional and dependent on our being smart and aware. Or at least not blindly unaware of our surroundings in our own I-pod induced haze.

Yep, nothing like a total lack of SA to get a person killed -- wolves, heavy machinery, driving while texting. . .the list is endless.

So was this food or fun? (for the wolves that is)

When I lived up north, the last year before moving, wolves would cut through our property 30 feet from the house. They would hug the tree line as they moved and if you did not watch very carefully, you would never sense their presence due to them blending into the environment. We would marvel and always had a sense of wonder how a pack of wolves could be almost invisible even in daylight.

Like any animal that stalks it's prey, wolves are extremely quiet and steathly in their movments and the target human or animal does not stand a chance if the wolves decide to pounce.

You can have all situatonal awareness possible, but if you cannot see or detect the wolves, then the tragic enevietable can. A person walking or jogging along a road will never see the wolves behind them if the wolves have any type of cover or concealment to use while they stalk...especially this time of year as the attack occurred in the evening under the cover of possible fading light and dusk/dark.

I recall that one of the successful cougar attacks was inflicted on a runner. Haven't I heard that running triggers the prey response in predators?

That is correct. The simplest form to see this is with a dog (though domesticated, is still a predator). Walk by a dog, he may have no inclination to follow you. Run by this same dog, his predatory instincts triggers the prey response and will now chase after you.

Running will definitely trigger an attack in wolves or bears, doubtless also in cougars.
the Anchorage Daily News has the most detailed coverage, at www.adn.com I did a search using "Chignik" as the search term,
and it brought up all the stories.

this was a really sad event. the victim was fron Pennsylvania, she arrived in Alaska last fall to teach in special ed. She traveled among 5 villages on the Alaska Peninsula. she probably lacked enough awareness of the risks involved in running away from the village settlement.

I would blame the villagers somewhat for not warning her more, one of the stories indicated that wolves were hanging close to the houses, which would suggest a starvation factor driving them. wolves normally avoid people and houses.

"You can have all situatonal awareness possible, but if you cannot see or detect the wolves..."

SOME situational awareness is probably what has caused the dearth of killings by wolves. This woman was running, virtually blind, deaf and dumb, an easy, yummy target. It's hard to blame wolves or bears or cougars for acting like wild animals when fresh meat is delivered to them, totally oblivious to everything. Self-served sacrificial lamb, so to speak.

This was an educator who apparently went to Alaska, knowing nothing about the dangers. Yeah, sure.

I won't say the "D" word, I won't, I won't... (gritting teeth).

Sue

I don't recall seeing any news articles that describes the woman running "virtually blind, deaf and dumb." If you make these kind of remarks, then provide a link to verifiable references. You were not there, you are obviously not privy to all the facts, yet you are ready to criticize what you do not understand...

Yes she was a target whether it be to hungry wolves, territorial bears or hyenas. When you step foot into the wilderness, be prepared as you are in their world and always a potential target. It could be your last trip no matter how careful and aware you are as animals are a lot smarter then us.

This is a really fine forum, in my opinion, and I have learned a lot from the generally civil and informative posts that characterize the lively discourse. Many contributors have a lot of knowledge which they contribute in a very positive manner, going much deeper than the usual fairly superficial newspaper article.

But every once in a while we descend into uninformed speculation, and that is a shame.

I can't comment specifically on this very unfortunate event (other than to point out that it's essentially a freak occurrence).

But I do worry about the trend toward wearing earbuds during wilderness activities. It robs you of a vital sense.

Animals are very adept at knowing if you are aware of them and are actively paying attention to your surroundings. This body language gives you a substantial advantage, in many cases removing the "target of opportunity" factor.

They are?

I don't recall seeing any news articles that describes the woman running "virtually blind, deaf and dumb."

"Apparently she was running alone, listing to her IPod..."

I've seen these people on the street and paths, totally oblivious to what is going on around them: dogs, people, cars, bikes, etc. What would you call it when someone plugs their ears while running in a wilderness area??? Smart?

Actually, there's another word for people like that: Dinner. Why blame the wolves for scarfing up an easy meal?

Sue

I agree. Just this afternoon while out on a short 2 hour hike, we seen a few people on the trail with earphones pinned to their ears. This is a local trail with a very low threat level of animals, however in this case, I would be more worried of 2 legged predators on the trail...

Except the result will be a government program to destroy all the wolves - won't someone think of the children.
Or, in the land of the lawyer, hold the landholder/local council liable - and so force them to destroy all the wolves.

Cougar attacks happen a few times/year here. There have been a dozen fatalities recorded.
One recently attacked a child picking berries. The kid wasn't hurt, the mother shouted at the cat and it ran off.
The response by park rangers was to track down and kill two cougars, they admitted there was no evidence that these were the animal involved - but something must be done to reassure the local community.

I am sorry to hear of anybody getting attacked by dogs or by wolves.

There was a young woman from Toronto killed on a hiking trail in Nova Scotia last October, It was a couple of coyotes that killed her.
It is odd because coyotes usually avoid people. The trail also had other hikers on it.

I am thinking a big part of the problem is the coyotes, wolves, puma and bears have been getting a lot more used to people.

I know that some people do things like leave food that animals can get into (garbage?) and even feed them by hand in some cases.
Once you become a supplier of food you are not far from being seen as a food source yourself to a lot of these animals.

I do think the lack of hunting contributes but I can't say how much.

When I was younger people used to say that wolves never attacked people, but as an old fellow pointed out if a pack of wolves dragged somebody down out in the bush they likely wouldn't leave enough scraps to find.
That means the person would just be counted as missing.
We have enough people go missing that the old fellow's comment is worth thinking about.

"Apparently she was running alone, listing to her IPod..."
Then she was probably more likely to be a victim of an attack by a species of large ape, or running in front of a truck.


I'm willing to bet that the number of people killed by pet dogs is 1000x higher than that by wolves/coyotes/etc


We are moving into their territory, so there are a lot more contacts.


I live in one of the most beautiful parts of the country, the cost of that (apart from eye-water real estate prices) is that I have to keep trash locked up until the truck arrives and double bag any meat. I can't leave the windows open when I go out - and not because of crime.


Hence the quote above about them being smarter than us!
Heard a line from a park's dept guy once - they were trying new bear-proof trash cans. They have to hard for the bears to open, but simple enough that campers will use them.
Problem is, he said - there is significant overlap between the smartest bears and dumbest visitors.


Not sure, enough animals would have to have seen a kill to associate humans with danger.


Good point - there has never been a documented case of a wolf kill = the wolves ate all the witnesses!

A couple of updates from the Anchorage Daily News--

an article on the teacher, with quotes from her blog. she did have general awareness of danger from bears and wolves--

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/150677

a balanced discussion on how to deal with wolves in the wild--the writer favors protection zones around Denali National Park, and also killing the 2 or 3 who killed the teacher--

http://www.adn.com/2010/03/13/1182267/our-view-boundaries-and-wolves.html

So do any of the articles establish that the body had any wolf bites on it? (I haven't found any.)

Anything at all to confirm the wolves actually killed her and weren't just opportunistic scavengers?

That, as already suggested, it wasn't a "large primate" or mechanical object that killed her? Or even just an accident?


I don't see enough information in what we have to accept the "she was killed by wolves" as anything other than speculation. From the government response, though, I assume there was more probative evidence than we've gotten.

well, she was an athletic 32-year old, and a runner.
A March 10 story mentions wolf bites on her body--
http://www.adn.com/2010/03/09/1175725/wolf-blamed-in-death-of-villager.html

see also this story, http://www.adn.com/2010/03/10/1178020/residents-unnerved-by-pack-of.html
Troopers would not comment on the cause of death, saying the investigation is ongoing and that they are awaiting the results of the autopsy. Spokeswoman Megan Peters said the body showed signs of predation but declined to provide further details.

The body was found on regional corporation land within the borders of the Alaska Peninsula Wildlife Refuge and therefore was not in federal jurisdiction, said Bruce Woods, spokesman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"I don't think there's any decision yet as to whether it was predated before or after death," Woods said. "In other words, the (woman) might have died of something else and wolves might have found the body."

It is the case that an autopsy is yet to be performed.
the stories in the Daily News mention that bears are not yet out of their hibernation dens.

Yup.
There was also the 2005 wolf attack in Saskatchewan that killed Kenton Joel Carnegie.
People argued about whether the wolves killed him too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenton_Joel_Carnegie_wolf_attack

Not everything in the woods is Bambi innocent.

They reported that the wolves tore out her throat while she
was alive.

Any apex predator that is allowed to roam freely near humans
and their domestic animals will eventually prey on those.
They also learn very quickly to avoid humans when hunted.
Note the Idaho wolf season. Hunters were disappointed in how
quickly the wolves learned to avoid being seen. A low number
of wolves were taken and most were in the opening part of the
season.

A good (and I believe balanced) book on this is "Beast in the
Garden". About cougars in the Colorado Front range.

Our ancestors wouldn't have gone to all the work of trying to
eliminate wolves if they hadn't been some sort of real threat.

"Our ancestors wouldn't have gone to all the work of trying to
eliminate wolves if they hadn't been some sort of real threat."

About 12,000 people die every year in auto wrecks caused by drunk drivers. I guess we can't recognize a real threat when we see it.

Sue

A better metric for relative threat than drunk drivers might be fatal dog attacks.

There is quite a bit more on that page.
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm#homicides

And that's what I was trying to say, too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say wolves couldn't have done it. Just that people tend to jump to "them dangerous wild animals done it!" with very little supporting evidence.

There is always the chance she was killed or injured by a human - the wolves, being scavengers, may have come upon her in a less than healthy state.

Humans, by far, are the worlds most deadly predator.

Don't be to hard on her. If a wolf pack of 3 or more animals comes for you, I doubt it matters if you are jogging along with your hand on your ipod or your .357, you are still dead meat.

Possible. Humans have a far larger record of predatory behavior toward humans. Female and alone doesn't lower the odds either.

But there is also the chance she might have hurt herself. I don't know anything about the area or her familiarity with it but I have seen plenty of trails where you could carelessly run off an embankment, broken an ankle while running if you planted a foot in a hole, or stumble over debris and brained yourself.

I have read where a Florida man slipped crossing a stream, knocked his head on a rock, and would have drowned if his hiking partner hadn't pulled his face out of the water.

Lots of ways to get seriously hurt. Once hurt your an easy target for human and animal predators alike.

Don't know who 'they" are other than articles, but if true that would pretty much make the case that the wolves killed her and didn't happen upon her corpse. Who could make the determination that she was alive when that happened? What are they saying?

Joggers getting attacked by wild animals.... more gene pool cleansing. I feel sorry for the gal's parents. But, they should have raised their daughter better... running, for no good reason, is bad. I'd feel sorry for the woman, if she hadn't been running, got scared, and started running away.

Pretty much every wild animal that preys on other animals, will chase down and attack anything that's running from them... it's instinct.

I worked in Alaska for 12 years, and saw hundreds of bears and wolves... I was scared a few times when I was charged by sow with cubs, but stood my ground, and made it through without a scratch. Have had wolves walk right up to my camp, and try to carry off articles of clothing (they probably smelt to high heaven!), but never saw any agressive activity from wolves.

Blast--throw this guy out for good and clean our "gene pool"

I overhead a conversation once where a guy (apparently from Alaska) was telling someone else that he finds it frustrating how dumb some newcomers act. He said his new neighbor tied her small dog out on a leash to the front porch and came back to find the leash, part of a collar and a few drops of blood. She said something about not thinking that a bear or wolf would come right up to the house in broad daylight. He said he hates to have people constantly make mistakes that "train" the bears and wolves that the houses are sources of easy meals, because kids could be next. No tethered dog? Small kid, okay! Fresh meat is fresh meat. He also said some of the sled dog huskies will do the same thing.

Some people have to learn the hard way, and some people don't live long enough to learn.

Sue

Well, I agree his last post doesn't really fit with our community (stating it gently). The question is, is this individual willing to add value? Thoughtful analysis, personal experience, good questions, intelligent suggestions? That's the test. Jury's out, still deliberating. And Punishment Cat has no doubt opened one eyelid ever so slightly.

What's your source for "[She] got scared, and started running away"?

Running for health and fitness, or even just for pleasure, are perfectly good reasons.

It depends on the animal.
All the cougar attacks here in modern times have been on joggers and mountain bikers, there haven't (AFAIK) been any on hikers.
It's simply that cats automatically chase anything that runs.

Wolves are largely scavengers near people (you don't get many wolf packs hunting through streets) so a pet dog or cat or trash cans raided are more common.
A desperate wolf might have risked attacking a lone person, but if they were running or not isn't likely a factor - except of course that if they were aware of the wolf in time they could probably have scared it off.

"A desperate wolf might have risked attacking a lone person, but if they were running or not isn't likely a factor - except of course that if they were aware of the wolf in time they could probably have scared it off."

Dogs evolved from wolves, and dogs will chase a running person, large or small, so why would you think wolves wouldn't?

Face it, most of the current crop of humans aren't really very smart, survival-wise. The woman was running with her ears plugged in predator country. For her, it was the end of the story.

I see people doing everything with those stupid earplugs in, running, walking, driving, shopping, etc, and wonder at their complacency. Do they think the world is such a safe place that they can literally afford to take leave of even one of their five senses?

I'm with Texican -- poor judgment + bad luck can be fatal, anywhere. She was Unlucky in Alaska. *shrugs*

Sue

"Well, I agree his last post doesn't really fit with our community (stating it gently)."

Do you mean that we can't call stupid, stupid? Why?

If people weren't so stupid in so many ways, they wouldn't be dying in so many ways.

Being a Politically Correct Bleeding Heart (PCBH) doesn't prevent idiocy, it doesn't prevent accidents, it doesn't prevent deaths, it doesn't prevent anything and it doesn't accomplish anything. And for me, after 60 years, it's gotten DA++ED tiresome!

Sue

The thing that stops me from calling people stupid (or ill-equipped, poorly trained, or clumsy) is humility, or "there, but for the grace of god, go I". It is true that folks die in stupid ways. My brother, a vocational agriculture teacher with 7 years of ag school education and thirty years of farm experience, was killed by tipping a tractor over on himself. He knew better, but took a short cut. The world is unforgiving, and a momentary lapse of judgment or luck can offset years of training, great intelligence, solid practical skills and possession of a full array of DRPSK gear. The death rate is the same that it always has been: one per person; and whatever the cause of death, a skilled logician can nearly always identify some manner in which the dead person contributed to the demise. It is more gracious to acknowledge the passing and to move on.

Humans, including myself in this, are prone to developing blind spots, thinking short term, and accepting easy answers.

It works both, all, ways. Most Americans are in far more danger of facing the deadly consequences being overweight and not getting sufficient exercise than getting lunched by a wolf. Does that make the lady smarter, instead of dumber, than most Americans?

Most prepers, and pretty much all the survivalists I've seen (typical BMI pushing two-score), will die, like most Americans, from heart failure, cancer, or one of the other diseases of old age and indolence. The truth is most of us will never face the great emergency. No justification for heroic action or a blaze of glory will come. Most of us are sentenced to the ignobility of being average. Inevitably bee stings and slipping in the bath will take far more of us than wolves. Those are the odds. Reconcile yourself to these realities.

Several aspects have to be noted. First, there are a lot of things we don't know about in this case. Was she healthy when the wolves arrived? A stumble on the trail, wounded by a human in a sexual assault, an underlying medical condition, could have made her vulnerable. Those assuming that it couldn't happen to them are assuming a lot. Both that others are less capable, aware, talented, skilled and that they are more.

There are lessons on both ends. To be aware, skilled, prepared. But also to not assume your special, immune to error, always lucky when all else fails. 'Couldn't happen to me' sounds a lot like famous last words.

If nothing else making fun of others misfortune doesn't endear you to anyone. Most of us realize that we will stumble at some point. It is one thing to have it pointed out how things might have been handled differently. It is quite another to be labeled as stupid because something didn't go your way. It is all 'calculated risk' and adventure until it goes south. Then it is 'why the hell did they do that'?

How many people jog? How many people jog in areas where there are potentially dangerous animals? How many people are attacked by domestic animals. In most areas dogs kept as pets are far more dangerous than wolves.

I can't tell anyone what is, and what is not, an acceptable risk. I can't even tell myself, not with any consistency. You see, it changes. Too many times I've done things which I've told myself I couldn't, or wouldn't, do and now see it a reasonable. I also look back at some thing I've done and wonder what I was thinking. But I did it because, at some level, I thought it was a good idea. Or at least, an acceptable risk. So far, it has worked out.

It is hard to imagine that I'm both, special, if it works out; but stupid, if it doesn't.

I don't know where your "here" is, but a quick search on "cougar attacks hiker" brought up examples.

Children seem to be preferred (probably due to size), followed by runners and cyclists, but hikers are by no means "disqualified".

Many of the victims never even had a chance to flee. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Unless you actually qualify for the revenge of Blasts Cat of Punishment there is no clear cut "you can't". A more interesting discussion is the grey areas of please don't.

I for one love the discussion about why things go wrong and how things could and should be done different. A lot of those discussion starts with real life events - and some indisputable incredible stupid acts. But I am not comfortable with name calling and personal characterization. We don't know all the facts! Media will get the details wrong. We can use whatever info available to conclude that doing XYZ is stupid, but I won't be a part of bashing and name-calling possible dead or injuried persons based on media reports alone.

It is a huge leap from "running with headphones is stupid" to remove-from-genepool-statements.

Such a practice can't be the responsibility of the moderator. It is the collective efforts of the forum members that decides the code of conduct - "soft rules" - of how things shall be and what is proper behaviour. If the majority wants to do bashing and name calling - ... then that is the code of conduct. My post here is what I can do to nudge this forum in the oposite direction.

I seldom call a dead person stupid.
First of all it has no effect on the dead person, not even in the slightest way, but more importantly it does nothing to help understand what happened.

Of course there is the point that we all have our idiot moments and that I don't like the idea of upsetting relatives but I really don't worry much about that part of it.
I may be a liberal but my heart does not bleed much.
I function more like a pragmaticist and realist than as a Bambiphile.

I read it more as being in the wrong place at the wrong time, more than anything else. Sort of like finding yourself under a concrete overpass when the big earthquake strikes. Situational awareness should never be taken lightly but if the wolves were stalking prey, then the ear buds or the running might not have made any difference. If multiple wolves were involved, probably only a person with a firearm and trained to use it could have prevented it. Wild animals do unpredictable things, last year there was a cougar spotted in the Safeway parking lot about 3 miles from my house, here in W. Washington. Probably most of us are not on the lookout for a cougar when we pull into a grocery store parking lot either.

I have seen a wolf in the wild in NE Washington. I saw it only
because it let me see it. I was walking quietly on a trail and
still didn't hear it, even after it came towards me on the trail
and then turned and walked away.

Head phones or not, if wolves or cougars are stalking you, it is unlikely you will hear them. Animals that can stalk creatures
as large and quiet as elk would have no trouble sneaking up on
a human if they desired.

Susan, you sound like the "stupid" police.

Hmm. Was the guy running alone on a deserted beach with his IPod stupid because he was struck by a plane with no propellor/engine noise that was ditching into the ocean?

I call that the ultimate 'wrong place at exactly the wrong time" scenario... yet it happened in NC about 10 days/2 weeks ago.

Hell, my cat sneaks up on me, never mind a wolf.

There are times we are distracted totally, while other times we are focused on the here and now.

Stuff happens. Sometimes you can do something about it, sometimes you can't.

There's no doubt that wolves and gliding propeller-less planes can be very quiet. But just because those threats are very quiet, there's no point in further reducing your SA. Earphones may or may not have contributed to the wolf attack, but a wolf should not be unexpected in the wilds of Alaska. OTOH that guy on the beach was just running in the wrong direction; it's fairly unusual for a plane to land on a beach in NC. Stuff happens, but that's no reason to let down your guard and go condition white with your SA.

Report out and cause was confirmed death by wolves.

Summary
At approximately 6:00 p.m. on March 8, 2010 the body of Candice Berner was discovered next to a snow-covered road approximately two miles from the community of Chignik Lake, Alaska. The Alaska Departments of Public Safety (DPS) and Health and Social Services (DHSS) initially investigated the case and determined Ms. Berner’s death was not the result of a criminal act. The DHSS State Medical Examiner asserted that Ms. Berner died from “multiple injuries due to animal mauling.” The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and the DPS Alaska State Troopers (AST) then evaluated both the physical evidence and the eyewitness testimony of Chignik Lake residents. The investigators concluded that Ms. Berner was attacked and killed by wolves. A joint action to lethally collect wolves from the immediate area was undertaken by the two departments to address public safety concerns and to investigate biological factors that may have contributed to the attack. Genetic analysis of samples taken from the victim’s clothing and from wolves killed in the lethal removal action positively identified one wolf and implicated others in the attack.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/news/pdfs/wolfattackfatality.pdf

Well, that report clears up what happened as much as is humanly possible.

Ms. Berner was heading east on the same road as the wolves who were heading west. The report concludes that the curvature of the road and the vegetation prevented her from seeing the wolves (and vice versa). It suggests it's possible the wolves could have been aware of her presence due to smell (they were heading into the wind), but that their encounter also could have been a surprise on both sides. The evidence does not indicate she was stalked from behind but that they encountered each other head on.

It did find it likely she was listening to an music player, but did not find it to be a contributing factor; it says that between the naturally silent movement of wolves and the winds reported that night, she wouldn't have heard them in any case.

It does suggest that fact that she was out running & alone combined with her small stature could have been contributing factors to the initial attack.

It's also possible she fled when confronted by the wolves (either immediately or after being met with aggressive behaviour) which could have elicited a predatory response by the wolves, but there wasn't enough evidence to know if that was the case or not. They really don't know what her initial reaction to the wolves was.

It also found the wolves were healthy and there was no evidence they were acting defensively, that they had been habituated to people, that they were being attracted by food, or that they were suffering from starvation or severe hunger.

The report also linked to a Living With Wolves page which gives the following advice of what do do in the (rare) event you are faced with aggressive wolves. In part, it says:

• Don’t run, but act aggressively stepping toward the wolf and yelling or clapping your hands if it tries to approach.
• Do not turn your back toward an aggressive wolf, but continue to stare directly at it. If you are with a companion and more than one wolf is present, place yourselves back to back and slowly move away from the wolves.
• Retreat slowly while facing the wolf and act aggressively.
• Stand your ground if a wolf attacks you and fight with any means possible (use sticks, rocks, ski poles, fishing rods or whatever you can find).
• Use air horns or other noisemakers.
• Use bear spray or firearms if necessary.
• Climb a tree if necessary; wolves cannot climb trees.

Running = prey mode.
Headset = totally unaware of surroundings.
Two miles out of town = wilderness.
In Alaska, well known wolf country.

Sometimes stupidity has a high tax.

I don't see why wolves are blamed for behaving like wolves. I simply don't. If humans serve the meal, you might as well eat.

Sue

Well, it certainly didn't work out well for that particular school teacher.

At the very least, when leaving Pennsylvania and going to Alaska, it's best to study up on what you're getting in to.

I've gotten spoiled by doing most of my hiking/backpacking in California. I almost paid for that big time on a backpack in Wyoming. I'm just glad the "tax" wasn't as high in my case.

HJ

Denis,

Nice Amundsen quote. And, not to speak ill of the dead, but if you study some of the things that went wrong with the Scott expedition and compare them to the Amundsen expedition, that quote becomes all the more meaningful.

HJ

I've actually read a bit about the differences between the 2 expeditions; it was from that reading that I picked up this quote. The context definitely makes the quote much richer.

I think its valuable to learn from the successes and failures of the past, and that we can do so without being disrespectful of those who failed.

For those looking to know more about the Candice, the woman who died, her blog is still up: Adventures of an Alaskan Bush Teacher

She only has 17 posts covering her short time in Alaska, but it provides an insight into who she was and what she was doing. I am richer for taking the time to read through her writings and am glad they are still online; I think it's a fitting tribute to an intelligent, caring and adventurous young woman who was truly living life.

I have always been impressed by the words that Scott wrote in his journal as he lay dying, eleven miles from a life saving supply cache - "We took chances, we know we took them. Things have come out against us, therefore we have no cause for regret."

Talk about your British stiff upper lip! You hae to be really tough to maintain that perspective in your final hours.

I am very sorry this poor person lost her life, but I'll take the boom stick over the Ipod seven days a week. Even if she was not Bob Munden, getting off one shot may have been sufficient to send the wolves packing.

Or the other British gentleman (Captain Oates?) who, when he realized his weakened state was holding the others back and therefore threatening their lives, walked out into the snowy cold, never to return, saying, "I am just going outside and may be some time."

HJ

OT: seeing the quotes from those explorers has gotten me to reading about them again. Good Lord, they were tough SOBs. Like woodpecker lips, but colder.

Makes us all look like nancy-boys... except for Sue. I bet she could school Amundsen and Shackleton on a few things.

It is quite interesting to see the difference in how Scott and Amundsen are portrayed in Norway and U.K. The British litterary worship the "stiff upper lip" attitude, and that has made Scott into a national ikon. In U.K., Ammundsen is (or was!) almost portrayed as a cheater - racing to the south Pole and snagging the No. 1. title right in front of their national hero. (Amundsens intentions were kept secret untill they were well under way - even Nansen (who lent him his boat) and his own crew didn't know they would go to the south Pole).

The Norwegians respect Scotts superhuman achievements, but also are rather blunt when they say that the "stiff upper lip" is the fundamental root cause of Scott's failure. Press on, no matter what: That attitude may be fine when your only option is to get home - but it is a recipie for disaster in planning, preparations and heading out into the wild.

I really recommend reading about those two expeditions.

I read the investigation report and it made quite an impression. Its restrained and factual style made the tragedy that much more heart-wrenching and horrible.

Then, I read some of the comments here, and I am dumbstruck. It seems like people having been laying in wait, just ready to pile on the poor dead victim. "She was stupid and should have known better".

What should she have "known better"? This was either the first, or one of the very first, documented fatal wolf attacks in North America, ever. So maybe she should have known there were wolves around. But who would have thought there was even a remote chance of someone traveling a road in broad daylight would get eaten by wolves? Apparently some of the armchair Alaskan experts feel they could have predicted such a freakish and unheard-of event.

It was basically unthinkable. The first time someone gets gored by a whitetail deer while gardening in their back yard, will you people say, "Well there are deer everywhere. She should have known better. She was stupid and deserved to die. Good for our gene pool."

This was an informative article. I learned something I didn't know previously. And some of the information shared here in the follow-up has been helpful. But some of the comments have been truly shameful. Shame on you.

David

Well said, David, well said. I have refrained from commenting on this story, since I didn't feel I had anything concrete to add that wasn't in the report. And like you, I felt that some of the comments were way out of line.

I've see a lot of discussion on this and other forums about the dangers of attack by wild animals...bears, cougars, wolves, etc. I have lived, hiked, camped, hunted, climbed, and paddled my whole life. I have been in Alaska for the last 25 years. Before that I grew up in the Pacific NW, then spent years in the Rocky Mountain region. My own view is that wild animal attacks are way down the list of things to worry about when out in the wilds. This is not to say that there is no risk, or that one shouldn't take reasonable precautions such as bear spray, but the odds are actually very low.

While it is worthwhile to analize incidents to learn what can be learned, many people seem to delight in ridiculing the people involved. People tend to forget that we all make mistakes. If we are honest with ourselves, we all know we have done things that in retrospect seem pretty dumb. I know I sure have. I try to learn from those mistakes and move on.

Okay, I think I understand it now:

If you're out in the wilderness, be aware. If you come upon a wolf/bear/cougar, stop, don't run, make yourself look bigger, clap your hands, yell, bang rocks together to scare them away.

But if you're out in the same wilderness and don't see them (although they're there), it's okay to run with music blaring in your ears.

And since wolves never attack people, you don't have to worry about the bears, either.

Gotcha.

Sue

Candice was killed in early March, during the winter while the bears were hibernating. According to her blog, this was something she was intentional about; she wrote: "I took advantage of the bears being in hibernation to go for a few long runs."

It seems to me she was doing something she loved in the outdoors, something most of us can relate to, and rather than being ignorant of the risks, the evidence indicates quite the opposite - that she was aware of the risks and managed them in a reasonable fashion.

Are there things we can learn from this, ways we can see in retrospect that she could have handled things differently which would have led to a better result? Perhaps. But I see nothing in the evidence to suggest the level of outright incompetence and foolishness that has been suggested of her by some here, yourself included.

Susan, living in Alaska means living in close proximithy with wildlife. More people are injured by moose in Alaska than by bears. While not generally agressive, they can, and (rarely) do kill people. (Some years back a man was stomped to death by a moose on the UAA campus, right in Anchorage.) I live in a normal middle class suburb near the middle of town, yet we often have moose in our yard. The day after Halloween, we had two moose at our front door, eating the pumpkin jack o' lantern we had put out the night before when the kids were trick or treating.

We don't generally get bears in my part of town, but they are not uncommon in some neighborhoods. Last year a friend of mine had one on his deck. For some data on where grizzlies are found, take a look at Tracking Anchorage grizzly bears. Yet there have been very very few bear maulings in town. While not common, there have been wolves seen in neighborhoods north of town, and they have been known to kill domestic dogs.

My point in all this is that living in Alaska, even in the largest city in the state means that one is often near large, potentially dangerous wildlife. Yet, people are very rarely injured, let alone killed by wildlife. That is why these events become news that you read down in Washington State. I don't mean to suggest that reasonable care, and situational awareness isn't important. But if we all followed your advice, and never listened to music when a wildlife encounter was possible (no matter how unlikely) would mean that we never listened to music, except perhaps when locked inside our homes.

Here in Alaska, sensible people take reasonable precautions, yet we also go about our normal daily lives. Folks who want ZERO risk of being injured by wildlife either don't ever go outside, or else they move somewhere else. In my opinion, I think you are being way too critical of a person's actions, in a situation you know very little about.