Humans are fair game for wild animals anytime the humans behave stupidly -- - such as a lady jogger alone in the foothills of Sacramento; - or a lone mountain biker in the mountains above Los Angeles. The Earth is not a shopping mall. It is more like a jungle.
So you seem to believe wolves have a conscious. That is hogwash. If they are hunted, they may fear humans but aside from that they think human flesh is protein and if they need protein and the odds are right....they'll take it down. The record shows many lone humans in the wilderness have been stocked by wolves.
Especially in Kalifornia where hunting is very limited and thos predators have little reason to fear humans!
I think Calif has more mountain lions than anyplace else in the USA due to the hunting ban on them thanks to the Sierra Club. http://www.bapp.org/puma-sighting-map
Between bears mountain lions and wolves, wolves are by far the least dangerous to man but get the worst reputation.
Probably because bears and lions were hunted to extinction in Europe long before history began while wolves managed to hang on longer. The wolves are gone from Europe now too -- only the foxes are left.
In the USA the wolves and brown bears have been hunted almost to extinction. On the other hand the black bears and coyotes have taken over and are thriving in most places. So the black bears are the new top dog and the 'yotes have taken over the spot from the wolves. We have foxes too but 'yotes are killing them off as they please.
I read an auto biography called "tough trip through paradise" by Andrew Garcia. He was a mountain man fur trapper and married an Indian woman. She demanded he shoot every grizzly bear they saw because she hated them so much. They had a long history of attacking Indian villages and taking their food supplies and even killing children for easy food. The Indians were virtually defenseless with their bows and arrows in these night time raids. She never mentioned wolves though.
A pack of wolves would never confront a tribe of people. Wolves only attack people alone. Archery against bears would be really impotent. But if the Indians had used their spears as a group then they would have prevailed against the grizzlies. So either this squaw's people were inept or else the story is suspect. If the squaw was in the woods collecting berries that would be a different and more credible story though.
My 12 gauge magnum slug shotgun will kill anything including an elephant. Works great against 2 legged predators too.
All I can go by is the book and her insistence that he shoot every grizz he saw. Interesting picture on this. "Luce Center Label The prairies of the 1830s were a paradise for animal predators as well as enthusiastic huntsmen. Eagles, wolves, mountain lions, and grizzly bears were among the beasts hunting the abundant antelope, elk, and buffalo. George Catlin described many encounters between predators and prey, but could only make quick sketches of these incidents as they unfolded, in hopes of capturing the excitement in more finished studio works. This work was painted in the artist's studio during the winter of 1832-33. Title Grizzly Bears Attacking Indians on Horseback https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/grizzly-bears-attacking-indians-on-horseback-4080
Statistic show that bear spray is far more effective than guns in bear attacks because when shot a bear generally still has time to kill or maul you before it dies. "Thanks to a study published in the April 2008 issue of the Journal of Wildlife Management by bear researcher Thomas Smith of Brigham Young University, those who market hot-pepper aerosols shouldn't meet as much resistance in the future. Smith analyzed 600 Alaskan bear- human encounters from 1985 to 2006, of which 71 involved pepper spray and aggressive bears—mostly grizzlies. The results? Bear spray, when properly used, halted aggressive bear behavior in 92 percent of the cases. Of the 175 people involved in the bear-spray encounters, only three were injured and none required hospitalization. Wind interfered with the spray in only five incidents, and in no case, stresses Smith, did it fail to reach the target. Twelve users reported irritation from the spray, but the irritation was minor in all but two instances. And in the 71 encounters when bear spray was used, not once did the can malfunction. By comparison, Smith's examination of the use of firearms in hundreds of bear encounters shows that bullets deterred a charge just two-thirds of the time, and that it takes an average of four shots to stop a bear. “A bear attack is a surprise encounter,” Smith says. “Most charges start from only a few yards away. A hunter with his rifle slung is nothing more than a hiker with a stick of steel on his back.” https://www.fieldandstream.com/arti...pper-spray-instead-guns-stop-charging-grizzly
I carry both. "**Do Sprays and Guns Help? ** When it comes to arguing about the effectiveness of bear sprays vs. firearms as deterrents in bear attacks, both sides have valid points to make. The truth is that people don't shoot particularly well under stressful situations like a bear attack, as illustrated by the above example. Sprays can also fail spectacularly as deterrents, especially when the canister is stashed in a backpack (as often happens) or if the wind is blowing the wrong way. But Smith says one thing is certain. Having a deterrent handy is much better than facing a menacing bear with nothing but your fists. For one, the spray or firearm gives you something to do other than run, which is the wrong response to an encounter." https://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/hunting/2007/09/bear-attacks
I carry both when I can but in national parks where guns aren't allowed I feel pretty safe with spray
Open carry can also deter things from going bad in the first place. If you are a mugger and see two people walk into separate dark alleys and one has a pistol on his side while one doesn't, who are you going to mug?