THE LEGACY OF KENTON CARNEGIE
What Could Make the Wolf Even More Controversial?
You think the wolf controversy couldn't get more divisive? Ha! Even though domestic dogs kill dozens of people every year in this country, one death by wolf can make headlines forever.By Bill Schneider, 7-02-09
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks photo.
Anything wolf makes big headlines--and, it seems, is never old news.
For fourteen years since conservationists and the federal government brought the wolf back to the northern Rockies (plus several years leading up to the reintroduction), anything and everything about the Big Dog has been, to say the least, controversial.
But something hasn’t happened yet that could make it much more contentious.
Many westerners have seen the conflict-ridden canine as an agent of change, desired or despised, depending on your point of view, with not many people holding in the middle ground--and an expensive change, too, considering how much money goes into managing and litigating issues surrounding the return of the wolf. Plus, of course, the master predator kills and eats things like elk, livestock, and even a few of its domestic cousins serving as our faithful pets.
But all that controversy will pale by comparison if a wolf bites somebody. We’ve heard many stories about people feeling threatened, but no incident where any member of humankind was actually attacked.
In winning approval for the reintroduction, conservations frequently used the assurance that the wolf posed no threat to humankind, and that nobody had ever been killed by a wolf in North America, ever. Back in 1995 and 1996 when we carted the wolves down from Canada to Yellowstone and central Idaho, that was true. Then, four years ago, we had the much-publicized incident that became the first official, documented fatality.
It happened in far north Saskatchewan. On November 8, 2005, a pack of four wolves killed and ate 22-year-old Kenton Carnegie, an engineering student at the University of Waterloo working at a remote mining camp near Points North Landing in the Wollaston Lake area.
After two years of dispute over what really happened at the camp, a Canadian coroner’s jury officially declared that wolves were to blame for Carnegie’s death.
Although I’m sure nobody was delighted to see a man die a horrible death, anti-wolfers, always skeptical of claims that wolves pose no threat to people, were delighted to have some documentation that the oft-stated claims of conservationists weren’t completely true. Conservationists, predictably, continue to dispute the coroner’s findings, claiming a bear actually killed and consumed Carnegie, and the wolves came around later to be falsely implicated.
Circumstances of the incident were sketchy if not predictable. At the camp, both bears and wolves had become conditioned to getting human food rewards at a large open garbage dump nearby, so in any case, wolves or bears, it was classic human misconduct and mishandling of garbage that eventually led to the tragic death.
Valerius Geist, perhaps Canada’s most noted biologist, gave testimony at the coroner’s inquest that supported his belief that wolves killed Carnegie. He didn’t dance around his conclusion and called it “the first direct human fatality from a wolf attack in North America.” Previously, he noted, rapid wolves have bitten people, but the rabies virus, not the wolf, caused any subsequent death.
But Geist, who has studied wolves, went a big step beyond that key point and said he has noticed a behavior shift in wolf populations that weren’t hunted and consequently had a diminishing fear of humans. These populations tend to be more aggressive than wolves he has studied in the wild.
As we all know, a couple of generations of wolves, about 1,600 of them, currently roam around the northern Rockies. Although federal and state “management actions” remove a couple hundred animals from the population every year, these wolves have never been hunted. That might change this fall in Idaho and Montana if--and it’s a big if--litigation to stop the hunts fails, so don’t bet the farm on any wolf hunting this year.
That’s the intriguing point for me. Are we creating populations of more aggressive, more dangerous wolves? Now, that could get controversial, eh?
“The argument, that there is little danger from wolves because they have rarely attacked humans in North America, is fallacious,” Geist emphasized in an article about the Carnegie incident.
Of special concern, he wrote, are “tame and inquisitive” wolves. When you see such a wolf, “get out of there quick,” he advises, “but without undue haste…Running away invites an attack.”
As for my $0.02, I may be among the minority in the middle ground. I like wolves, supported the reintroduction, and want to see wolves and people peacefully co-exist in the northern Rockies. But I also favor getting the Big Dog off the endangered species list and managed by the state wildlife agencies, which would lead to carefully regulated wolf-hunting seasons.
Endless litigation and disagreement among stakeholders has slowed the process, but nonetheless, we’re on the right track. I hate to think what might happen if we have even one incident similar to what happened up at Points North. Let’s collectively hope it never happens here.
So, Big Bad Wolf, for several reasons, please don’t bite anybody.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
Those of us that know Kenton are not out to get rid of wolves. The majority of us are like you and take a middle ground. No one wants to see wolves become extinct.
The key in your story is that it is HUMANS causing the damage, not the wolves themselves. We keep moving into wild animal territory and we leave our garbage laying around to entice wild animals.
The lesson to be learned from this tragic event is simple. No matter how beautiful a wild animal is, it is still a wild animal. We need to remember that they are predators and will kill to eat. Wolves and other wild animals need be treated with respect.
While Kenton's death may have been the first documented death by wolves, we have been prey for some time. There are other stories from the Canadian north where wolves have attacked and injured humans.
As the supposedly more sentient beings we should be thinking about what we are doing. Garbage should be properly disposed of. We need to ensure that garbage is contained in such a way as to discourage all wild animals from getting in to it.
The garbage dump at Points North was an illegal dump. The government was aware of it but did nothing to ensure that it met regulations.
WE are the problem NOT the wolves.
Wolves are an important part of our northern rockies neighborhood, and so are wolf hunters. Let's get wolves off the list and have states manage their numbers through hunting. Having states accept responsibility for their success and habitat is the best route for wolves to have a successful and sustainable future. It worked decades ago when Teddy Roosevelt and others established hunter conservation organizations that saved over-hunted populations of deer, elk and bison, and it will work again with wolves.
Wildlife biologists in general are dismissive of Geist's scare tactics, as shown by a letter in the Spring 2009 edition of "Wildlife Professional," where a number of biologists including Mike Jiminez, wolf coordinator for Wyoming, state that Geist "overstates the danger that wolves pose to humans" and "does wolves a disservice."
The spectre of the wolf at the dor is an emotional one, not one based on real science, and should not be used in any attempts to decide the fate of the wolf.
If or when the rabid Anti-Wolfers choose to trumpet the danger of humans being attacked by Wolves , that argument can be easily deflated, and should be. Whatever credentials Dr. Geist had going into this debate about a wolf attacking ( a single) human as being a potential threat across the land, he lost all credibility with me. Have him go study Pit Bulls, Dobermanns, Rottweilers, Jackals, Hyenas , then get back to us.
I lived in northern Wisconsin for about ten years, and still own 120 acres of rural land there. During this time, wolves were common in the area, and were frequently heard howling at night. However, they were almost never seen. These wolves were not hunted, and yet they were virtually "invisible" and there were no reports of threatening behavior toward humans. I spent a lot of time hiking alone in the woods, and genuinely hoped for a rare glimpse of a wolf. I was never afraid of being attacked, and sadly I never saw a wolf. In contrast, I've walked alone in a number of American cities where crime rates were high and any reasonable person could be afraid for their safety. The bottom line is that, when it comes to probability and risk, humans are their own worst enemy. Wolves are smart enough to stay out of our way. They leave us alone, and we should return the favor.
statistics and animal behavioral analysis are the scientific basis for stating that wolves will "very rarely" attack a human and even rarer will kill someone.
Nothing too scientific; just that in nearly every case I'm aware of , Wolves turn tail and skeedaddle when confronted by a human , or go into a defensive posture. They are very shy about humans , certain Lamar Valley wolves in the Yellowstone National Zoo being the exception, who have become indifferent . But attack ?---rarely . Rarely. They are equipped for just that , but choose not to , by their nature. Unless of course you'd be stupid enough to try to take their food ( a carcass) away from them... could you blame them ?
I also happen to beleive that trophy rifle hunting of Wolves will not significantly alter their collective behavior towards humans.
Try to manage the extenuating circumstances appropriately but don't burden mankind unduely and manage or kill wolves that become a problem. How hard is that. Unfortunately, the public has this idea that wolves are something they are not thanks to propoganda machines like defenders of wildlife. I can't tell you how many times I have seen and heard of wolves following people just as Dr. Geist discusses and yet these extremists still inform and educate the public that wolves are terrified of humans. That is only a drop in the bucket when one wants to discuss false wolf doctrine that is prevalent in todays society.
perhaps you're reading more into Bill's statement than is there?
"Although I’m sure nobody was delighted to see a man die a horrible death, anti-wolfers, always skeptical of claims that wolves pose no threat to people, were delighted to have some documentation that the oft-stated claims of conservationists weren’t completely true. "
Perhaps you never saw all the "you just wait until it happens" kind of talk. Everyone likes to have their own prophetic moments, and feel justified when those come true, even if the outcome is horrific. Anti-wolf people now have something that they've said come true, and it is a rare occurrence. Perhaps the word "delighted" was a tad too indicative of some amount of joy, and a better word could have been used, but your charges of bias hinges on a single sentence that is qualified in context.
Absolutely no one is stating that problem wolves shouldn't be managed. The question is what is the most effective way to prevent attacks. or the potential of attacks.
As the biologists I quoted earlier point out, the problem is not "habituated predators"- it's human feeding of predators. If there weren't an illegal dump, there would not have been a problem. You can read their letter here- http://www.wildlifeprofessional-digital.org/wildlifeprofessional/2009spring/?pg=10 In addition, long-term research on the wolf's cousin, the coyote, has shown that in almost every documented case of a coyote attack in the US, feeding by humans was a factor.
Random wolf removal by sport hunting won't do anything to prevent conflicts. Wolves are already heavily hunted in Saskatchewan; that didn't prevent this incident.
Again, this is an emotional issue, and people often speak with their hearts rather than looking at the evidence. Hunting wolves won't prevent wolf attacks. Penalties for illegal dumping and feeding of wildlife will.
I would rather never ever see a wolf attack on a person again than have more media on the subject becuase someone had an hour long fight with a wolf pack as Kenton did. Maybe you aren't aware of the details of his attack but I am and what actually happened to him and his family isn't worth getting the proof.
There is always a better way to do something but to blame the community and state it wouldn't have happened if there were no trash is silly. People make trash and this place didn't have an incinerator and the groundwas permafrost.
These particular wolves were killing dog and stalking people. It was known for at least a month prior to the death of this young man. Nothing was done to mitigate the situation and that is becuase people don't believe it will happen or don't want to take a chance getting arrested for killing those animals.
Sure clean up the dump, but if there is nothing else to eat then they may come in for the dogs. Sure we can outlaw dogs away. Why don't we just vacate the premises entirely and stop allowing human to have a place in the area just to mitigate the problem. That is where I see this "we are the problem" claim going.
There has to be some middle ground. At some point there has to be some acknowledgement that these animals are capable and perfectly aware of their abillity to kill whatever they want to kill. They often do stalk people and the animals people associate themselves with. Do we remove all of that just to keep certain extremists happy?
Do this google search: "define: strawman"
Also, reductio ad absurdum
In that case, they also looked at the dump an put up electric fencing to keep animals out. The animals moved on and were not as much of a problem.
Points North was just an open dump. There was no fence of any kind and made for easy access to any animal. It has also been noted that there was plenty of other more natural food sources around for the wolves at that time.
Normally wolves will run off in the opposite direction if they see humans but when we encourage them to get close they will soon learn that we are no threat to them. In the wild we are either predator or prey. By not thinking and doing stupid things we set ourselves up to be prey.
I'm not either for or against killing these animals. I am for education. Whether or not these animals need to be killed or humans need to withdraw from sites like this is not something I am willing to debate simply because I don't have all the facts.
I do believe that the dump is what started the problem in the first place. If it had been set up properly to start with maybe the wolves would not have become climatized to humans and maybe Kenton would stil be alive. Who knows for certain? I don't.
I do know that too many people are using Kenton's death to argue their point on gettng rid of wolves on one hand and others are denying that he was killed by wolves because it hurts their agenda.
WE have done this over and over again. We move in, we don't think, we cause a problem and ignore it until its too late. Its time to start using the brains we were given to prevent this type of thing from happening in the first place.
I don't think that necessarily means that we have to pull out of these areas but it does mean that we have to think about what we are doing when we are there.
I am not sure what it is you want that you aren't getting.
Wolves are already heavily hunted in Saskatchewan.
No one has disagreed that any wolf that does threaten or attack humans or domestic animals should be removed.
What, exactly do you want?
I would just like to see some admittal that these animals should have been removed. And yes, we in the SW are seeing serious wolf habituation issues from pen raised wolves and nobody will remove them on a consistant basis becuase we have extremists bullying tactics leading the political fray. Asking for middle ground and ignoring the political swaggering that is often part of wolf recovery and protecting the people isn't asking too much I don't think.
If you are going to hike (or work) in a remote area where (potentially) dangerous animals are present, the easiest solution is to be prepared. Take bear spray, a side-arm, whatever you need. It is better to have self-protection and not need it than it is to need self-protection and not have it.
Wild animals are what they are. You cannot blame them for hunting, being territorial, or protecting their young. At the same time, you can't really blame a human for protecting themselves if they are attacked by an animal.
This shouldn't be about whether or not the animals should be allowed to exist, but about whether or not people can co-exist with them in a responsible manner.
Kenton's case is very sad. But do you think the outcome would have been the same if he had been carrying a pistol or rifle?
The last evidence I can find of "pen raised wolves" being released is from 1997. With the maximum age of a wolf being around 13 years, I have to wonder if I'm wrong, or Laura is wrong.
I suspect as "wolf tourism" develops as an industry we will probably see guides baiting certain areas to ensure their paying clients see wolves.
The real challenge will be when some young children, waiting for the school bus at the end of the lane in the month of February, and some wolf(ves) in search of a meal take a second look at the children. What do children do when they are scared? Run. What do wolves do when they see something running away from them? Pursue and possibly kill.
Or, some hunter leaves a harvested elk overnight and returns in the morning to find a bunch of wolves chowing down on it. As these encounters increase and wolves do not begin to fear humans there will be problems and exaggerations of events; fears will increase and wolves will get a bad reputation - earned or not.
You pose an interesting and perhaps naive question. Scientific method rules suggest you cannot prove a negative.
And to "crisw" - research on predator behavior in response to being hunted is likely not the same for all species of predator. I have not reviewed the scientific research on the topic, but suspect it is rather limited, and like most wildlife studies you can't do empirical lab studies in the wild, and have good confidence in the conclusions reached.
For starters, lets just say wolves may be smarter, more curious and more adaptable than cougar or bear (although I have seen some very creative bear problem-solving behavior). Because more two or more animals may regularly travel together it seems more likely that they would adjust behavior if one of their lot is killed or injured by a human (of course they would have to associate human to gun shot and the negative result).
I guess you might have to ask the WS hunters that kill or harass problem wolves whether they have observed any deterrent from killing several pack members but not all that are bothering livestock.
Like most carnivores, wolves do eat carrion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenton_Joel_Carnegie_wolf_attack
I run cattle in a remote area in the core of wolf and bear country; I willingly take those risks upon myself and I don't whine about it. Something will probably get me someday; but, i won't be whining about even then. The local "citizens" keep pitbulls and other such fine specimens around their "private property" (such as it invariably is) to proclaim their "rights" (in most cases, it's really to warn them and give them some delay time when law enforcement comes around to investigate the meth traffic or the rustling or the burglaries). These stray rural dogs are more of a threat to me and my livestock than all the wild carnivores within a hundred miles. Pitbulls, cattle dogs, and such animals kill and injure people every day, in every part of the country, and they do it at a rate that wolves, bears, moose, and bison combined can't match; but, while the trash are quick to pump guns in the air, proclaim that there is nothing wrong with them exercising their "right" to hunt, and express their eagerness to shoot wolves, they sure fight those of us (at least, in between pulling out the teeth that the meth has loosened, they fight us) who want to put some constraints on the pitbulls that they let run around on the loose. Now, you can pretend that there is no truth here and that we should all be polite and hold hands and pretend that the salt of the earth really does live out here on these gravel roads; but, that's mostly just pretense and mythology.
No, my "meanness" is really just disgust and it really wasn't city bred; it came from countless days staring down the road at the dogs running through the trees after chasing through my property, then having to listen to their miscreant owners mumble about the wolves.
There are lots of people flying false flags on these conservation issues; we have lots of "collaborators" working these issues. It was just this sort of collaborative thinking that got the grizzly downlisted. Have you noticed how suddenly so many of them have gotten shot out of the gene pool lately. Right now, there's a sow somewhere out in eastern Idaho, probably shot, probably with a couple of young cubs wondering why she doesn't move and her milk has dried up. She's out there because three of your "rural princes" had enough leisure time to run their dogs after bears, just for practice, out of season (you believe that don't you?). I think they were running their dogs on a workday and I don't know why they weren't at work; but, I may be wrong. The dogs cornered the sow; she protected her cubs; but, one of the "rural princes" got in the way, got thrown around a bit, and his buddy just happened to have a 44 pistol and shot.
Once you weasel and cajole your way into getting wolves downlisted (simply in the name of being reasonable), you'll be putting them in the same kind of hands that now "manage" grizzlies and Yellowstone bison. I don't think that's working out too well and, even if it were, the hypocrisy would still gall me.
I was in Montana a few years back, and was packing up to go home when I heard the wolf plane, looked up and it was circling. We had seen the wolves leaving the rocky knob they had spent some time on, and they were walking towards a row of cottonwoods in a far alfalfa field. And the daily one of two planes had gotten a collar signal and had spotted them. The neighbor had lost some calves, and that was what we thought most likely was the reason for the helicopter we saw coming across the valley. It flew by on the deck right at the wolves, wheeled, and I saw one wolf fold, and then another, and then the wolves were over the hill and so was the chopper. More shots, and then here came the chopper, and it landed, the shooter runs over to the wolf and back to the ship, and off it goes, with a wolf dangling by one leg. Three more trips, and it was done and we were packed and on the road, not having time to find out what the deal was.
The following summer we ran into the USFSW shooter, who maybe works for APHIS, in the brush. I asked him why they only shot 4 of 9 wolves. It was to teach them a lesson about being on ranchland he said. That seems sort of harsh, I said, and he said, that, well, one of the dead wolves was showing no fear of people in the Park, and was considered too acclimated to humans, so it was prudent to take that one out of the gene pool ASAP. So what was he doing up in the brush and that answer was he was just checking on the location of a wolf den, which was just on USFS land off the ranch.
So, I would believe, as per personal contact over time, that USFWS and APHIS have most packs collared, monitored, and are in a lot more control of the whole wolf deal than we all believe. Wolves, to this point, don't have have Miranda rights, have no Constitutional protection against prosecution and sentencing, and any attempts at hanging out at the Junior High with a bag of M&Ms;looking for a tender lunch will be foiled long before a wolf can be acted on it. Big brother watches the wolves. Your real fears should be of the recent actions of the newly elected Big Brothers of the non-wolf centric sectors of your life. Out here, it is a guy on the corner with a cup of pencils with the HOPE you have some spare CHANGE.
But, was it a bear or wolves? That question lives on.
Paul Paquet from the Dept of Veterinary Pathology, Western College of Veterinary Medicine along with forensic anthropologist and RCMP Special Investigator, Dr. Ernie Walker investigated and concluded that Carnegie was killed "by a large predator, either a wolf OR a bear. They determined that evidence about probable cause was inadequate to prove a particular theory. According to Paquet.."a reliable determination of the cause of death could not be made".
So...you have McNay and Geist supporting the wolf theory and Paquet and Walker concluding that the "cause of death remains unknown and that the judicial inquiry erred in its determination."
Your point about wolf monitoring and collaring. The wolf management plans for each of the states, contemplates substantial efforts to collar and track wolves, which they have been doing for years. However, because wolves multiply so fast (upwards of 25% per year), and move to new habitat, sometimes away from roads it is difficult to keep up.
Some friends saw numerous wolves in an area of north central Idaho and reported it to the ID Game and Fish wolf program people two years ago. They still don't have the pack(s) collared and they do not show up on their tracking maps. There is a huge data gap between the number of wolves being reported by state agencies and the actual number out there. The under-reporting could be as high as twenty percent. It is also my understanding that only the alpha wolves of a pack are collared usually. And, over time as the pack grows and pups mature they then strike out on their own forming new packs, which until found, verified as new packs, and collared they remain uncounted.
David Mech, likely the preiminent wolf scientist in the US and professor at U of Minn. has stated on repeated occasions that if and when hunting for wolves starts, the likely harvest will be well below what some wolf advocates like Defenders of Wildlife, ASPCA and other groups are stating.
Yet one more data gap in favor of larger wolf numbers.
You are incorrect. I live here participated in the recovery team at the time it was intact and deal with the day to day mismangement. They are still releasing captive raised wolves down here in AZ and NM. Becuase the Agencies can't get the wolves to hold their own on the groung.
Worse they refuse to remove problem habituated animals. So even the wild born animals are taught by captive raised parents that aren't adapting that it is OK to hand out at homes. All in the name of recovery.
Bears were hibernating there were no bear tracks accross the lake only melted out and re-frozen wolf tracks. Certain wolf biologist/activists made sure there would always be a question in the minds of everyone when he claimed there were bear tracks in the area. It simply wasn't true. Apparently just throwing deliberate misinformation out there worked. The Carnegies ended up having to hire experts, legal council and have a full airing of the evidence to get the truth of their son's death out. Sad we live in an age of such deliberate misinformation coming from phd's in the field to cover their entire careers worth of misinformation.
Just to throw out there, a bear would have killed this young man a lot faster than what occured. There were tracks of 4 wolves jumping at him, while he stood. His tracks showing where he shoved them off him. Tracks of them on him when he fell and His tracks getting up again and finally him running and standing his ground a final time. The predator responsible had large canine tracks.
Please people, don't feed the misinformation train. There was no doubt.
I doubt it, which therefore makes all of your opinions somewhat suspect, and possibly useless.
Why is it that the anti-wolf people have these documents but no one else does? This is an important fact to consider when assessing the claims that wolves killed Kenton Carnegie.
Fine--you have them, post them so we all can see them and judge their value. Let's see the photos too. They aren't currently on the web--I've looked. My suggestion is that you make .pdf copies and send them to Bill Scheider so he can post them on the NewWest website.
Information is no good when it's hidden. When it's deliberately hidden, as appears currently to be the case, there is reason to doubt it.
Your move.
RH
I don't think the statistics have much validity. Yes wolves have been statistically less of an impact to livestock than other predators nationwide. However, wolves aren't located nationwide in agricultural areas. We cannot compare a national survey to areas with proximity to wolf populations. We are talking about animals impacting localized areas rather than the entire nation as the statistics cover. If data were gathered in the localized areas where wolves are present, and presented in a local or regional level the data would show proximity is the problem.
And I have the studies and documents becuase Kenton Carnegie's father thought it would be beneficial for me to have them in order to prevent what happened to his son from happening here. So he sent them to me himself. They are available in PDF. form along with several other relevant documents. I did however black out the pictures becuase there are kids who access the website and to inspire gawkers serves no one.
http://wolfcrossing.org/wolf-attacks/
And lets not forget the state and federal livestock officials who are for more backward looking than any actual producer I know.
Ironically, the person most likely to be attacked and killed by wolves in the US will be an unarmed wolf researcher/volunteer, or hardcore backcountry hiker/snowshoer who is in the woods in the dead of winter when other game is scarce--not pissed-off ranchers with a 22. and a 30.06 in the pickup. But having encountered a few different packs of wolves by myself, in the summer when there are much tastier things to eat other than me, an entire wolf pack seems less a threat than encountering Dave Skinner at the trailhead as he reads your bumper stickers and takes note of you tag number...
Checked out your website and the documents you claim are evidence of wolf predation on Kenton Carnegie. Really, all you have on this incident are Geist and McNay's reports, (and McNay's only partially) which themselves are seriously in question. I note that no original documents are present on your website--RCMP report, original forensic reports, photographs of the scene, etc. Those original documents and photographs are what is necessary to form an independent judgment. Specifically, what I'm looking for are the documents listed in Appendix A of the exerpt of McNay's report that you posted.
RH
I'm not saying Carnegie wasn't killed by wolves, but I am saying that Laura is an incredibly biased source that has made questionable statements and has a bias that is as wide as Dave Skinner's ego.
Before you label me as pro-wolf, understand that I agree that management of wolf populations is required due to reduction in available wilderness and to reduce human-wolf interactions. I do not, however, believe that allowing idiots on ATV's and meth-dealing governors shooting them from planes should be allowed. Rather that the management is undertaken by those with a true interest in the management and success of the programs. I also have found no scientific evidence, other than "common sense" that human annoyances will reduce wolf-human encounters. Perhaps someone here has actual proof that shooting wolves will drive them away for significant periods of time (reducing their habituation).
Seems I have seen your pro wolf and contentiously biased comments on other posts. Regarding the Carnagie killing, I hope you will carefully review the reports and comments of Dr. Valarius Geist and Mark McNay Geist is a very well known and objective scientist with long experience regarding wolves. His observations and conclusions are remarkably clear and common-sense. Both McNay and Geist are particularly critical of the initial conclusions of Dr. Paul Paquet whose conclusion was that Carnagie could have been killed by either a bear or wolves. Nevermind that no bears or tracks had been observed in the area in November when bears would have been in hibernation at that latitude and time of year. It is also signficant that Paquet did not analyze the teethmarks (consistent with wolf deniture) or give credence to other scientific and circumstantial environmental factors (like knwon aggressive wolves being present in large numbers in the vicinity of the attack) raised by both Geist and McNay.
It seems the 6 person coroner's jury didn't buy Paquet's Bull....either. Media coverage on this in Canada was not particularly impressed with Paquet either. I think the wikipedia piece was remarkably objective.
Thank you to Laura for providing these documents. The only other thing missing is Paquet's written report if he prepared one.
And one last comment for you Robert, just why would wolves in Russia, India, Finland/Norway and other places around the world attack, kill and consume humans over several hundred years? ....... and then, not be inclined to do so in North America, especially after they become habituated?
By the way, I checked with a couple of my academic sources and it seems Paquet is anything but an objective scientist, and a bit of a gadfly.
All this leads up to this long, long standing set of skills and knowledge of the coldest regions inhabited by man on this earth, and their relationship with their environment, which does include wolves. I believe I remember accounts of wolves being shot at. I believe I read in this work that castrated male reindeer wear bells, not unlike a bell wether in a band of sheep. I believe the reindeer steers are also steads, and ridden, as well as being broke to pull a sleigh.
I don't have it in front of me, but it was a wonderful read, and full of empirical knowledge about the far north and herding reindeer right smack dab in the middle of caribou country, and the reindeer are genetically the same animals. So the issue was always to stay away from a herd of caribou because if you lost animals to the caribou herd, they were gone. You didn't get those back. In my mind, my memory right now, there was a mention of wolves hunting caribou but seldom the reindeer, because they got shot at by the native peoples. Also, the reindeer bells were a warning to wolves, which the native people think wolves paid some attention to. And shamans were the spiritual and moral guides for the ethnic groups, and even the word "shaman" comes from their language form.
I am not a good source due to no book in my library. But do read it, because it is very interesting. The communist native peoples depending on the state to do stuff for them, and then the communist economy being replaced by a more capitalist society produces some conflict for native peoples, and I found that interesting. Maybe by reading "The Reindeer People" I have been given a glimpse of our future.
Actually, as a naturalist myself, having done my graduate work on wolves--specifically wolf control in Canada--I am more than familiar with Dr. Geist's work. To my knowledge, he has done no peer-reviewed work on carnivores at any time in his career. What he is known for is his work on the evolutionary biology of ungulates. McNay, as an employee of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, in my considered opinion shares the ADF&G;bias against wolves.
As to whether Paul Paquet is biased, that is your opinion. I personally have not found him so. I'd sure like to know who your "academic" sources are. Charles Kay, perhaps?
Further, the issue at hand is whether wolves killed Kenton Carnegie. What may or may not have happened in the Old World historically regarding wolves and humans is irrelevant to that question. I've read Will Graves' book, and it is largely based upon folklore, not science. Graves is not a scientist. Even Geist, who edited the book, admits in his preface that Graves' scholarship is sometimes sloppy.
So show me the facts, not opinions. If the facts are with your point of view, then why not provide them to the rest of us?
RH
http://www.gilalivestockgrowers.org/
"Just my opinion the global warming bill was passed to destroy American industries to the point that China will be paid back for our debt."
Pure conspiracy and uninformed useless opinion posed as fact. Hard to have credibility when you're linked to that site.
Regardless, Geist's scientific method, and forensic evidentiary technique in the Carnegie killing seems solid. Same is true of McNay, regardless of his professional association, although I too would like to see source documents relied upon for his conclusions.
Don't know about Paquet or Williams select facts and detailed conclusions, because I've not seen a report under either name.
Like you, I am in search of truth, surrounding the Carnagie death. Just to revisit the obvious, do you have an explanation for the testimony and photos of the aviation mechanics which strongly suggest aggressive behavior toward them? Do you have an explanation for why wolf stomach contents reportedly contained human hair or flesh? Don't know why they couldn't do DNA testing against Carnegie.
Didn't look, though, did you?
"As for the myths or facts surrounding wolf attacks against humans around he world, it seems there are too many antecdotal incidents for them all to be folklore."
No one has said that human-wolf contact wouldn't result in some attacks, and only a few pro-wolf extremists would say that it won't happen. So what is your point? All of history has had violent interactions with wolves. It has also been full of violent interactions with Christians, jellyfish and even sharks with friggin laser beams (or angry seabass).
Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me to Pacquet or Williams reports, smart....
Forgive me for thinking you're biased, but many of your comments only indicate someone that wants to find evidence that supports the specific conclusion that wolves killed Carnegie. I'm more than willing to say "We don't know, the evidence was poor to begin with and competing biases on both sides have made it impossible to find the truth."
Of course, that conclusion would most serve the pro-wolf side, as it would get rid of evidence that "wolves are bad, mmmm-kay" that they use to try to justify their overwhelming bias, such as Laura's clear conflict of interest hidden as "trying to find the facts".
I am certainly not ashamed of either one of our websites. They provide a valuable resourse to our members and to many people trying to find both sides of the issue not just the one that has been fabricated.
I don't believe Dr. Paquet has written anything on the Carnegie case that is scientifically based at all. I believe he rushed to participate in a fraudulent nat geo show that showed the culprit was bear. The RCMP agree, the coroner agreed, Security at the scene agreed. The evidence is presented in the form of these documents that swayed the official investigation into the death of this young man.
Nope I don't have the entire document up I don't think it is appropriate to show photographs of people at their very worst to everyone in the world.
The Global warming comment is from a twitter account wow that is really telling. Judging the entire content of the website from one tweet just seems very small minded to me.
The Reindeer book sounds great I am going to Amazon. Maybe there is more information in it that will help me with my research and thoughts. thanks for that note. Seems as usual it is a waste of time to discuss anything but the Defenders of Wildlife position here and I need something better to read anyway.
Dr. Geist shares the same expertise.
This is my opinion, one cannot understand predator behavior if one first doesn't understand the behavior of its prey.
I am not sure what you all Jay is looking for that he isn't getting but I have provided enough for a boatload of reading. I think it is important not to let your own ideas get too much in the way of continuing to read about the issue.
They are blamed for everything--usually without bases.
Hatred for wolves is nothing more than prejudice--no different than anti-Semitism--or racial hatred.
Nobody has ever provided credible evidence that a wolf has ever eaten a human being!
Three of the photos of the alleged "aggressive" wolves appears in the McNay excerpt. What I get from these photos, which aren't much to go on, is that:
1. The wolves are habituated to be so close to humans. Apparently, according to the McNay's report of an interview with the aviation personnel involved, one of the wolves walked up to van Galder and SAT DOWN in front of him. This is very odd to my way of thinking--more dog- than wolf-like. None of the photos shows this behavior, however.
2. Chris van Galder, who appears in the photos, appears to be provoking the one wolf that is facing him. In another photo, he appears to be smiling.
3. The wolf's posture in front of van Galder in one of the photos is ambiguous as to aggression or fear, although as far as I can tell, the tail of the wolf facing van Galder appears to be lowered, which indicates fear more than aggression. It's really hard to tell; it would be nice to see the other photos. Both aggression and fear? That's way different from focused predatory intent.
4. The other wolves in the photos appear completely uninterested in either van Galder or his companion.
Presence of human remains--according to McNay, only human hair, not muscle tissue--in the wolves necropsied is not in and of itself proof of predation; it could just as easily be proof of scavenging.
What appears to be missing is the DNA report that connects the hair found from the necropsy with Kenton Carnegie.
From the quotations in the Wikipedia piece, there are clearly direct conflicts between Paquet and Walker and Geist and McNay that as yet are not resolved.
It seems likely that the "crime scene" was contaminated before evidence was formally collected.
My own view is: it's possible, but not probable that wolves killed Carnegie. There are too many unknowns and too little available facts. What we have are reports reflecting anti-wolf bias, especially in the case of Geist. We don't have the Paquet/Walker report to tell one way or the other. We do know that Paquet and Walker were on scene. Neither Geist nor McNay traveled to the Province.
What sways me more to the view that wolves did not kill Carnegie is the refusal of those who make such claims to release the raw data to the public. We're getting lots of claims, but no proof. What we do have, which is quite limited, is clearly being used as propaganda--e.g., the Wolf Crossing website, which seems to me simply paranoid, as are all the anti-wolf websites I've come across. I don't trust propaganda.
So, once again, what are the facts, and where are they?
RH
Either you have proof, or you don't. Your refusal to provide proof is itself proof that all you have is ideology.
I find it interesting that various livestock groups and right wing hunters have no problems posting photographs of livestock or wildlife that have attacked by wolves--photographs used as anti-wolf propaganda to upset those innocent of any experience of wolves. So let's go the extra mile and see what you have on the Carnegie event--if you indeed have it.
I've hunted all my life and have been around wolves for nearly 15 years. We have at last count three packs here in my little corner of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. I do know wolves, and I have serious doubts about your claims.
RH
My internet search produced an article attributed to Dr. Geist regarding the Carnegie investigation. It contains a detailed timeline discussion of the investigation and the individuals involved. However, it is also highly critical of Dr. Paquet including his media contact (no doubt Paquet was paid for his consultation to a referenced National Geographic film crew reenactment of the Carnegied death), and his conduct during the coroner's proceedings. The article apparently originally was published in "Fair Chase" December 31,2008, and then subsequently published in "Minnesota Hunting Today" on line.
The link is:
http://minnesotahuntingtoday.com/blog/index.php/2008/12/31/death-by-wolves-and-misleading-advocacy-the-kenton-carnegie-tragedy/
The article stands on its own, as does the reputation of Professor Geist. It is curious that the reports of Dr. Paquet and Dr.Walker (I incorrectly called him Williams) remain confidential. One also has to wonder that if Geist's allegations of "misleading advocacy" against Paquet were untrue, a rebuttal by Paquet would have been in order, and maybe he did one.
I'll continue to suspect you're pathologically predisposed to hate wolves--perhaps all dogs...
And, for your information my golden retriever sits at my feet as I write these notes today, wondering why I haven't taken him for a walk this evening.
Back to Carnegie....
Early last year I listened to Paquet speak at a seminar. Here's some quotes taken from a short summary that was passed out beforehand.
"I was asked by the Saskatchewan's Chief Coroner to investigate the accident and determine, if possible, the cause of death. I carried out the investigation with forensic anthropologist (RCMP Special Investigator), Dr. Ernie Walker. Our determination was equivocal. Specifically, we concluded that Carnegie was killed by a large predator, either a wolf or a bear. The reason we were not definitive was that the substance, reliability, quality, and consistency of the physical evidence varied significantly as did the contradictory accounts of witnesses who attended the scene. At best, the evidence allowed us to speculate about probable cause but was inadequate to prove a particular theory."
He goes on but the point is that this doesn't sound like someone with a predetermined agenda.
The wolf lovers continue to say there have been no documented cases of wolves attacking anyone in North America. This statement is as inaccurate as many of their other statements and needs to be refuted. There are numerous examples available, but the few listed will suffice.
From Readers Digest, July 1977; In August of 1976 Eleven year old Zack Delventhal was viciously attacked. His face was ripped open, his nose crushed, parts of his mouth and right cheek were torn, the lower part of his right ear was dangling, blood gushed from his face. The wolf was killed by Algonquin Park authorities and found to be a young healthy adult male wolf.
Daily News, April 27, 2000; A radio-collared wolf repeatedly bit a 6-year-old boy playing in a grove of alders at a logging camp northwest of Yakutat, Alaska State Troopers said. The boy had tears on his back and puncture wounds.
Associated Press, Victoria, British Columbia, July 05, 2000; Scott Langevin, 23, required 50 stitches to close a wound on his head and was bitten on the hand by a "dark-colored wolf". He was awakened by the wolf tugging at the foot of his sleeping bag. "I yelled to try to spook it off and I kicked at it," Langevin said. "It backed up a bit but then it just lunged on top of me and it started biting away through my sleeping bag," His camping buddies drove the wolf away. Langevin was bleeding profusely and was airlifted to a Victoria hospital.
The Toronto Star, Sept. 29, 1998: A wolf attacked a 19 month-old boy in Algonquin Park. The wolf grabbed the boy about the rib cage and tossed him about three feet. The boy had no deep wounds, but needed stitches and was started on a series of rabies shots. The animal was hunted down and killed. There have been four other wolf biting attacks on humans in the Park during the past twelve years.
Sports Afield Magazine, December 2000 issue; In Alaska, six year old John Stenglen was viciously attacked by a healthy male wolf. The wolf was killed by loggers.
Algonquin Provincial Park, July 25, 1988; A 16 year old girl was bitten by a wolf on the arm. A heavy coat prevented severe lacerations. The wolf was shot by Natural Resources personnel and tested negative for rabies.
Journal of Mammology, Vol 28, No 3, Aug 1947; Michael Dusiak was attacked by a wolf. It was killed with picks and shovels. It was examined by a Conservation Officer who said it was "young, healthy, and in good condition".
John James Audubon reports in "The Quadrupeds of North America"; Two men in Kentucky were attacked by a pack of wolves. They managed to kill three wolves with their axes. One man was severely injured and escaped up a tree. The other man was killed and devoured and only bones remained the next day.
Clarence Lindley was reportedly attacked by a 125-pound timber wolf. The incident occurred in early November, 1992 on the Figure 4 Ranch in Dunn County, North Dakota. Lindley was hunting horseback when the wolf attacked Lindley's horse causing it to jump and fall. Lindley was able to grab his saddle gun, a lever action Winchester 94, as the horse fell. The horse recovered its balance and Lindley found himself face to face with a snarling wolf. "My heart was pounding," said Lindley, "I could see those big teeth. He was less than five feet away... He meant business; he wasn't going to back off." Lindley fired his rifle at point blank range and killed the wolf with a shot to the neck. Lindley left the wolf since he couldn't get his horse close to it. On return to his hunting camp, his hunter friends failed to believe the account. They returned to the scene and skinned the wolf. The pelt was a flawless black and gray pelt measuring seven and a half feet from its feet to its snout. Its bottom teeth measured one and a half inches; top teeth - one and a quarter inches. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDGF) confiscated the hide and head of the wolf and took it to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for determination of its species. Tests revealed that the wolf was non-rabid. The wolf was thought to have come from Canada. (Reports on file and available upon request.)
“NEW ROCKFORD, DAK, March 7, 1888 - The news has just reached here that a father and son, living several miles northeast of this city, were destroyed by wolves yesterday. The two unfortunate men started to a haystack some ten rods from the house to shovel a path around the stack when they were surrounded by wolves and literally eaten alive. The horror-stricken mother was standing at the window with a babe in her arms, a spectator to the terrible death of her husband and son, but was unable to aid them. After they had devoured every flesh from the bones of the men, the denizens of the forest attacked the house, but retired to the hills in a short time. Investigation found nothing but the bones of the husband and son. The family name was Olson. Wolves are more numerous and dangerous now than ever before known in North Dakota." (Saint Paul Daily Globe, March 8, 1888)
Several attacks have occurred with these introduced wolves in the west. The Cascade Cattleman March 2002 reports an attack on Salmon, Idaho resident Tim Sundles and his wife.
I, Jonesy, personally talked with a Cody resident who was leading a packhorse when it was attacked by wolves. He doesn’t want me to use his name, but the severely injured horse escaped by running into a river and the horse was examined by a vet and by FWS officers. Fortunately no one has yet been killed or injured by the introduced wolves, but it will just be a matter of time.
We must begin to hunt these wolves so they will develop a fear of man and to keep their numbers in check. The wolf I saw at very close range, less than 10 feet (yes, feet--not yards), in winter 2003 had absolutely no fear of my son and I.
Maury Jones
Grover, Wyoming
I guess I'm not prejudiced. I don't hate wolves any more than I hate flies. And I have no problem managing flies in an appropriate manner.
Wyoming does NOT manage grizzlies. The original target for delisting the grizzly was 150 bears. There are now 700-1000 bears and they are still not delisted. The USFWS "manages" them, which means they count them. The reason more have been killed in the last 18 months is because there are way too many of them and they are causing problems.
The original agreement on introducing wolves was 100 wolves in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. There are now about 600 of them and they are not delisted. The Environmental Impact Statement on introduction of the wolf examined the impact of 100 woves on the ecosystem, not 600 wolves. They are devastating our wildlife.
When wolves were introduced in 1994 there were over 19,000 elk in the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd. There are now about 7,000 and the average age of the elk has increased from 5.6 years to 8.2 years. Also, the Dunoir Valley northwest of Dubois, Wyoming has historically been the home of over 100 moose. They are now gone. The moose herds north of Jackson have been decimated by the wolves. There are very few moose left.
Without elk feeding in northwestern Wyoming we would only have 1/3 the elk we now have. We have built our homes and farms on elk winter range and it is only fair that we give them a bale of hay in return. Besides, we need elk to feed to the wolves. The free-ranging elk have dramatically changed their wintering habits because of the wolf. They congregate in big herds for protection. Same congestion as on the elk feedgrounds.
Frankly, I would rather have elk and moose in abundance than to have the chance of hearing a non-native-imported-from-Canada-wolf howl.
Jonesy
But Kenton Carnegie was not the first. The Leblond familie was renting an isolated cottage at Baie-Comeau, Quebec. On the 24th of September 1963 5 year old Marc Leblond was playing with his brother outside the house. There was a commotion and Marc disappeared, He was later found dead in the woods.
But living in Europe we have a different historical view of the wolf. Historians in Finland, Italy and France have studied older records. The wolf was feared and hated. The rural population had no defense as they were not allowed to carry arms. The best known case is the Beast of Geuvadan which killed over 200 people and was hunted by over 10000 people over several years.
Statistics doest really give the complete story of wolf impact on society.
Three individuals were killed by wolves in Russia and the old Soviet republics this last winter.
1) Grizzly bears were officially delisted 22 March 2007 and returned to state management at that time. See http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm. Before delisting,the State of Wyoming had a long-standing agreement with the Fish & Wildlife Service to conduct operational management under FWS supervision, and the Wyoming Game & Fish Commission paid, and still pays, damage compensation to ranchers for livestock lost to bears, at a pretty good rate too--for every confirmed cattle kill, the rancher gets paid for 3 dead cows.
2) There was never any intent or agreement in the FEIS or the final rule for wolf reintroduction to set a cap on the numbers of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The 10 breeding pairs/100 wolves per state (30 prs/300 wolves for the GYE and central Idaho) you refer to was meant as a trigger for delisting, nothing more. Go back and read the documents instead of making things up.
3) There is no scientific evidence that wolves are regulating elk or moose in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Landowners are still pushing state wildlife agencies to reduce elk numbers; that's why we still have late season type 6 cow-calf licenses in Wyoming, even in the wolf country of NW Wyoming, and that overhunting also been a factor in the decline of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, which was way over carrying capacity of its winter range when it numbered 19K+ in the mid-90s. The numbers were going to fall anyway, and wolf and bear predation on the Herd has been largely compensatory. So, hunting cows and calves in the late season is having a far greater impact on elk numbers than either grizzlies or wolves. There is however some evidence that outfitters are taking too many 6 point bull elk, thus requiring a reduction in the number of antlered elk licenses, going from general to limited quota. Check out the Wyoming G&F;Department herd unit reports for all elk areas in NW Wyoming, specifically the documents used for the Sunlight Crandall Elk Working Group in the Cody Region, where we finally have the imposition of limited quota system in a formerly general license area. The outfitters and the SFW dudes on that working group (no conservationists were invited or even knew about it) tried to claim wolves were killing bull elk to excess but it's clear from G&F;data provided to the group that the hunter take of bulls is excessive in the Sunlight/Crandall area, and the habitat is also poor. See the documents at http://gf.state.wy.us/services/news/RegionalNews/Cody/Management/index.asp. That's also true of the situation here in the Upper Wind River Valley, the Dubois area, where I live (more on this shortly). We're about to run out of mature 6 points here in the Upper Country, particularly in area 67, because commercial outfitters have consistently been taking too many. I've been pushing G&F;to eliminate general licenses to go to a limited quota system for antlered elk for the Upper Country, but the Lander G&F;office refuses for political reasons, since most everyone around here wants to blame wolves and bears when in fact the main problem is overhunting, aside from the drought.
4) As for moose in Jackson Hole, Dr. Joel Berger has demonstrated that starvation has been having a serious impact on moose, partly from the long running drought, partly from the persistance of decadent, less nutritious food sources (e.g., willows). See http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/20/science/moose-must-relearn-lessons-in-survival.html. Another factor is too many elk browsing the willows to nubs, especially in the Gros Ventre and on the National Elk Refuge, denying that food source to moose. Here in the Upper Country we have the same situation for moose, particularly with decadent willow stands; they are decadent primarily because over the last 15 years or so, we haven't had the strong spring flooding to tear out decadent willows to make room for new willow growth. The heavy rains and floods we've had this spring should make a difference here.
4) As far as moose in the Dunoir are concerned; I live here, and you don't. I go into the Dunoir at least once a summer and I always find moose or recent moose sign. Moose in the Dunoir are suffering the same problems that moose elsewhere in this area area are suffering--too little moisture and excessively old willow stands--that is, they are food-limited. In the winter of 2002, 11 moose were found dead here, none of them killed by predators. Unfortunately, none of them was collected and necropsied in time to determine the cause of death. I myself found one of these moose shortly after it died. It had simply died. Not a mark on it except for a little coyote scavanging at the rear end. The most serious moose predator in the Dunoir was rancher Ab Cross, who in 1963 killed 18 moose in one winter "to protect his private property." He was charged with and convicted for the killings but the Wyoming Supreme Court let him off. That's Wyoming.
5) As far as feedgrounds are concerned, the reason we're feeding elk is to keep them off range reserved for cattle. In most areas, particularly in the Gros Ventre River Valley and the Upper Green River Valley, there's plenty of winter range for elk. It's just that local ranchers are too greedy to share it with elk. It's not true, as you Jackson area outfitters claim, that a bale of hay is worth an acre of habitat. Feeding has long been recognized by biologists and wildlife managers to weaken elk as the high densities on the feedgrounds foster disease such as necrotic stomatitis and brucellosis. Feeding makes them lazy, and feeding damages habitat, as is easily seen on the NER and in Gros Ventre. Dr. Bruce Smith, the former senior scientist on the NER, discusses the habitat problem with elk in his book Imperfect Pastures, available through the Grand Teton Natural History Association.
6) I sure wonder what you outfitters are going to do when chronic wasting disease gets onto the feedgrounds and starts killing off elk in the thousands. Do you think clients might choose to hunt elk elsewhere? When that happens, it'll be too late to do anything.
7) Over here on the east side of the Divide, the impact of wolves on elk has been to spread elk out both winter and summer. I myself am finding smaller bands of elk hiding in heavily forested areas or steep canyons, and fewer large bands of elk on the exposed, grassy, volcanic plateaus of the southern Absarokas. However, elk numbers themselves haven't changed all that much, except that during a targeted herd reduction program from 1998-2003, carried out at the demand of Stephen Gorden of the Diamond G in the Dunoir, we took out an extra 1500 elk, mainly by shooting them on the Horse Creek Road firing line, which the elk of the Dunoir segment of the herd must cross to get to its winter range on Spring Mountain above Dubois, behind the Diamond D/Rocking Chair Ranch.
I realize of course that these facts won't change your mind about wolves and other wildlife issues, but I do hope readers of New West will take them to heart.
RH
I spent 10 days as the guest of Dr Geist this last May. He is as sharp and vigorous as ever. But he has studied the older records from the old world. If you read French I recommend "Le méchant loup" by Jean-Marc Moriceau. 3000 well documented victimes, 2/3 were predatory attacks. Mostly on children.
You wolf-worshippers will continually defend the wolf and blame the decline on outfitters until there are no elk left. Outfitters have been around for a hundred years and, yes, they want 6 point bulls for their clients, but the elk thrived with outfitting and they are seriously declining with wolves. By the USFWS figures, each wolf is responsible for the death of 1.8 elk (or equivalent) per month. Just do the math. 600 wolves in the Yellowstone ecosystem times 1.8 elk per month times 12 months equals 12,960 elk per year fed to wolves. Some elk herds, and most moose herds in wolf country, have passed the point where they produce enough calves to feed wolves and grizzlies. They are in a predator pit and cannot recover. When they are all but gone, like the moose in Dunoir, you will still be blaming it on outfitters.
That "starvation" thing on moose is a real crock! Your local meat plant in Dubois has photos of all moose brought in and they have layers of fat on them. No evidence at all of starvation.
Comments on your points above;
1. Griz may have been "officially delisted" but Wyoming cannot hunt them because of federal regulations and lawsuits. That is not state management. Wyoming would like nothing better that to issue a lot of griz permits. They cannot issue one single permit at this time because of court challenges to the supposed "delisting".
2. So you guys lied when you said "when there are 100 wolves we will delist them." That 100 wolf figure is in the Final Rule for Introduction.
3. So the serious decline in the numbers of elk and moose in wolf country is because of hunters, even though hunting permits have declined dramatically? And even though the calf survival rate has dropped drastically? The decline is because outfitters kill too many 6 point bulls? Utter nonsense!
4. Starvation of moose just because their preferred willow is supposedly overbrowsed? More nonsense! In areas with no wolves the moose are doing fine.
4. When the wolf was introduced there was such a healthy population of moose that they issued over 500 permits in areas north of Jackson. This year they issued 5. That is not a misprint. Moose hunting has been carefully regulated for over 60 years and we've had a healthy population of moose, until the wolf. G&F;helicopter game counts with video and photos this past winter show almost NO moose calves. So that is also because of hunters, but not the two-legged kind.
5. The reason for elk feedgrounds is to keep them out of farmer's haystacks and out of people's yards because we have built our homes and farms on elk winter habitat. And yes, in a few instances the feedgrounds are specifically to increase the number of elk. For instance, Forest Park Elk Feedground in the upper Greys River; Before the feedground there were about 400 elk wintering out. Every few years a severe winter would kill over half of them, then their numbers would slowly build back up to about 400. Elk hunting was by special permit on limited quota. A few locals, including outfitters, pushed for the feedground. Now there are 1,000 elk on the feedground and about the same 200-400 wiintering out. The hunting is great on a general license. Whether you like hunting or feedgrounds or not, the fact is that we have 1,000 more elk for viewing or hunting because of outfitters and because of feedgrounds.
6. Elk are herd animals and if CWD gets into herds it won't make much difference if it is feedground herds or other herds. So, your argument is that we should eliminate feedgrounds, thus reducing the numbers of elk by more than half, with the resulting problems of elk getting into farmer's haystacks and destroying people's home landscaping, just because it isn't "natural" and may contribute to disease? More nonsense!
7. If you think wolves spread the elk out, you should see the G&F;video and photos from this past winter. Wintering elk are congregated in big bunches and bed in a tight group on an exposed knoll to watch for wolves. Every bit as congested as elk feedgrounds.
No, Hoskins, your "facts" are the ones that are tainted by emotion. You love wolves so much you will blame everything else but the wolf for its negative impact on our wildlife.
Jonesy
This story is of course absolutely false. The reason fewer hunters were coming to Dubois is because the Wyoming G&F;Department was issuing far fewer licenses to hunt elk; the herd reduction program was over, and to continue hunting at previous levels would have been unsustainable.
As I mentioned above, the herd reduction program began with the complaints by Stephen Gordon, owner of the Diamond G Ranch in the Dunoir Valley west of Dubois, about too many elk. G&F;responded to Gordon's complaints with a five year herd reduction program targeting the Dunoir, or westernmost, segment of the Herd. During that period of time, 1500 additional cow calf licenses were issued to achieve a significant reduction in elk numbers. (This hunt also skewed cow-calf ratios, something else the antis blame on wolves). Once the Herd had been reduced to the desired level, G&F;stopped issuing the additional licenses. That's why there were and are fewer hunters coming to Dubois--fewer hunting licenses. Wolves and bears had and have nothing to do with it. Hunters whacking every poor elk that stuck its head out of the tree line to cross Horse Creek Road to get to winter range had everything to do with it.
In other words, it wasn't wolves and bears that killed all those elk; it was hunters on the Horse Creek Road Firing Line. Culture and politics being what they are, however, the local wolf haters, of whom there are quite a few, had to make up a story about wolves and bears killing the elk and chasing hunters away, thus ruining the economy of Dubois. These folks hate looking in the mirror.
What we have here is a single example, which I observed from the very beginning, of the process of creating rural myths. Virtually every story you hear from the antis about wolves has this kind of origin. The truth--human agency and responsibility for problems-- is too hard to take, so make up what you want to hear and spread it around and around and around until it becomes the truth. I've been listening to this lie about wolves, bears, and elk in Dubois for six years now, and it has proven impossible to erase, no matter how hard I try.
It's the same with moose. Moose are in trouble? Blame wolves. It's easier than establishing the facts about climate, the destruction of browse by too many elk, and the decadence of remaining browse, all of which I mentioned above and all of which have irrefutable scientific underpinnings.
It most certainly is not true that the Dunoir valley west of the town of Dubois has no moose. That's another rural myth that these people have made up and repeat among themselves as part of the ritual.
Such is folklore. It's something to take into account when the anti-wolf crowd turns to the Old World for "facts" about wolf behavior and humans. Cherchez le loup dans le peur des paysans sans science.
RH
The Wyoming Game and Fish , the Governor, the anti-Wolf legislators ( nearly all of them , unfortunately ), and pretty much everyone else really do need to quit listening exclusively to outfitters, hunters, and Old School ranchers when it comes to wolves and open their ears to other more enlightened voices.
We, of course , should no longer need to listen to you at all, till you come back from the woodshed with some learnin'. Your Unfactuality is thunderous in its splay .... but I get the same blather from the hunter and outfitter community in Cody. We should start us a College of Conservation and Resource Management to teach Post-19th Century wildlife methodolgy and Predator-Prey ecology , because this barstool and tackshed bombast is getting quite stale.
We were told they needed 100/300 wolves in the three state area, I don't doubt in the least that lawyers hid the real intentions of never delisting in legalise in the papers.
The wolves are severely undercounted, first of all those that are truly wild and secretive are virtually impossible to find and count, several times large packs with collars have disappeared for months at a time resulting in accusations against ranchers and hunters, then lo and behold they show up again as if by magic. Every year new wolves show up when they kill livestock in areas where there are "no wolves".
How is it that wolves ahd to be artifically introduced into Yellowstone to control the ungulates that were "over populated", but it is supposedly impossible for wolves (or any other predator for that matter) to over populate. They will supposedly cut back on their eating to prevent reducing their food supply. Actually they kill each other.
But those bad old outfitters reduced the herd, not the wolf.
I guess the wolf is just a victim of circumstance, namely that the severe decline in the moose and elk herds just happened at the wrong time and the poor innocent wolf got the blame.
Physiologically, moose are very funny. Check out the chapter on physiology in The Ecology and Management of the North American Moose.
Send me an email and I'll send you Joel's moose report to the G&F;Commission.
You might also want to get hold of Scott Becker's thesis on moose from the Co-op Unit at U Wyoming. Here's the abstract:
"Becker, Scott A., Habitat selection, condition, and survival of Shiras moose in northwest Wyoming, M.S., Department of Zoology and Physiology, December, 2008.
Seasonal movements, habitat selection, physiological health, and demography of Shiras moose (Alces alces shirasi) were studied in the Jackson Valley of northwest Wyoming. Moose congregated on low-elevation ranges during winter and migrated to more dispersed, mid-elevation ranges during summer. Moose selected winter habitat dominated by deciduous shrubs, whereas they selected summer habitat that was more variable. Blood parameters indicated that moose were in moderate physical condition. Ultrasonic rump fat measurements were relatively high, but there were indications of nutritional deficiencies. Diseases and parasites appeared to have minimal population-level effects. Population modeling suggested that the moose population was more likely to be declining than stable or increasing and the population growth rate was influenced primarily by late-winter and early-spring adult female mortality. Pregnancy rates were high, but calf production was relatively low. Neonate and annual calf survival were relatively high. Habitat quality appeared to be the primary factor limiting population growth while the effects of predation appeared to be less important."
As much as you outfitters refuse to admit it, habitat and climate play a much larger role in ungulate population dynamics than predation.
Joel Berger is one of the top ungulate researchers in North America. Agreed he doesn't know much about jackrabbits. I myself told him we had jacks in the Dubois area, mostly in the sagebrush benches and flats of the BLM parcels and the Reservation, albeit at low densities. It appears they never recovered from a tularemia epidemic in the 1930s.
RH
Can you cite the exact report where this figure appears? I'll do some searching myself...but I haven't seen such a figure. As your entire mathematical case rests on it, I hope you agree it needs documentation.
Laura, are you not the owner/ chief administrator or something to that effect of the website "Wolfcrossing .org?
The Wyoming G&F;publication HERDS IN OUR HANDS, published in 1995, traces population dynamics for mule deer area 131 and examines mortality from all causes for each season of the year, Spring, Summer, Winter, Fall. On the fourth page under the heading "Predation" it offers the author's analysis of predator impact. "Scientific study and circumstantial evidence show that predators have remarkably little effect on healthy game populations in secure habitats." However, by adding up the figures in the booklet, we find the following;
Mortality from; Predation 5,456
All other causes 5,470 (Accidents 597; weather 3,155; disease 96; hunting 1,571; poaching 51)
Almost half of all mule deer mortality is from predation, a fact which the publication calls “remarkably little effect”. Could the author have been just a bit biased? To support my contention that he is biased, a study on the Three-Bar Wildlife area in Arizona showed that in 2002, the driest year in recorded history, the fawn:doe ratio in the predator-proof enclosure was 100:100 while outside it was 18:100. "The only significant difference between the two areas is the absence of predators in the 3-Bar enclosure," said Ballard. "The study's findings so far indicate that predators may have a more significant impact on deer populations than biologists previously thought. The prevailing biological belief is that habitat conditions are the primary controlling factor for deer populations, not predation. The long-term deer study at the 3-Bar is punching holes in parts of biological theory." (Arizona Wildlife News, July-Aug 2004)
A Yellowstone study on elk calf mortality from wolf predation showed in December there were 46 calves per 100 cows but by May it had dropped to only 3 per hundred. The following year there were 38:100 in December but 9:100 in May. (Rosemary Jaffe, Montana State University, Wolf Predation in the Firehole and Madison River Drainages).
A study called "Lower Madison Valley Wolf-Ungulate Research Project" shows wolf predation "average 11.2 elk kills/wolf/100 days in 2001-02 and 13.75 elk kills/wolf/100 days in 2002-03". Do the math and you will find that is higher than the official 1.9 elk kills per wolf per month reported by USFWS data.
Regarding the 1.9 or 1.8 elk kills per wolf per month, the USFWS reports show different figures for different years, but they are remarkably similar. The USFWS has that official data on their website in several places. I have the location in my files but unfortunately the http://www.fws.gov and westerngraywolf.fws.gov websites have a problem tonight and won't load any pages. Do a google search and you will find that the 1.9 figure is from official US Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Jonesy
I think a more meaningful statistic is that a wolf will kill between 8-23 elk/year during the November-April (181 day) period. The numbers will be on the upper or lower end of the range depending on the availability of alternate prey, mostly deer, but also moose.
Ken Hamblin of MT Fish & Wildlife did a literature review including the GYA and MT statewide which was published in March 2009, but obviously relies on data from earlier years. Doug Smith and Daniel Stahler have also done studies in Yellowstone that show that wolves will select for mature bulls. Sorry I don't have the cites for these studies at my fingertips, but I think Hamblin's report is available on the MT fish and game website. You can probably find references to Stahler's work on the internet.
Wolves do not always take the old, weak or injured animals. They are particularly partial to newborn calves and cows giving birth.
It is very hard to deny that wolves are having an effect on elk populations when one does the math. Add to that the elk taken bby the increase of 500 grizzlies in the GYA in recent years.
he study, entitled "Monitoring and Assessment of Wolf-Ungulate Interactions and Population Trends within the Greater Yellowstone Area, Southwestern Montana, and Montana Statewide" by Kenneth L. Hamlin and Julie A. Cunningham, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, found that wolves killed approximately 7 to 23 elk per wolf in winter (November through April). Summer kill rates were not estimated. See pages 7-10 of the full report for details.
The lower number of 7 differs from other statistics I have seen, and is an estimate for primarily deer rich habitat, and the report does not address wolf deer interactions. The overall annual number of elk taken by wolvs is likely to be higher than noted because it refers only to the winter period. I have seen wolf kills of elk in early October. Wolves tend to go after rabbits, moles and other rodents during summer thru early fall.
Steve Nadeau, the wolf coordinator for Idaho, is comfortable that these numbers are representative of his state, although the lower number is closer to 9.
Anybody got any better data?
I am still awaiting a reference or link to the Paquet and Wilson reports on the Carnegie death.
One person's unfortunate death used to justify state's taking over and mis-managing the wolf population is just ridiculus. As the Real Mike has pointed out very well, their track record with other species is not great so far. Too many neighbors/special interests that have their own agenda.
RH or Bill S....what to you know about the supposed decline of moose in Alaska? I was speaking with someone the other day who was adament that the wolves are decimating the moose populations there, but I had not heard anything else about it. Just curious if you had heard anything.
http://www.wolfsongalaska.org/wolves_bears_Mcgrath.htm
This one is pretty much non judgemental about the preference of the natives who subsistance hunt and the wolves and bears.
http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/15-IntensiveManagementof....pdf
I found more about the seasons at:
http://wwww.huntwolves.com
Living. Breathing. Thinking. Feeling.
Why do we have the right to kill them off because of "population"?
People, you need to learn that the human race should not be in control of nature, the thing that actually controls us. This does not only mean wolves, it means every species we had tried to control.
Don't we learn that trying to fix wildlife problems has only ended in more problems? Remember our best friend the cane toad? Possibly the most hated toad in Australia? Well who put that toad there to control the population of cane beetles? Not themselves. The toads did not magically teleport.
So, why do we kill, murder, just because of our own fault? You should start thinking Human Race. Think of why we should try to regulate the natural population that has regulated itself way before we existed.
We might just need an excuse to have control over something else. Though it is wrong.
The human species is at the same level as any wolf, or creature.
Because we all live.
Think about it.
The elk numbers in Yellowstoen are pathetic this year, very few are left out of the once great herds. When the wolves leave Yellowstone because they have eaten themselves out of elk, they are going to hit ranches and homes even harder. Do you think that is right?