Valerius Geist
Special to The StarPhoenix
Friday, February 22, 2008
Following is the viewpoint of the writer, a biologist and University of Calgary professor emeritus of environmental science.
Re: Gov't urged to address wildlife at garbage dumps (SP, Feb. 8). I am one of two scientists asked by the Carnegie family to independently investigate the death of their son. The coroner's inquest into this matter was narrowly focused on who killed Kenton Carnegie, to which the correct answer is: a wolf pack.
The inquest didn't address wider policy issues such as conservation legislation, for the tragedy would almost certainly not have happened in British Columbia despite that province's share of wolf attacks on humans.
The inquiry also didn't address failures in scholarship that led to the wide and dogmatic acceptance of the view that wolves are not dangerous to humans. That myth has killed at least three persons in North America in the past decade, two of whom were highly educated young people. Nor did the inquiry dwell on what circumstances lead to the habituation of wolves to humans, one of which is scarcity of natural prey, which could be due to increased wolf populations.
In short, there is more to the story than has been addressed by the court or the media.
Nobody involved in the tragedy, including the wolf specialist working on behalf of the coroner's office, noticed that the habituated wolves had been targeting humans. However, students of urban coyotes described a stepwise progression of behaviour, which is shown by coyotes that are targeting children in urban parks.
This pattern of increasing familiarization with potential prey is identical in wolves and coyotes. In short, the situation at Camp North Landing was a disaster waiting to happen.
Ironically, while biologists studying coyotes affirmed that coyotes targeted humans as prey, wolf biologists denied that wolves were dangerous to people. The view that, in the absence of rabies, wolves do not attack people has taken so solid a grip in current times that even after an exploratory attack by two wolves on two camp personnel at Camp North Landing, the threat posed by wolves was not fully recognized.
A captive pack of wolves destroyed their new keeper, a biologist with a master's degree, within three days -- a tragedy traceable to the belief that wolves do not attack people. A similar fate befell a woman who kept a pack of wolf hybrids for similar reasons.
The view of the harmless wolf may have prevented North American wolf specialists from developing an understanding of the circumstances when wolves are very dangerous to people and when they are not. In North America, unlike in some European and Asiatic countries, the circumstances when wolves pose a danger to humans is rare, but is not absent.
The most important sign that wolves are targeting humans as prey is the animals patiently observing humans. Such wolves may be short of natural prey or they many be well fed on garbage and already habituated to humans. Wolves that patiently observe humans have begun the process of slow and steady familiarization that finally leads to an attack on humans.
Such wolves need to be taken out. In B.C., any licensed hunter can do that. The limit on wolves is three and the season is long. It's a safety valve.
Healthy, free-living wolves are virtually unhuntable. The most likely candidates to be taken out are wolves that are disadvantaged by age or condition or have been rejected by their pack.
A historical review of wolves and humans shows that nobody is yet to succeed at living in peace with packs of wolves, unless there is a buffer between wolves and humans of livestock and pets, especially dogs, and the wolves are hunted and shun people.
Nor have we paid attention to the experiences Native people have had with wolves. They point out correctly that wolves eat and disperse the evidence of wolf-killed humans. Wolf packs that attack dogs pulling sleds were not uncommon in the North or in Greenland.
The Danish explorer of Greenland, Peter Freuchen, lost one companion to wolves, shot one of two wolves that advanced on his children, had some harrowing experiences himself with wolves and describes how he could not be provisioned because every dog team send his way was halted by wolf attacks.
Alas, the fairytale of Little Red Riding Hood by the brothers Grimm is not based on myths, ignorance or a misunderstanding of wolves, but on terrible experiences with wolves throughout the centuries. The "modern" view that wolves are harmless is based not on science, but on flawed scholarship and politics too long to discuss here.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant's quip, that we learn from history that we do not learn from history, has again been validated.
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstar....html?id=a57b22dc-fd2a-4e7f-b491-b7ba583b654d
Special to The StarPhoenix
Friday, February 22, 2008
Following is the viewpoint of the writer, a biologist and University of Calgary professor emeritus of environmental science.
Re: Gov't urged to address wildlife at garbage dumps (SP, Feb. 8). I am one of two scientists asked by the Carnegie family to independently investigate the death of their son. The coroner's inquest into this matter was narrowly focused on who killed Kenton Carnegie, to which the correct answer is: a wolf pack.
The inquest didn't address wider policy issues such as conservation legislation, for the tragedy would almost certainly not have happened in British Columbia despite that province's share of wolf attacks on humans.
The inquiry also didn't address failures in scholarship that led to the wide and dogmatic acceptance of the view that wolves are not dangerous to humans. That myth has killed at least three persons in North America in the past decade, two of whom were highly educated young people. Nor did the inquiry dwell on what circumstances lead to the habituation of wolves to humans, one of which is scarcity of natural prey, which could be due to increased wolf populations.
In short, there is more to the story than has been addressed by the court or the media.
Nobody involved in the tragedy, including the wolf specialist working on behalf of the coroner's office, noticed that the habituated wolves had been targeting humans. However, students of urban coyotes described a stepwise progression of behaviour, which is shown by coyotes that are targeting children in urban parks.
This pattern of increasing familiarization with potential prey is identical in wolves and coyotes. In short, the situation at Camp North Landing was a disaster waiting to happen.
Ironically, while biologists studying coyotes affirmed that coyotes targeted humans as prey, wolf biologists denied that wolves were dangerous to people. The view that, in the absence of rabies, wolves do not attack people has taken so solid a grip in current times that even after an exploratory attack by two wolves on two camp personnel at Camp North Landing, the threat posed by wolves was not fully recognized.
A captive pack of wolves destroyed their new keeper, a biologist with a master's degree, within three days -- a tragedy traceable to the belief that wolves do not attack people. A similar fate befell a woman who kept a pack of wolf hybrids for similar reasons.
The view of the harmless wolf may have prevented North American wolf specialists from developing an understanding of the circumstances when wolves are very dangerous to people and when they are not. In North America, unlike in some European and Asiatic countries, the circumstances when wolves pose a danger to humans is rare, but is not absent.
The most important sign that wolves are targeting humans as prey is the animals patiently observing humans. Such wolves may be short of natural prey or they many be well fed on garbage and already habituated to humans. Wolves that patiently observe humans have begun the process of slow and steady familiarization that finally leads to an attack on humans.
Such wolves need to be taken out. In B.C., any licensed hunter can do that. The limit on wolves is three and the season is long. It's a safety valve.
Healthy, free-living wolves are virtually unhuntable. The most likely candidates to be taken out are wolves that are disadvantaged by age or condition or have been rejected by their pack.
A historical review of wolves and humans shows that nobody is yet to succeed at living in peace with packs of wolves, unless there is a buffer between wolves and humans of livestock and pets, especially dogs, and the wolves are hunted and shun people.
Nor have we paid attention to the experiences Native people have had with wolves. They point out correctly that wolves eat and disperse the evidence of wolf-killed humans. Wolf packs that attack dogs pulling sleds were not uncommon in the North or in Greenland.
The Danish explorer of Greenland, Peter Freuchen, lost one companion to wolves, shot one of two wolves that advanced on his children, had some harrowing experiences himself with wolves and describes how he could not be provisioned because every dog team send his way was halted by wolf attacks.
Alas, the fairytale of Little Red Riding Hood by the brothers Grimm is not based on myths, ignorance or a misunderstanding of wolves, but on terrible experiences with wolves throughout the centuries. The "modern" view that wolves are harmless is based not on science, but on flawed scholarship and politics too long to discuss here.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant's quip, that we learn from history that we do not learn from history, has again been validated.
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstar....html?id=a57b22dc-fd2a-4e7f-b491-b7ba583b654d
This case was a little out of the usual scope of things and what we had was one 'garbage dump' bear training three others. I told them if I had any further problems with her, I would put her down, and the cubs as they were too young to survive on their own.
