|
Pro Save the Human
Species
Click Here To Go To Documentary 
Article
Statement By Valerius Geist Pertaining
To The Death Of Kenton Carnegie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Documentary
Undue Burden
The Real Cost
Of Living With Wolves
|
|
|
|
I have reviewed in some
detail the material pertaining to the death of Kenton Carnegie, as well as
reviewed the historical material pertaining to wolf attacks on humans.
FINDINGS
My first finding is that
in early winter 2005 at Point North Landing there was evidence for
circumstances facilitating an attack on humans by wolves, followed by the
predicted, pre-attack behavior by wolves. That is, the events leading to
the death of Kenton Carnegie follow the pattern predicting attacks on
humans as described for wolves and earlier for coyotes.
It is a pattern of (a) increasing habituation followed by (b) boldness,
followed by (c) closing in and testing humans prior to the (d) fatal
attack. Both species explore alternative prey in much the same manner.
Unfortunately, nobody present recognized the growing danger.
CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO WOLF ATTACKS ON PEOPLE
Wolves are protected from hunting.
This protection removes an important
safety valve. It prevents wolves from being readily stalked and
pursued. (1) Yet stalking and pursuit condition wolves from habituating to
humans, keeping them shy and away from people. (2) Secondly, the only
wolves, which are likely to become vulnerable are individuals rejected by
the pack, or disadvantaged by age (too young & too old) and condition
(emaciation, injury, and damaged teeth). These are the wolves, which are
most likely to seek out human presence in search of food and to attack
people.
Scarcity of natural prey
 |
1.
Wolves enjoyed a long protection from hunting in Saskatchewan and
increased in numbers.
We also expect the wolves to begin losing their fear of humans, as well
as deplete wildlife, their prey.
|
|
2.
Long before Kenton’s death, attacks by wolves on livestock in
Saskatchewan had developed into a general problem.
That suggests a scarcity of natural prey. |
|
3.
Was there evidence for the scarcity of natural prey?
The Saskatoon Star Phoenix
of November 14th 2005 mentioned that local residents
complained about the decline in game. There may be validity in the
claims of residents. Scarcity of prey will force wolves into closer
proximity of humans, which is not difficult for un-hunted wolves.
|
Garbage dump, rich
food source, frequented by wolves.
Did wolves
exploit the opportunity of obtaining food from a man-made source?
They did so
for weeks on end (protected by the no-hunting regulations).
They came
to a garbage dump and adjusted their arrival with that of the garbage
carrying front-end loader. The wolves tore into plastic garbage bags
beside the front-end loader. Consequently, wolves were increasingly used
to human presence and human smells that they associated with food. Human
scent was thus no longer a source of fear, but of expectation
|
of
food!
Wolves move about freely
in daylight and were observed by personnel.
Did wolves become visible in daylight hours?
They did!
That means
that they were thoroughly habituated to human activities and had little,
if any fear left.
Did they
grow increasingly tolerant of human presence? That is, did they overcome
their enormous shyness and become increasingly tolerant of humans close
by?
They did!
Wolves make a
first exploratory attack on humans
Did the
wolves become bold, approached and growl, bark, howl or snap at persons?
Were attacking wolves beaten back with sticks?
They were!
The detailed account of
the Nov. 4th 2005 encounter between Todd Svarchopf and Chris
van Gelder and two wolves leaves no doubt in my mind that they faced an
exploratory attack, (which the
two men were very fortunate to survive).
Photos. It is significant that these photos were taken at the end
of the encounter, after the wolves had been discouraged from further
advances. They show Todd Svarchopf as photographed by Chris van Gelder. I
have examined four photographic images, showing (1) a dark gray mottled
wolf, broadside, fairly close to the photographer. The wolf’s eyes are
averted. (2) The gray wolf confronting a man with a club-like black spruce
snag in hand who is facing the wolf. The wolf is in threat mode with
canine exposed, upper lip raised in a snarl, corners of the mouth slightly
opened and ears pitched forward. This is the facial expression of an
assertive, confident wolf. It’s an aggression stance. The wolf is in
slight crouch, the hind legs well braced for a lunge forward. This is not
the face or stance of an insecure wolf
threatening defensively, but
the stance of a confident, assertive wolf. This picture supports the
statement by Todd that the wolves were aggressive. The light gray second
wolf is moving into a support position towards the rear of the first wolf.
(3) This picture shows two wolves in fully confident
eye-aversion posture close to
the photographer. There is not a hint of fear or insecurity in their body
postures! Quite the contrary! The light gray wolf has a low level
aggressive face, as revealed by the slightly open mouth, exposing the black gums, the high level
of his head and the ears placed forward. Wolves assume such postures readily in
the vicinity of prey.
(4) The eye-aversion posture is
guaranteed to fool humans who possess the face-to-face primate signal structure.
Wolves like all large carnivores use body postures to signal in social
situations. Eye aversion is done
by confident, domineering individuals. The tail position where visible is
neutral-to confident. These pictures were taken at the end of an encounter
leaving
the wolves in a confident
position. These wolves thus displayed no fear of humans.
The wolves
at the Point North Landing thus showed a classical pattern of pre-attack
behavior – which nobody at the camp - or in the Saskatchewan game department -
recognized as such.
An attack on a
person was imminent before November 8th 2005. An attack by a pack is
lethal. Well before Kenton Carnegie went on his walk on the afternoon of
November 8th, 2005, it was a classical case of a wolf attack waiting
to happen!
The Vargas Island attack by two
wolves on a camper is a parallel to the Point North Landing case.
In both cases wolves habituated
to people, in the Vargas Island (near Tofino, Vancouver Island) case, via a
campground that was frequented by kayak parties, which overnighted there, as
well as by very tolerant residents living on that island. The wolves began to
loose their fear of humans and began being fed by campers.
In mid June 2000 the naturalist
photographer Jackie Windh spent two days on the island photographing wolves. Two
large wolves at once sniffed her heels, hand and licked her wrist. The two
wolves became increasingly assertive, forcing Windh to throw rocks and swing a
stick as the male lunged at her and finally ripped her pants. Professor Erich
Klinghammer of Wolf Park, Battleground, Indiana, insists that adult wolves do
not play. This behavior was thus pre-attack exploration of humans - as prey.
On Sunday the 2nd of
July 2000 kayaker Scott Lavigne was attacked by wolves and injured severely. He
was defended and saved by fellow campers and sent to hospital in Victoria, where
his wounds were stitched together by some 50 stitches.
The wolves were shot. They were healthy two-year-olds filled with deer fawns.
The wolves habituated to humans
then escalated into testing humans and then attacked a human. The victim was
saved by other campers, leaving no doubt as to who did attack.
Did wolves attack
Kenton Carnegie?
pp. 29-30 of
National Wildlife, February/March
2007 edition in an article entitled “Sexy Beasts”. by Paul Tolmé we read:
“Wolves remain a bogeyman today, as illustrated by the death of a Canadian man
in 2005. When Kenton Carnegie’s mangled corpse was discovered near a remote
Saskatchewan mining camp of Points north Landing, the Royal Canadian Mounted
police immediately blamed wolves. The story made headlines around the world. But
when noted wolf biologist Paul Paquet of the World Wildlife Fund investigated,
he recognized immediately that a black bear killed Carnegie. “The
problem was bias right from the start,” Paquet says.
“When
I looked at the photos, I immediately saw bear tracks,” Paquet says.”
An examination of
the evidence at hand shows that Mr. Paquet was mistaken. Mr. Tolmé wrote on p.
30 that “Debunking misinformation is key”.
I concur!
1) The first
four witnesses Todd Svarchopf, Chris Van Galder, Mark Eikel and Bob Burseth,
saw the scene before it was trampled by repeat visits by themselves and later
visits by the RCMP and the coroner and by two game wardens. It had snowed and
they saw the tracks in fresh snow. They were interviewed separately on Nov. 8th
and 9th before post hoc rationalization set in, and well before
aggressive questioning could confuse them.
They
were unanimous in what tracks they saw. It was wolf tracks. This is a first-hand
observation.
One of the first
four witnesses was a long-time resident of the area, Bob Burseth, having lived
there 17 years. What he saw were wolf tracks. He confirmed that upon being
questioned. Had there been bear tracks he would have said so, because wolf
tracks and bear tracks are so very different, that it takes no biologist to tell
the differences. A northern bush resident like Burseth would be a most reliable
witness here.
Both, Bob Burseth
and Mark Eikel, had rifles. Both are hunters. If so, they would know what wolf
tracks look like - and would have known so at a glance.
The other two,
Todd and Chris had been interested in wolves, and had been some time in this
northern camp. Their eyes were the first to see tracks. They identified Kenton’s
track and the directions he walked. They saw the other tracks and identified
such as wolf- as they must have seen wolf tracks many times.
Collectively, there is little
doubt in my mind that these four witnesses first on the scene identified wolf
tracks correctly.
2) RCMP Constable Al Noey and
coroner Mrs. R. Tsannie-Burseth
Constable Noey on the 8th
November secured the site, and began an investigation, which extended into the 9th
in the company of coroner Mrs. R. Tsannie-Burseth. Constable Noey left a written
account as well as a map-sketch of the scene. I noticed that he was a careful,
able observer, as well as a skeptical one. He questioned, for instance, Bob
Burseth about his ability to identify wolf tracks. Now, if somebody tests
another person’s ability to identify wolf tracks, then the questioner must have
a pretty good idea what wolf tracks look like. He mentions for instance, that a
wolf followed in Kenton’s footprints. Yes, wolves notoriously do that
with prey and with humans, but also with the tracks of other wolves.
Firstly, I have no doubt
Constable Noey and Rosalie Tsannie-Ruseth both identified the tracks as wolf
tracks correctly. They both had the background for that, in fact an
exceptionally appropriate background.
Secondly, Constable Noey’s
analysis of the hunt and kill pattern of the wolves resonates well with
historical knowledge. (a) A wolf followed the victim approaching from behind.
This has been recorded in recent wolf attacks in North America, and in the
historical literature.
(b) The victim ran. That’s likely to trigger a severe attack by a wolf,
and the tracks, as read coroner Mrs. R. Tsannie-Burseth and RCMP officer Noey,
revealed that. (c) The victim fell, but stood up again and stood bleeding. In
attacks by black bears it is not common for victims to rise, as bears are good
at wrestling and holding down prey. They are also heavy in body, especially fat
fall bears. A bear would not have stood by seeing a victim bleed. Wolves do
that! (d) The victim’s body was moved a short distance. I expect black bears,
disturbed on their kill to move off with the victim’ body a long ways and hide
it. (e) Instead the carnivores in question quickly consumed the victim’s innards
and meat. That’s wolf behavior. Quick feeding right after making a kill is an
expected behavior of wolves.
Wolves ingest large amounts of meat at once when available. This would lead to
large amounts of the body of the victim being
consumed on the 8th. (f)
Historically, wolves on a kill are expected to stay close to the kill, and show
reluctance to leave even defend the kill against armed men. It came close to
that! Constable Noey on approaching the victim saw two wolves before him. He had
to fire a shotgun twice before they left. That suggests rather brazen behavior
on the part of wolves, consistent with observations of wolves ready to defend
their kill.
Therefore, not only did
Constable Noey identify wolf tracks outright, saw two wolves close to the kill
on the 8th and chased such away, but his analysis of events in every
instance suggest actions by wolves. He only identified the tracks of wolves and
humans.
Collectively, there is little
doubt in my mind that these two exceptionally qualified witnesses correctly
identified wolves as the species killing and consuming Kenton Carnegie, but also
correctly read the process of events as evidenced by the track and sign patterns
in the snow.
3) Conservation Officers Kelly
Crayne and Mario Gaudet
They stated in
their report: “Officers investigated the
site and found numerous wolf tracks in the area. No other large animal tracks
could be found.”
I expect conservation officers
to know the difference between wolf tracks and bear tracks!
There is
little doubt in my mind that these two qualified witnesses correctly identified
wolves from the tracks left by these carnivores.
4) Differences between wolf and
bear tracks
|
1)
Black bear tracks have on
front and hind legs five (5)
toes; wolves have four (4). This
difference is easily seen. |
|
2)
Black bear front paws have a
concave shape; those of wolves are straight across or slightly convex. |
|
3)
Black bears walk on their
heels, similar to humans. Consequently, a large heel imprint characterizes the
hind footprint of any bear. These hind leg tracks look a little like a naked
human foot, albeit with claw marks. |
|
4)
Bear tracks are much larger
than wolf tracks. A large wolf track fits into the boot track of an average
sized man. Bear tracks are larger. |
|
5)
Wolves step very precisely
with their hind paws into the tracks left by the front paws; the tracks are
arranged like well-spaced beads on a string. There is virtually no lateral
displacement of the tracks from the median. Bears have a very wide
displacement. |
|
6)
The claws of bears are
climbing tools that enter the snow further from the toe and at a steeper
angle, than the claws of a wolf who serve in speedy running. |
|
7)
The claws of the 2nd
and 3rd digits in wolves protrude well beyond those of the 1st
and 4th digit (an adaptation to running). The central claws
protrude much less in bears (an adaptation to climbing). |
5) Other observations
Moreover, all
witnesses identified many wolf
tracks, that is the presence of a pack, that is of several individuals. (a)
Bears do not travel in packs. Wolves do! (b). Historic accounts make it plain
that a single strong man can usually survive the attack of one wolf, but not of
a pack. A pack of two confident wolves, such as photographed by Chris and Todd
would have no difficulty with a single person. Wolves have larger jaws and teeth
than dogs of comparable size and a much more powerful bite. It would not take
many successful bites to disable a man. It was Dr. Paquets research that
revealed that wolves can take down black and even grizzly bears. A human is no
contest!
Baker, R. O. and R. M. Timm 1998. Management of conflict between urban coyotes
and humans in southern California. Pp. 229-312 in R. O. Baker and A. c. Crabb
eds. Proc. 18th Vertebrate Pest
Conference, University of California, Davis).
The advocacy in favor of the “benign wolf” hypothesis is so powerful, that the
better educated the persons, the more likely it seems that they are to become
true believers and endanger themselves. So far exceptionally well-educated
people have become victims of lethal attacks. Kenton Carnegie is not the only
victim of the “harmless wolf hypothesis”. So was 24-year-old Wildlife
Biologist, Trisha Wyman, who was killed on April 18th 1996 by a
captive wolf pack in Ontario. I had a long phone conversation with Dr. Erich
Klinghammer of Wolf Park. He was called in as an expert witness to examine the
Wyman case, and discovered quickly that there was great surprise at her death,
as wolves are not supposed to attack people. He was stunned at the ignorance.
Ms Wyman had visited the park previously and spent some time studying the
wolves. She was given the dream job of looking after and interpreting the
wolves. She lasted three days! She and the people surrounding here, just like
Kenton and the people surrounding him, were imbued by the myth of the
“harmless wolves” as advocated by North American wolf specialists in the late
50’s and 60’s that rose to become a dogma – and a lethal one. Keepers of wolf
packs can inform themselves by turning to the people running Wolf Park. These
have been researching wolves for decades and have detailed advice on how to
handle captive wolves and wolf-dog hybrids. They would have been quickly
disabused of any naïve faith in conventional, but mis-presented science about
wolves.
In the recent (July 5th 2007) Anderson Island attack in British
Columbia, a 31 year old, fit outdoorsman was put into hospital by a 55 lb
emaciated, starving old female wolf with damaged dentition. Despite him
stabbing her nine times with a knife with a 4-inch blade, the wolf was not
killed, but did withdraw. She was shot hours later with a shotgun.
This was an unprovoked attack by a non-rabid wolf. By: Larry Pynn,
Vancouver Sun, August 1, 2007
Port Moody kayaker fights off a starving predatory wolf.
Here is a comment by a prominent scientist who has studied wolves in Finland:
Dear Val, I agree with you in all details
concerning those four pictures. I must add that seeing people play with wild
timber wolves like that is absolutely like tossing live hand granate with pin
on around in a crowd. The dark wolf, showing his teeth to a person just 3-4
meters in front of him was ready to charge. After lifting his tail slightly
above his back line and closing his lips, maybe also after tilting his ears
even more cranially he would have attacked so fast that this man would
not been able to lift his club. Those two wolves were truly habituated
(February 19th 2007, Kaarlo Nygrén, Game and Fisheries Research
Institute Ilomantsi Game Research Station, Haravapurontie 4, FIN82900
Ilomantsi, Telephone: +358205751504, Telefax: +358205751509). However, if the
threatening wolf is seen in isolation, his facial expression and body posture
also fit the threat by a defensive
wolf. Here it is pertinent to understand that it is the wolves, which
initiated the attack on the two men in the open, and tried to cut them off
from camp. Only confident wolves, that is not “defensive” wolves would do
that!
I received
the matter below after sending out the first draft for critique.
Rosalie (coroner at the
scene)
- aboriginal and her family lived a nomadic
life style until she started school
- she has been a hunter and is very familiar
with the outdoors and identification of animal tracks as she was raised by
hunters
- her father is an Elder
- she felt the tracks and marks in the snow
told the story about what happened to Kenton
Bob Burseth (Points North employee
and part of search party and Rosalie's husband)
- avid hunter
- can identify prints in the snow
- shoots the bears that become a nuisance at
the camp
Mark Eikel (part owner of Points
North and person who discovered Kenton's body)
- owns rifles
- does hunt and can recognize animal prints
- shot the third wolf (250 - 300 yards away)
after Kenton's attack
- he claimed he would have seen a bear if it
had been in the area
Constable Noey (RCMP officer that
attended the scene)
- aboriginal and has lived further north than
Points North in Saskatchewan
- knows the outdoors and has hunted
- able to identify certain animal prints, but
was intimidated by someone into admitting that he was not an expert
Ed Castle (Points North employee and
part of search party)
- is a hunter and used to operate a Hunting &
Fishing lodge in Saskatchewan
- also identified wolf prints
Dr. Eirik
Granqvist, Borgå the 24:th march 2007, writes as follows:”
The pictures are for me quite clear and there
is no problem to tell which are the tracks. I cannot see any footprints of a
bear. Just human footprints and plenty of nice and very clear wolf-footprints.
Also a fox has been interested to come and have a look”. Dr. Kaarlo
Nygrén, writes:”Dear Val, This is what I
saw in the pictures you sent me through Magnus Hagelstam: PICT0989: human and
wolf tracks, struggle, blood. Snow has been fallen some days earlier, blown
away from the dwarf shrubs and melted some when in contact with dark objects.
Ideal conditions for tracking. PICT0985: Path with human and wolf tracks.
Beside it some tracks of a man, signs of struggle, blood. Snow as in previous
picture. PICT0986: Human and wolf tracks, blood, struggle. Snow as in previous
pictures. PICT0987: Human and wolf tracks, struggle. 1 mid-size -to large wolf
tracks coming towards the scene, 4 wolf tracks going out of it: one large,
two mid-size, one small. Another track of a small canid (possibly also wolf)
going to the left. No clear blood. Snow as in previous pictures. I failed to
see anything resembling bear tracks in any of the pictures. Yours,
Kaarlo Nygrén, Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Ilomantsi Game Research
Station, Haravapurontie 4, FIN82900 Ilomantsi, Telephone: +358205751504;
Telefax: +358205751509
in an e-mail
of March 28, 2007 Dr. Nygren wrote to me: “They
(the wolf pack) ate one ear and tip of the tongue when waiting for their turn
in the abdominal cavity. The fore-stomachs were left largely untouched until
almost all the good stuff was taken from the intestines. So did the liver,
heart and lungs. They were taken out almost ten hours later when all the pups
and their mother were lying flat around the place with their stomachs full.
Then, almost in the midnight, the male came in starting to rip the carcass in
pieces. A bite and a kilogram or two. He ate as much as he pleased, then
pulled out the liver, ate some of it and dropped. Soon, he started to walk
towards the sleepy pups who immediately jumped up and hurried to meet him with
cheerful faces, tails wagging and showing submissive gestures. They looked
funny with their round bellies and saw-buck like appearance. A roundish white
spot cranially from their thighs on the belly coat had appeared and was
visible even in the dim light of autumn. This seems to be a good visual sign
of a well-fed wolf. When they poked the father’s lips with their noses, he
threw up everything what was in his stomach. The pups immediately ate up it.
and returned to their beds. The male walked back to work, filled his
stomach and did the feeding procedure several times. He seemed to have a pet
among the pups. It was the smallest, a female always chased out first by the
mother and siblings. The female never fed the pups like the father. In the
next morning, the flesh of the prey was practically stripped off with bare
bones protruding and some legs completely cut off the carcass. So, the fat
reserves seemed to be the preferred bits, not the liver, heart and lungs. We
have seen the same many times in the field. Guts first. Even the dogs are
usually first opened from the belly and the abdominal cavity emptied. I have
seen many dogs cut in two around the diaphragm, caudal halve eaten completely
or transported somewhere. Heart and lungs are, in many case, were left inside
the breast cavity”.
Documentary
Undue Burden
The Real Cost
Of Living With Wolves
Some Pictures Are
From
www.bigstockphoto.com
Copyright © 2007 -
2008 Pro Save The Species Worldwide