*Editor’s Note:* Below is a letter sent by Dr. Valerius Geist to, I believe, the Boone and Crockett Club concerning the elements involved in wolf debates, wolf management and wolf conservation. Dr. Geist presents three interesting issues, as he calls them, that will “provide guidance” in debating wolf issues as we go forward.
He first speaks of taxonomy, especially as it pertains to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) supposed discovery of a new subspecies of wolf they say they discovered in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) region. I have written often about what I believe to be the underlying politics of the USFWS’s seeming willingness to delist gray wolves in the WGL only to turn around and “discover” a new species of wolf. They have also set the stage for a declaration of an endangered species throughout mostly the entire Eastern United States.
Issue two involves an education process in which people are slowly becoming familiar with the realities of living with wolves. Geist calls this a “paradigm shift”. For decades citizens have been indoctrinated utilizing fallacious information that led people to believe wolves were good for the ecosystem and would be harmless to society as well as livestock owners.
The third issue I find rather fascinating and would be interested in hearing and learning more about the science behind this issue. It deals with Geist’s concern that unless more is done to eliminate the encroachment of wolves into the human habitat, an increase in crossbreeding with coyotes and domestic dogs will happen. This crossbreeding could aid in the destruction of the “pure” wolf gene. As Geist points out, true conservation concerns for the gray wolf should involve protecting the dilution of the genetic purity.
I find it interesting that in numerous court cases as well as reports issued about the reintroduction of wolves and what the parameters are, as they keep changing, to scientifically declare gray wolves recovered, it has been demanded that “genetic connectivity” be present in order to have a healthy and viable population of wolves. Genetic connectivity, it appears a term fabricated only in recent years, involves the dispersal of wolves and interbreeding between members of different packs.
It was Judge Donald Molloy who created his own science and stated that wolves could not be deemed recovered until there was more proof that satisfied him, a judge, not a scientist, that genetic diversity has occurred or was occurring.
As important as it seems the need for not only the “connectivity” and the diversity of genetics have been in determining whether or not the species is recovered, then why isn’t there the same concern about the dilution of genetic purity with crossbreeding due to an overabundance of wolves? Is it because no one has thought of it before Dr. Geist?
If Dr. Geist’s assessment is true, that increased encounters between wolves and humans will lead to more crossbreeding, doesn’t this lend a hand in spoiling that genetic diversity and connectivity so important just between the wolves?
Geist asks interesting questions and poses challenging questions that might be handled differently if he were dealing with scientists alone. Unfortunately, we are not. We are dealing with agenda-driven environmentalists, judges and politics that now reach deep into the bowels of the United States Congress.
Maybe the first step is to figure out a way to get politics out of the scientific debate on gray wolves.
Here is Dr. Geist’s letter.
August 9th 2011
Dear Colleagues,
Re: wolves. There are three issues that one needs to be aware of and provide guidance in, in the short term, the taxonomy of wolves, to clarify especially if there are one or two species of wolves in the mid-west. I consider the latter unlikely, in fact highly unlikely, but there needs to be discussion and consensus as there are legal implications involved. This is an unhappy topic in which we have to be aware of potential advocacy masquerading as science.
Secondly, we need to be involved fostering an understanding of American wolves, as there is currently a paradigm shift underway, bringing our recent North American experiences with wolves into line with historical evidence as well as the global experience with this predator. We need to foster a new general understanding about wolves to counter deliberate political misrepresentations and promote effective wildlife conservation let alone management.
Thirdly, as wolves are not compatible with settled landscapes, there needs to be a fundamental re-assessment of wolf conservation. How, for instance, can we protect wolves in such a fashion, that they retain their genetic integrity, as in close proximity to humans they are bound to continually hybridize with dogs and with coyotes. Wolves need a large amount of diverse prey to thrive away from human contact. How can such be best provided?
The North American Wolf Paradigm
The cherished North American conception about wolves began to unravel with the death of Kenton Carnegie, a 22 year university old honors student, killed by wolves on November 8th 2005 at Points North in Saskatchewan. It led to thorough investigations as well as a coroner’s hearing, in which the jury determined unanimously that wolves had killed Kenton Carnegie. Unfortunately, the coroners inquiry would not deal with policy, and consequently it did not become public knowledge that Saskatchewan’s legislation pertaining to wolves was in good part responsible to Kenton Carnegie’s death. Under British Columbia legislation, so my conclusion, this tragedy would not have happened. Legislation affecting wolf management and conservation, in addition to a scholarly understanding of wolves, is thus not irrelevant to any positions on this subject.
Flaws in the then current North American conception are that wolves are utterly harmless to people, although a rabid wolf might be dangerous, that wolves killed pretty well only the old, sick and lame and thus acted to sanitize prey populations, that wolves killed only what is needed, that territoriality by wolf packs prevented wolves from seriously depleting game herds, that diseases carried by wolves are too insignificant to warrant attention, and that all historical evidence could be safely disregarded as it arose for primeval prejudice and ignorance, unsupported by modern science, as illustrated in the Brothers Grim fairytale of Little Red Riding Hood. This was advanced by highly respected senior scientists, based in good part on enthusiasm over limited new findings, an inability to read other languages, a limited understanding of historical scholarship, and an over rating of personal experiences with wolves as reported on in North America. Highly influential proved to be a then unpublished manuscript by a renowned Canadian wildlife scientists C. H. Doug Clarkei which examined wolf predation on humans in France focusing on the famous case of a pair of Gevaudan wolves in the 18th century. Clarke concluded that wolf attacks were all done by rabid wolves, and falling back on his own experience with wolves in the Canadian wilderness, concluded that healthy wolves were harmless. I must hasten to state here that reading the subsequently published essay in full shows peculiar contradictions which should have been picked up by his colleagues. For instance the wolves of Gevaudan were not rabid. In short, Clarke’s conclusions are thus open to questioning.
A second source of misinformation about wolves was the deliberate cultivation of an image of harmless wolves by the Communist Party of Russia. It censored information about wolf attacks on humans in order to suppress demands for arms by people affected, as well as to cover up hugely embarrassing matters happening during the imposed Ukrainian famines of 1921-23 and again 1932-1933, when packs of wolves and dogs consumed the dead and dying. This was abetted in East and West by the hugely popular book of a gifted Canadian author, Farley Movat, Never Cry Wolf. I consider it a literary prank, the very best of the 20th century, a prank that fooled the literary establishment completely, despite competent book reviews and exposure by Canadian scientists. It continues to cause mischief.
The Russian Communist party deception was exposed by the Russian academician (senior scientist) Mikhail P. Pavlov in his 1982 book The wolf in Game Management, in Chapter 12 “The Danger of wolves to Humans”. A Norwegian translation of this chapter caused environmentalists to to rise in boiling opposition, in which they succeeded having the translation withdrawn and destroyed. Illegally, I might add. The translator, riled by events, made a Swedish Translation and published it a s bookii. An English translation by Valentina Baskin, wife of well-known Russian biologist Leonid Baskin and Alaska biologists Patrick Valkenburg and Mark McNay, found none willing to publish till it was made Appendix A in Will N. Graves 2007 Wolves in Russia. Please note that American scientists meeting Russian scientists at international meetings could have heard only the party line from the Russians.
The problem with the conventional North American conception of wolves was that it had failed to take into account and critically integrate the global experience with wolves. In the meantime publications to the contrary, old and new, were accumulatingiii, including a book on the Russian experiences with wolves as compiled by an American intelligence officers stationed in Moscow. I edited his manuscript and brought it into publication with a Canadian publisher. It’s Will N. Graves 2007 Wolves in Russia (Detselig, Calgary). This book was quickly translated in Finland, where, with additional information it is on it’s second edition. I also wrote a number of essays which were published, except that they lacked the vital reference sections. I hasten to add that the original versions and other information about wolves can be obtained by contacting me via e-mail at kendulf@shaw.ca.
Of interest is the fact that European environmentalists adopted the flawed American position and pushed through legislation protection wolves on that basis. That mirrors North American legislation based on false assumptions.
Here are a number of conclusions
1. Wolves are not compatible with settled landscapes, as they destroy wildlife, then habituate, and focus on livestock and pets, and eventually on humans. Simultaneously they spread diseases such as hydatid disease (dog tape worm, Echinococcus granulosus), Neopspora caninum (which brings about abortions in cattle) and rabies (which in wilderness areas appears to periodically bring down wolf populations). This is not merely a matter of wildlife management, or livestock protection, but also one of public health.
2. The introductions of wolves into Yellowstone and Idaho, heralded as a conservation success, I consider a serious failure in wildlife conservation. It exposed flaws in conservation legislation and – Judge Molloy’s latest ruling not withstanding – is mired in a morass of legal matters, daunting, so I understand, even for legal minds.
3. Wolf introductions have hit some individual ranchers severely, well documented, for instance, by Jess Carey (3trees@gilanet.com) and his lawyer Ron Shortes in Catron County, New Mexico. An important development: ranchers which have been hit by wolves, and which want to sell their ranches, cannot find buyers as long as there are wolves on the property. And we are dealing with only 50 wolves! What can we do to generate some justice to individuals affected by wolf introductions?
4. The direct and indirect effect of wolves on ranching have been compiled, but need to be brought together. Similarly, the effects on wildlife populations, and on public health.
5. Intolerable is the spread of hydatid infected wolf feces on lawns, driveways etc within suburbs and hamlets by wolves hunting deer and elk who have taken refuge in human proximity. That was something I did not anticipate in my address (appended) to a committee of the Montana legislature.
6. We need to understand the disease issue. In my judgment this matter has been handled in a less than satisfactory manner by Idaho and Montana authorities. The bottom line: what needs to be prevented is the spread of hydatid disease to dogs, which would defecate infective feces all around homes (ditto for infected wolves and urban coyotes) where the infective eggs can be carried indoor on a continuous basis leading to multiple infections of the residents. Mark well: hydatid disease is a dreadful disease, and the medical costs are staggering. In Idaho a lady was recently billed $63,000 to remove a large hydatid cysts from her liver. Multiple infections of children from hydatid eggs being transported into the house by shoes or by sticking to the fur of dogs would lead in about a decade to nightmarish consequences. Please see my appended presentation to a committee of the Montana legislature.
Sincerely,
Valerius Geist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science
