Wolf attacks on people are extraordinarily rare. Yet in early November 2005, the Canadian media reported that a pack of wolves killed a man in northern Saskatchewan. His name was Kenton Joel Carnegie, a 22-year-old student of geo-engineering from the University of Waterloo. Mr. Carnegie died on 08 November 2005 near Points North Landing. His mauled body was found on a lakeside trail, hours after he failed to return from a walk.

How should we respond to such news? As this unfortunate story unfolded, several thoughts came to mind.

My very first thought was that this is a tragedy for Mr. Carnegie’s family and friends. The grief and loss suffered by people in such circumstances is wrenching. On this point it is irrelevant whether one is for or against wolf recovery. As I read through the news reports, I felt sorrow at Mr. Carnegie’s untimely death, and before I say anything more, I want to extend my sincere condolences to the Carnegie family and his circle of friends.

My next thought came nipping at the heels of the first. When researching this column, I noticed something missing from pro-wolf positions statements about the alleged attack – there were few fulsome expressions of sorrow and empathy for the family and friends of Mr. Carnegie. The statements were generally factual and dispassionate. The overall message stressed learning to live with wildlife, avoiding the habituation of wolves to humans through direct or indirect feeding (e.g. pet food, unsecured garbage), and the infinitesimal risk wolves pose to human life in comparison to domestic dogs and other events (e.g. bee stings; lightening). The facts were right, the articles were informative, but the tone was wrong. It was a bloodless response that failed to connect at a human level with the pain of others.

There may be a few readers who are quick to minimize the pain and suffering of people in such circumstances. To them I want to say, ‘back up’. It is true that humanity as a whole has not done a good job of respecting other animals and the natural world. It is also true that wolves (like other animals) are ‘innocents’ in that they do not act with unethical intent. Young children are more ethically accountable than wolves. Even so, people are animals too. We evolved as creatures who establish deep social bonds and enduring emotional commitments. What we have done to the world does not justify hardening our hearts to the grief of others. Indeed, empathy is one of the tap-roots of ethics. Properly considered, the death of Mr. Carnegie should move us to open our hearts, and bear witness to the fears and loss and suffering of people whose lives are negatively affected by wolves and other predators. This does not mean disrespecting wolves. It means making manifest our respect and concern for other people.

I then noticed the poor handling of public communications by both the authorities and the news media. The initial reports were based on information from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and wildlife officials within Saskatchewan Environment. Both quickly linked the mauling of Mr. Carnegie with a pack of wolves that had been loitering in the area. As noted by RCMP spokesperson, Heather Russell, ‘There is no evidence to the contrary….All of the injuries [examined] at autopsy were consistent with animals [attacking]’ (Jeff Mitchell, Wolf Attack Suspected in Oshawa Man’s Death, Durham Region News, 13 November 2005, http://www.durhamregion.com/).

What should be obvious to anyone who watches legal dramas on TV is this: the absence of contrary evidence is never enough to support an unfounded assumption. In this case the RCMP assumed that a dead body + canine tracks + bite marks = wolf attack. Now, that equation may be right, but then again, it may not. It could be a coincidence. There could be alternative explanations.

The news media did little better, endlessly reporting the ‘theory’ of a wolf attack as virtual fact, failing to question the authorities with rigour, and printing sensationalist statements to fan old fears. My favourite example comes from the CTV news website.

‘Bill Topping, who makes routine hauling trips to the hinterland regions south of the Northwest Territories border, told The StarPhoenix he had no doubt that wolves were responsible for the student’s death. “I’ve been up there three or four times in the past week, and I’ve had some close encounters with wolves. They’re everywhere,” he said. “A bear you can hear walking up and sniffing around. But wolves are sneaky. They’re smart, they’re fast and they’re deadly. They lay in wait” (Wolves suspected in Ontario Man’s Death, 11 November 2005, http://www.ctv.ca/, search under ‘wolf attack’).

Now to be fair, the presence of tracks and bite marks is suggestive evidence, and that might have bamboozled reporters. As for the acute observations of Mr. Topping, they do add human interest. Still, step back a moment and ask yourself what this evidence suggests? That a wolf pack killed Mr. Carnegie? Could it be that another animal or animals killed him? Were the canine tracks from wolves at all, or were they from the feral dogs who were also reported in the area? Might the wolves and/or dogs have found, then scavenged the body? Now ask yourself what else we need to know about the context of this tragedy? Were the creatures wolf-dog hybrids, and thus more aggressive towards people? Were they habituated to people because of unsecured food and garbage near human settlements? Had local communities and companies practiced appropriate waste management? Might someone have been feeding the wolves on purpose, and Mr. Carnegie simply was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

My larger point here is that local authorities and the news media should have raised these unsexy issues, and avoided lurid suggestions of wolves on the prowl. This is all the more important because poor communications and reporting has real consequences for the well-being of wolves and people. It paints wolves in a bad light, unreasonably frightens people, and in so doing, provides a veneer of legitimacy to ill-advised proposals for wolf control. One can easily envision a worse-case scenario where wolves are (again) framed according to outdated stereotypes of non-human predators. The belief that wolves are inherently dangerous, wreaking unacceptable destruction on innocent people, pets and property (e.g. livestock) has a long history in Euro-American cultures. It remains deeply entrenched in some groups. With such a lurid image in mind, no matter how demonstrably wrong scientifically or ethically, it is a short step to advocating the extirpation of wolves from the landscapes in which people live and work. Even in the Canadian north.

My final thought is this. As important as it is, the life and death of Mr. Carnegie is not the only moral value on the table here. There is the value of his relationships to other people, and the intrinsic value of those people themselves. In addition, there is the intrinsic value of wolves (as individuals, as social groups, as a species), as well as the indispensable role they play in the ecological health of the natural world. In their own way, wolves are intelligent, social and emotional creatures living in extended families we call packs. They have a value in-and-of themselves and to each other that is not dependent on how we view or use them.

We need to learn how to better express and act upon the moral values we share with people, other animals and the natural world. In terms of wolves, that means learning how to live responsibly in wolf country. In terms of people, it means treating them as well as we do wolves. And when conflict arises, it means finding practical and compassionate ways of sharing a common landscape. Nothing else is morally acceptable for either of our species.

Further information:
If you would like to find out more about this issue, there are several sources of information. On the popular side, the website of the International Wolf Center (http://www.wolf.org/) has extensive sections devoted to news and education. You can also find the latest news on wolf-human interactions at the Searching Wolf (http://www.searchingwolf.org/), a wonderful website that features the latest news and analysis. The most recent issue of Wolf Guardian (Spring 2006) from the Predator Conservation Alliance (http://www.predatorconservation.org/) has a number of articles cogently comparing the risk of wolf attacks to other hazards in rural landscapes.

On the academic side, there are several texts of note that are listed below.
* Linnell, John D. C. 2002. The Fear of Wolves: A Review of Wolf Attacks on Humans. Trondheim: Norsk Institute for Natureforskning.
* McNay, Mark. 2002. A Case History of Wolf-Human Encounters in Alaska and Canada (Wildlife Technical Bulletin 13). Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
* Mech, David, and Luigi Boitani, eds. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, Conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Of course, all these accounts should be read in light of humanity’s depredation on wolves. A few works that track this context include the following.
* Lopez, Barry Holstun. 1978. Of Wolves and Men. New York: Scribners.
* McIntyre, Rick, ed. 1996. War Against the Wolf: America’s Campaign to Exterminate the Wolf. Stillwater: Voyageur Press.
* Robinson, Michael. 2006. Predatory Bureacracy: The Extermination of Wolves and the Transformation of the West. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Finally, there is an extensive list of articles, books and web sites at Practical Ethics (http://www.practicalethics.net/).

Cheers, Bill

~

Bill Lynn is the founder and Senior Ethics Advisor of Practical Ethics (http://www.practicalethics.net/), and a professor at the Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University (www.tufts.edu/vet/cfa).

Image: Tracy Brooks, 2003, Reflection.