Yet, if the evidence is as conclusive as the Professor has claimed that a Wolf was involved, then it appears as though the wrong Wolf was shot given the conclusions of the Mounties. The Mounties have a reputation for fairness known here in America as well as Canada. This means that the real killer is loose. By definition, this is still a mystery, even if Professor Geist is correct about the attacker being a Wolf. The wrong Wolf was shot, unless I am to believe that the Mounties would lie about an issue like this.

If a Bear was involved, then, again, the real killer is loose. As much as I have empathy for the Carnegie family, finding the killer is more important than anything else here. If the real killer is loose, then a Man has been either killed (if by an animal) or murdered (if by a human) and the responsible party must be found and an account rendered. This is simple justice, one that relies on a factual accounting and not the scurrilous attacks of either yourself or Dr. Geist.

Now, given the lack of conclusive evidence, where the claims of Dr. Geist conflict with that of the Canadian government, then I cannot rule out any possibility. I also cannot rule out the possibility of occult crime. The fact that such a possibility was not adequately investigated on either side of this debate is worrisome. In my own country, Satanic covens operate freely. In addition, brutal crimes are committed against children, and the authorities seem powerless to stop it.

Does it not astonish you that a Wolf suddenly attacks a man, when such a thing is almost unheard of on this Continent? I do not know about Europe, but in North America such attacks are practically unheard of. This might be a first, but I can honestly say that Man attacks Man more often than Wolves or Bears. Frankly, a gun should be carried in the wilderness, for the sake of protection. It is the rush to judgement that I oppose.

Right now, as it is, powerful corporations rule the planet, as do powerful secret agendas. Many of those would like nothing better than to see environmental and labor protections undone. Yes, there are government cover-ups. On this point we agree (JFK, Iraq). But, on this one, I would tend to trust the Mounties because if there were a cover-up on a matter like this I would expect someone to come forward. I do agree that garbage is bad, and encourages bad behavior. I also agree that the life of Kenton Carnegie is no light matter. It is precisely for that reason that the search for the real killer should not be turned in to political football for either Pro- or Anti-Wolf propaganda.

Sincerely yours,
Nathaniel

Dear Tom,

Kenton Carnegies death was investigated independently on behalf of the Carnegie Family by Marc McNay, senior biologist from Alaska, Brent Patterson, as seasoned scientist from Ontario with considerable wolf experience, and the third was myself. McNay used a team of Alaska biologists to examine the evidence and I sent the relevant material to two colleagues in Finland that had worked for decades with wolves. Initially the death scene was examined by two senior native persons highly experiences in tracking, by two experienced white northern hunters, by two conservation officers, by a seasoned bush pilot, and a highly trained physical scientist with northern experience. All on a blanket of fresh snow. The only tracks found were those of wolves, people and one fox. Marc McNay was asked to testify at the coroner’s inquest. His written report is excellent! His testimony carried the day against Paul Paquet whose testimony the jury did not believe. I published on the Kenton Carnegie tragedy in Geist, V. 2008. Death by Wolves and the power of Myths: the Kenton Carnegie Tragedy. Fair Chase Vol. 23, No. 4. pp. 29-33.Winter issue. (For another independent assessment of the Kenton Carnegie tragedy see: Teague, M. 2008 A More Dangerous Game Bears On The Golf Course, Deer On The Windshield, Wolves On The Walk Back Home: How the decline of hunting is changing the natural order of predator and prey. Sports Illustrated, Volume 109, Issue 20, p. 53, November 24, 2008.) My essay When do wolves become dangerous to humans? does not deal with the Kenton Carnegir tragedy directly; my 2008 paper does. The electronic version is preferable for professional work as it has the relevant references. It’s attached.

The open letter is based on too skimpy an understanding of the tragedy, and there is no point myself repeating.

Sincerely, Val Geist

August 2, 2010.

Professor Valerius Geist:

Sir. I finished reading your treatise “WHEN DO WOLVES BECOME DANGEROUS TO HUMANS?” May I respectfully suggest that the Communists did not disarm the population to protect wolves. I would find it diffilcut to imagine that a regime that murdered so many people would care about a wolf. Far more likely it is that they disarmed the population so that the population would not overthrow them. They would not need to cover up any attacks by wolves. Rather, they could simply call a person bearing arms a “Trotskyist” or a “Deviationist,” and simply seize the guns.

I am not suggesting that wolves might not attack humans. I would say, however, that unless wolf attacks are documented I cannot suppose a cover-up in the old Soviet Union existed merely on hearsay. Far more likely, the Communists disarmed the population because that is what dictatorships do. If wolves are so violent, and Farley Mowat so wrong, the I would need data beyond one incident that is yet not explained. If indeed Mr. Kenton Carnegie’s attackers were wolves, the wolves directly involved should have been put down while sparing the honor of the overwhelming majority of wolves not involved. Are wolves “inherently violent?” Are humans an inherently violent species? Come to think of it, we have killed more of our own and other animals that any species I can think of! Most species are endangered due to us, and all genocides are humans-on-humans crimes. Wolves have caused no genocides or extinctions that can be documented.

Stoking fear is the wrong way to go. I believe that wolves can be reintroduced and controlled. Wolves do not appear to be violent toward people in the overwhelming majority of cases. In fact, by your own admission, a wolf attack is rare enough that it can go unreported if it does exist. If a wolf does kill a human, the individual wolf involved must be tracked down and killed. Dogs are social animals, and will learn quickly. If a wolf did kill Mr. Carnegie, that individual wolf has to pay account. But, with no apparent DNA evidence, the possibility exists his attacker might be a bear. Or, the offender might not be an animal at all, in which case a killer is loose.

The last possibility is chilling, since we are so quick to give in to our fears of wild creatures when the overwhelming majority of killers are deranged humans. Believe me, here in America there seems to be a class of humans who thrive on inflicting terror on their fellow humans. Occult crime is a particular form of this crime that often baffles law enforcement. While Canadians are much safer from this sort of crime, perhaps, one wonders still about the lack of DNA evidence pertaining to this killing and yet the rush to judgement among right-wing elements opposed to the re-introduction of wolves. Given the political nature of the re-introduction of wolves, a politicized rush to judgement was almost inevitable. When I first heard about this case, something about it suggested that an animal may not have been involved. Wolves and bears do not consider humans a food source, so stalking is really out of the norm as a behavior that they would engage in.

A rush to justgment is not a standard of justice. Professor, I respect the pain of Kenton Carnegie’s family. I also respect your scholarship within your field of expertise. Yet, again, a rush to judgement is uncalled for, especially if there is even a chance that a criminal is on the loose. Rushes to judgement do not just harm wolves. When a climate is created in which there is a rush to judgement, humans are harmed as well. So, I ask for an impartial investigation and not a rush to judgement. A man of your intellect and calliber should demand no less.

I appreciate your time, Professor. I send this to you in all respect.

Thank you,

Nathaniel Bates

I find you to be an insensitive and cruel, person to the point that you care less about humans than your beloved animals. Isn’t it great we live in a country where we can do that!

You stated on a previous comment at the Black Bear Blog that you agreed with almost nothing I ever wrote yet you continue to come to that site and now others. I find this odd behavior and I think you should reconsider what you do.

Perhaps not in the classic sense, you are a troll. There once was a time when it was considered rude and unacceptable to do what you are doing. Most high profile blogs do screen those permitted to post and you are part of the reason that is done.

You are right in that I am secure enough in what I do that I don’t need to “ban” you but in reality Bea/Barb, you offer nothing of an value to this site or any of my other sites. Nobody who reads what you write will agree with you unless they too are trolls.

I don’t think your intentions are to derail my website and my efforts but in all honesty, I think it is time for you to go away and find something more productive to do. I do not and would not consider visiting someone else blog or website only to argue EVERYTHING that is written and presented on a daily and multiple times per day basis. It gets very old and tiring.

Most people who come to my kind of websites do because they enjoy reading about issue that directly affect them as hunters and fishermen. They also like to learn and interact with others of the same cloth, so to speak. Evidently your objective is to disrupt that with your continued opposition to everything we do.

It is actually better that you posted a comment on this site, one that is visited far less than the Black Bear Blog, as I honestly did not want to offer this there but here where fewer people will see it.

Unlike you, I am not out to embarrass or ridicule what you believe in. You have made it clear. You prefer the rights of animals over humans and while I can’t agree nor understand, I won’t spend all my time trying to convince you otherwise.

I think I have made myself clear and I am asking you in a polite way to stop with what you are doing. You are accomplishing nothing except driving my readers away. If that is your aim, with one simple keyboard key, I can ban you which will remove every post you have ever made. I don’t really think you want that.

Thank you for your consideration of me and what I do for a living!

Wild animals are not DIsney animals. Isn’t that what hunters keep preaching?

Regardless, attacks of any wild animals are rare. But we are living in reality where animals are real — not Disney characters.

And it is very rare. Again, domestic dogs are responsible for far more attacks and fatalities of people. But I don’ t hear anyone calling for their demise.