Wolf Killing Reveals Subtle
Hints Of Promoters’ Intent

TUCSON, Ariz. — Opponents of schemes to "reintroduce" wolves and grizzly bears have long contended that the real goal of those programs is not so much to bring predators in as to drive people out. The reaction of "green" spokesmen to the shooting of a Mexican wolf two weeks ago lends credence to that contention.

The incident in question occurred at the end of April when a camper shot a Mexican wolf after it attacked his dog. The wolf was one of 11 pen-raised specimens released into the wild in Arizona’s Apache National Forest.

The attack validated opponents’ warnings that pen-raised wolves were not suitable for reintroduction because their repeated exposure to human handlers would make them less fearful of people and thus more likely to come into conflict.

Stung by the accuracy of that prediction, however, and the swiftness with which it came true, wolf promoters appeared determined to deflect criticism of the program by turning the facts inside out to dispute the camper’s account.

Hank Fischer, longtime spokesman for the Defenders of Wildlife, was quoted as saying it was not "normal behavior" for a wolf to approach people or to approach dogs when people are around.

Fischer’s apparent implication is that the wolf did not intrude upon the humans, but vice versa.

Federal officials, who imposed the program over strong local objections, also seem eager to cast blame on the camper.

Arizona game and fish spokesmen were evidently satisfied that the incident occurred as described, but within two days of the shooting, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representative Tom Bauer was publicly questioning the camper’s honesty.

Bauer was quoted as calling the shooting "illegal," and disputing the shooter’s assertion that he was protecting his dog when he killed the wolf.

Bauer doesn’t deny that the camper’s dog was attacked. "I would confirm a dog was at the campsite that was injured," he is quoted as saying. But he finesses the issue, pointing out that the dog wasn’t killed, and contending that the wolf "was not in the process of attacking anything when it was shot."

An Associated Press report quotes unnamed "officials" as speculating that the dog might actually have been attacked by some animal other than the wolf. It may be stretching credulity, however, to insist that another unidentified animal attacked the dog just in time for one of only 11 Mexican wolves known to be in the wild to come strolling along and take the blame.

For animal activists, the bottom line is that neither the dog nor the camper should have been there in the first place.

Peter Galvin, a spokesman for the lawsuit-happy Southwest Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, blamed "a lack of management priority for the wolf." Galvin said access to areas where wolves have been turned out should be restricted to humans, and that dogs shouldn’t even be allowed near such areas.

Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, called the shooting "a real tragedy," and said steps must be taken to see that "future incidents like this are avoided.

"Such a critical restoration program cannot be subjected to setbacks like this," he insisted, adding that, "I’m sure at a minimum, it’s going to cause the wolf recovery program officials to reassess" their initial policy of limiting "restrictions on the public."

Which sounds like opponents were reading the promoters’ motives accurately all along.