~~ Click HERE to break out of someone else's frames! ~~
|
The following is the result of a dialogue between Tom Beno and Daniel Kloskowski
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 8, 1998 - Boise, Idaho In a two-hour (approx.) proceeding in Federal Court this morning, Daniel Thomas Kloskowski of Eden Prairie, Minnesota was fined $10,000.00 plus restitution costs of $5,477.00 for killing a federally-protected wolf while on a guided hunting trip in central Idaho last September.
Sentencing also includes 30 days home detention (house arrest), followed by an additional year of supervised release (probation). Kloskowski will also pay costs relating to the ankle monitoring device.
Hunting privileges nationwide have been suspended for 1 year. The Federal Prosecutors office in Boise (possibly in conjunction with USFWS Law Enforcement) will be issuing a press release with additional details.
Many thanks to Paul Weyland, Investigator for USFWS who collared Kloskowski; to George Breitsameter, U.S.Attorney who successfully prosecuted the case; to Judge Edward Lodge, for setting the bar higher than where it was previously (2- $500 fines in Wyoming, a non-prosecution in Arizona); and thanks to Idaho for protecting wildlife and enforcing wildlife law.
Tom Beno
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Beno
From Jan.13 until Feb.10, 1999, Daniel Kloskowski and I carried on a month-long email conversation pertaining to his killing of Idaho wolf #B60M in September of last year. Our discussions began after his guilty plea (Dec.15, 1998) and before sentencing (March 8, 1999).
Although there are still some lingering doubts about portions of his story, which also doesn't agree 100% with evidence and data gotten from investigators in the case, Kloskowski nonetheless answered most of my questions candidly.
This dialog could have been used as evidence in the sentencing portion of the trial. In that regard, in order to continue the conversation and to offer Kloskowski the fairest, most open venue in which to convey his feelings without compromising his own defense, I offered that I would not post the information until after sentencing had been concluded.
I'll be emailing out the near-entirety of our dialog over the next few days.
As you'll see, Kloskowski will likely be following along on the Wolf Justice League Outpost. I'll not be posting his email address or other personal information. Should any readers wish to have something sent to him (of a constructive nature), please contact me privately.
The intent of this series is not to further penalize Kloskowski or his family - that was Judge Lodge's job. It's to provide insight into the thought processes which took place before, during, and after his killing of the wolf. What was it, exactly, that turned concern into killing? Were there better options? Of course there were. You'll follow them thru the story.
As far as I know, similar interviews have not been done, or certainly have not been published, in other wolf-killing convictions (McKittrick in Montana, York and Emmett in Wyoming). Here's my introductory email to Daniel Thomas Kloskowski dated Jan 13, 1999: ==================
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Beno
Dear Mr. Kloskowski -
We have an interest in learning more about your case pertaining to the shooting of an endangered wolf in Idaho last September. I believe you've pleaded guilty to one charge in exchange for two others being dropped. I also believe sentencing is scheduled for early March in Federal Court in Boise.
Please know up-front that we're on record - sometimes quite vocally - as being totally against crimes such as these, and very much in favor of strict and painful sentences being meted out.
However - I'm also a writer, and with that, I feel, comes a responsibility to be as objective and thorough as information will allow. I ask if you'd like to give your side of the story.
I provide wolf-and-wildlife-related information to a private network of about 5 dozen people including a variety of organizations coast-to-coast. I'm also an active member of the Wolf Justice League, which specifically challenges our legal and judicial systems to put perpetrators of wildlife crimes away. Our group lobbies for prison terms and *very* hefty fines.
I'm not with AP, Reuters, or any mainstream media, although I copy them on various items. I don't deal in sound-bites or innuendo, and you'd not be quoted out-of-context. In fact, I'll not quote you at all, if that's your preference. But please be aware that as the sentencing date nears, our group will tell anyone and everyone that your story - as we currently know it - is no justification for the crime.
I offer you a means by which you can publicly (or privately) convey your thoughts and the particulars and circumstances surrounding your decision to shoot the wolf. If you'd like to email your story, that's fine. If you prefer that I ask you a battery of questions instead, that's fine, too. If you elect not to respond at all, I could also appreciate that decision. I'm trying to be as informed and honest as possible both to our readers and to you. ...mercy and leniency as you showed the wolf. However, with this email to you, I'm attempting to leave open the door for additional information. If you feel an alternate opinion (yours) should be made public, you might consider accepting my offer.
Again - at this point, from what we currently know, we see no reason to back off demands for a stiff sentence. That's our stated opinion: I'm offering you the opportunity to state yours.
Tom Beno
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
Tom,
I am responding to you on the basis that you have identified yourself and suspect you received my e-mail address from (another party). I have not contacted my attorney about this response and am most likely making a mistake in doing so. I would appreciate your confidence in what I have to say. I do not consider myself a criminal in any sense. I am as offended by your blind accusations and cruelty as you are toward me.
As you may know, I was on a once in a lifetime Elk hunting trip in Idaho, the efforts of three years of planning and a previous scouting trip. This is my story:
There were three of us in camp at about noon when three Gray Wolves (the largest with no collar) appeared in our camp. One of the fellows was a retarded person enjoying a vacation with his friends, the other an elderly camp attendant. There were ten or twelve horses and mules tethered in the trees on high lines. There were four large tents an outhouse shelter, a couple fires and the three of us active in the camp. The livestock were extremely sensitive to the wolves because they had been chased from their grazing area on at least wo nights preceding the afternoon visit. I believe it was that morning when we finally were able to catch the last two terrorized animals (it took two days). The wolves came in and were not about to leave. The livestock and the retarded fellow were agitated, the attendant had no weapon. I was scared by the potential of this confrontation, horses and mules are "large" dumb animals. I was concerned for our safety based on their fear, confusion and ability to do harm to us saving themselves.
I walked across the camp in front of the wolves got my rifle, returned across the camp in front of them, loaded the rifle and shot the nearest, about thirty yards away. I felt it would not be in our best interest to have them any more involved in our camp and feared I would be unable to shoot if they did. I assured the camp attendant, who was flustered by the wolves and by what I had done, that I would deal with the issue alone. That was the sum total of discussion of the incident, with the exception of confirming to the third member of the group that the wolf had gone to heaven, I had with anyone until I returned home and informed the authorities of what I had done. I wanted no accessories to my actions and did not want to ruin the trip for the other people in the camp.
I was already in trouble and knew it, so how much worse could it get? My hunting companion from Minnesota knew nothing of the incident until it was published in the paper on the day of my arraignment. I removed the telemetry collar from the wolf and carried it off because I didn't believe I could remove the wolf with the condition of my damaged knees(the reason for me being in camp and not in the bush). By the time I returned the juices were flowing, fear, confusion, anger and adrenaline had taken over. The walk had given me time to consider that "the concern" was still real as long as the carcass was in the midst of the livestock, all it would take is a wind shift, so I removed it from the campsite to a brush pile. I believe both were recovered with my help locating them on a map provided by the federal agent in Minnesota who took my statement. I knew the collar would be retrieved with or without my cooperation and made no attempt to disable it, only to delay the inevitable until it would not effect the enjoyment of the experience for all the people resident in the camp.
I have lived in Minnesota all my life. I have spent many days in the woods and wilderness areas of our state enjoying nature, including wolf song, with my family. In all these years(45+) I have only been able to see and identify gray wolves in the wild on two occasions. Wild, healthy wolves avoid man as almost no other animal can. In my opinion these Wolves did not act normally for wild animals and on that basis and my familiarity with the wild, "in my judgement", I could not trust or predict what they would do. Thus the fear. I also felt responsible for the wellbeing of my companions.
If I were a vicious Wolf killer, I would have shot all three or chosen the collarless one. If it were my mission to kill Wolves, I would not have gone to Idaho to do it, my odds would be considerably better here in Minnesota where the population is now recovered.
You get to talk smart about what you would do (like when your away from the wife) and then you are confronted with something like this (which I would never expect) and you really get to review your values and views. I know that the wolf is not an issue for me, because "they are what they are".
The people who choose to re-introduce with no responsibility for the position they put that Wolf and I on that afternoon with no responsibility for the outcome are as responsible as the Wolf and I. If I had had all the experts, legal, wildlife, economic, and protectionist, I am sure we could have discussed the problem long enough for something tragic to occur. Any, all or none of us may have been harmed, I did not feel I could take chances.
As you can tell from my cooperation with the officials, I am not an irresponsible person, nor am I selfish. I lost many nights of sleep, considering why and how I made the decision to shoot. I have cleared my heart and mind of specific guilt. I do not feel that I was in a position that offered a significant amount of leeway, whether you believe that or not. I could never justify in my mind or heart, whatever injury might have been imposed on any one of us. I would have felt responsible, as I do for the Wolf's death with the exception that I could never have justified in-action (negligence?). At that moment in time the choice did not involve legal considerations, only the evaluation of the possible consequences. These Wolves did not appear to be particularly trustworthy or predictable animals based on the bold appearance in our occupied camp, midday.
I think your zeal has to allow that their is another side to consider a little more openly. Not everyone who has misfortune is a bad person. I am deeply sorry for what happened but do not regard myself as having made a particularly bad decision based on my solitary perception of the situation. I did what seemed to be my biblical commission to have dominion, and responsibility to God for my actions on behalf of others.
I have been a DU supported for most of my life. I support Pheasants Forever, The Grouse Society, Turkeys, Deer and have contributed to Wolf programs in Minnesota via the Wolf Center in Ely.
I must say, supporters of the Wolf programs who have sent me the anonymous hate mail and threats from all over the country apparently are too fanatical to consider the welfare of humans under any circumstance. My instincts as those of a Wolf are for self preservation and the safety of my companions. I have no real idea of who you are or what ability you have to effect the actions of a federal court so please forgive my frustration with this issue.
My wife and I have both received enough harassment from the "do-gooders" to be dodgy in dealing with this. People so concerned about animals willing to poison my dog in the yard seem somehow deranged, like the anti abortionists who feel it is ok to kill doctors.
I hope I have provided the information you desire. If you question my intent, I would wish you in my place for those few seconds of my life. I can honestly say that the outside world, anyone who was not there, played no part in my decision. I did what appeared to me to be my only safe option. I would have welcomed your company. This experience has already been significantly expensive in terms of cost and hardship to me and my family. It seems strange to condemn them for my actions.
Sincerely,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
Tom,
Rather expected some feedback. I complied with your wishes for factual input to get you out of the dark. It seems you might be able to share your now enlightened view. I have never denied what I did, I reported the incident myself, I understand the gravity of the situation, I have attempted to define the circumstances for you, what more can I say or do?
Sincerely
>-----------------------------------
OK, Dan - here's where we're at so far.
I've honored your request not to publish your message, but recognize - as I stated previously - that I'm one member of a small group, including my wife. In grave matters such as this, I accumulate as much input as possible to become better "enlightened" instead of rushing to judgement. I have some input from my colleagues, and am expecting more. Our communications are internal to our group and are thus far entirely confidential. One of my colleagues reminds me that you and I are both fortunate to have an open dialog with each other. I agree, and thank you for speaking candidly. Several others suggest you raise a good point re: why did you shoot only one wolf, and a collared one at that? None feel you had justification for killing it. Your intelligence is apparent in your writing. How you could allow yourself to make such a terribly incorrect and costly judgement call is not. Here are some items from your message that I wish to respond to, or which need clarification.
=================================
(DK): I do not consider myself a criminal in any sense. I am as offended by your blind accusations and cruelty as you are toward me.
>-----------------------------------
(TB): Semantics. You've admitted to committing a crime, but you're not a criminal?
The laws of our society, and the breaking of this one, say you ARE a criminal. And I hardly think the accusations are blind, since you've confessed. Cruel? I don't believe I've been so, either in my previous message or in this one. Cruelty is not in trying to communicate, Dan. Cruelty is unnecessarily killing something when better options are available.
=================================
(DK): I think your zeal has to allow that their is another side to consider a little more openly.
>-----------------------------------
(TB): None of us are zealots. And you seem to believe that I'm a bit more "open" than others you've been exposed to. If not - why are you communicating with me?
=================================
(DK): The livestock were extremely sensitive to the wolves...The livestock and the retarded fellow were agitated...I was scared...I was concerned for our safety...
>-----------------------------------
(TB): I have no problem with any of that, although you claim to be an experienced woodsman ("I have spent many days in the woods and wilderness areas...I have lived in Minnesota all my life.") In all of your experience, in a state with an estimated current population of over 2,000 wolves, please advise those cases where wolves have attacked people - if that's a concern you're trying to convey. I'd be especially interested to hear of wolf attacks on healthy, armed adults.
=================================
(DK): ...the attendant had no weapon.
>-----------------------------------
(TB): Who is the attendant - is he a hunter himself, or an employee of the outfitter? Was he responsible for the safety and maintenance of the camp and stock while other hunters and guides were in the field, or was that your responsibility, or was it not even assigned? How many hunters were in the party - how many guides?
=================================
(DK): I walked across the camp in front of the wolves got my rifle, returned across the camp in front of them, loaded the rifle and shot the nearest.
>-----------------------------------
(TB): You passed in front of the wolves - twice - and neither you nor your campmates were either attacked or even confronted. Then, instead of a reasoned and rational action (like waving, yelling, running at them, banging pots & pans, going to get help from experienced guides, or even firing a warning shot), you felt it your place to just shoot the wolf. Have I got that right? The wolves were doing what wolves do, harassing other animals, "testing" them. Even you stated "they are what they are." The wolf was being a wolf, so you shot it. Is that correct?
=================================
(DK): I did what seemed to be my biblical commission to have dominion, and responsibility to God for my actions on behalf of others.
>-----------------------------------
(TB): Baloney. Would you plead "biblical commission" for the 3 men who killed 34 horses in Nevada? Is it "dominion" for poachers to kill 40 antelope in Colorado? Is it your right to pick which laws of the land you wish to abide by, and those you don't? OK re: responsibility to God. What happens to responsibility to your fellow citizens who, by democratic process, have made killing wolves a federal crime? That point somehow doesn't apply to you? You're excused from those sociological items because yours is a higher calling - a "biblical commission?" That statement lies somewhere between ridiculous and a warped, self-serving hiding behind religion.
=================================
(DK): The people who choose to re-introduce with no responsibility for the position they put that Wolf and I on that afternoon with no responsibility for the outcome are as responsible as the Wolf and I.
>--------------------------------------------
(TB): More baloney. They didn't pull the trigger - you did. They don't make the law - they enforce it (and you break it). A drunk driver who kills someone isn't absolved of responsibility because he didn't see the stop sign.
=================================
(DK): I...do not regard myself as having made a particularly bad decision...
>-----------------------------------
(TB): I think you made an *incredibly* bad decision. So does the American public (whose laws you broke). So does the legal system we all voted in which judged you guilty.
=================================
(DK): I have been a DU supported for most of my life. I support Pheasants Forever, The Grouse Society, Turkeys, Deer
>-----------------------------------
(TB): Other than as testimony to your being familiar with guns and killing, I don't understand how those groups have any bearing on this case.
=================================
(DK): .....and have contributed to Wolf programs in Minnesota via the Wolf Center in Ely.
>-----------------------------------
(TB): This one might have a bearing. Please advise your involvement with IWC or other wolf programs. Do you mean that you've gone to see their captive wolves, or that you've donated money, or that you're a member, or you go to meetings or seminars? How do you mean that you "have contributed?"
=================================
(DK): ,,,and then you are confronted with something like this (which I would never expect)
>-----------------------------------
(TB): Perhaps not to be "expected," but certainly should have been prepared for. You're from wolf country Minnesota, on a guided hunting trip - your second - in wolf country Idaho. The Endangered Species Act is in the news every day, coast-to-coast, concerning one event or another. Wolves in Yellowstone and Idaho are higher profile than any species on the continent. Tracking devices and periodic reports put out by the government and the Nez Perce Tribe pinpoint the nearly exact locations of every wolf pack within hundreds of miles of your campsite. You're with seasoned guides who live in those woods, work there, and bring people like yourself to hunt. What information is it about wolves that you were somehow deprived of?
===============================
(DK): ...anonymous hate mail and threats...too fanatical...harassment from the "do-gooders"...deranged...
>-----------------------------------
(TB): Under normal circumstances those are unacceptable actions. However, killing our wildlife is not "normal." The radical reactions of others have been brought on only by you.
==============================
(DK): like the anti abortionists who feel it is ok to kill doctors.
>-----------------------------------
(TB): Or others who kill our nation's wildlife out of misplaced fear, panic or ignorance.
==============================
(DK): I would have welcomed your company....I would wish you (were) in my place for those few seconds of my life.
>-----------------------------------
(TB): So do I. I *guarantee* there would be one more live wolf, and you wouldn't be in trouble for killing it.
==============================
(DK): ...cost and hardship to me and my family. It seems strange to condemn them for my actions.
>-----------------------------------
(TB): I agree that it's most unfortunate for your family. Through no fault of their own, they're the recipients of public scorn and hostile actions that *you* brought to their doorstep. Perhaps you should have considered them as much as you considered "the enjoyment of the experience" and your "biblical commission."
It's sometimes difficult to restrain my anger toward those who commit inexcusable and unforgivable crimes, who then have to endure the wrath of *our* society for breaking *our* laws, yet try to justify their own actions with statements like "I do not consider myself a criminal" and "responsibility to God." Bull crap.
==============================
(DK): I have no real idea of who you are or what ability you have to effect the actions of a federal court...
>-----------------------------------
(TB): I have no federal "pull." I'm a citizen, taxpayer, and family man, just like you. The primary difference between us is that I spend much of my life trying to protect wildlife and you spend big money and break laws to kill it.
I believe that addresses your message. If we're still communicating, I have some additional questions. Respond if you will, and I ask again if you'd consider allowing me to post your information. Since the verdict is already in, I cannot influence the case. If you've been totally honest with me, you have nothing to lose.
How long was it from the time you pulled the trigger on the wolf until the time you dialed the number to turn yourself in?
Did you get your elk? If so, was it before or after the wolf killing?
Who was your outfitter and guide service?
I believe you're telling me that the outfitter knew nothing of the wolf kill - I find that difficult to accept. They didn't hear the shot from camp while they were hunting? They weren't surprised that after two days of wolf harassment, suddenly the wolves were gone?
You spoke of your state of anxiety and adrenaline rush, which was likely duplicated by the camp attendant - the guides didn't notice? The attendant - (at your direction?) didn't tell his own employers of the shooting?
What warning (or other information) about wolves was provided to you by the outfitters (or others) prior to and during the hunt? What is their stated opinion about wolves? What are your perceptions about what they really feel?
Provide what you can if you wish. In any event, I appreciate the communications we've already had.
Tom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
Tom,
I have tried to respond in line. You sound like a pretty zealous advocate to me, especially toward the end of your comments. My personal view of the wolf has become one of apathy, I neither love, nor do I hate them. I could, argue for and against re-introduction. One of the anti wolf zealots sent me an opinion much like your view but from across the aisle. His point was this(his note was postmarked California), he said: "If I trap a mouse in my kitchen, I am a criminal in my home state. If a statistician and a politician get wind of it they will put mice on the list because of declining population in my area". He then pointed out that there are and always have been surviving populations in other countries of the world. Canada and our own Alaska have had uninterrupted hunting and trapping and in some areas paid bounties.
I am not trying to strike up an argument with you. It serves no purpose. The issue here is whether or not I was justified in my actions. Most people do not care what the circumstance was. There are three views, 'hang him', 'who cares' and 'thank you'. Justice will fall somewhere in that range but for my part, hopefully short of the fullest penalty.
Sincerely,
-------------------------------------
(TB): None of us are zealots. And you seem to believe that I'm a bit more "open" than others you've been exposed to. If not - why are you communicating with me?
================================
(DK): You did come on pretty strong in your initial request.
-------------------------------------
(TB): ...please advise those cases where wolves have attacked people - if that's a concern you're trying to convey. I'd be especially interested to hear of wolf attacks on healthy, armed adults.
================================
(DK): I was not particularily fearful of being eaten by a wolf, but if they had come closer to the livestock and caused more panic, we the humans were at risk.
No one was in earshot. The hunters were usually miles away. There were no guides only two wranglers off at the airstrip. I feel responsible for the well being of everyone I am with at any and all times, I was raised to believe that was one of my most basic responsibilities. There were three other hunters.
The view I had was this. Three wolves with no aparent fear of human presence. With 2000+ wolves in Minnesota and all the time I have been exposed to them I have seen them 2 times. They were visible for seconds before they vaporized. These three did not appear to me to be 'normal'. We had fires burning, we were active in the camp and they showed no concern for us what so ever. Chopping wood makes some commotion. With the condition of my knees, I couldn't have run to save myself, It would seem foolish that I would run at them. I would have had little concern for them harassing the livestock if the livestock were not tied.
-------------------------------------
(TB): ...Would you plead "biblical commission" for the 3 men who killed 34 horses in Nevada?
================================
(DK): No I would not. The 'Commission' was the choice of harm to humans versus harm to an animal.
-------------------------------------
(TB): A drunk driver who kills someone isn't absolved of responsibility because he didn't see the stop sign.
================================
(DK): The drunk driver drinks and the re-introducers put the wolves there.
-------------------------------------
(TB): I think you made an *incredibly* bad decision...
================================
(DK): That's your judgement versus mine. We are likely to have our own opinions no matter what is said. I do not however expect that everyone would share your opinion(we can exclude those with prejudice).
-------------------------------------
(TB): Please advise your involvement with IWC or other wolf programs...
================================
(DK): Minnesota is a hot bed of controversy over the wolves. Lets say this, I have done enough for the wolves to cause close relatives who live in ELY not to speak to me for many years. I have taken my children to the wolf center twice. So the wolf center isn't it. I have contributed money and time.
-------------------------------------
(TB): ...What information is it about wolves that you were somehow deprived of?
================================
(DK): The first trip was unguided and unarmed. The specific behavior of these three wolves was not typical of wilderness raised healthy animals, above all else they are survivalists. They do not usually take many risks, that is their purpose, to clean the environment and the gene pool.
-------------------------------------
(TB): The radical reactions of others have been brought on only by you.
================================
(DK): I simply wish they had the self respect to identify themselves. I don't expect they would do you much good either. I certainly would not trust one of them if the chips were down....I will always rate harm to humans as more significant than harm to an animal.
-------------------------------------
(TB): ..."I do not consider myself a criminal" and "responsibility to God." Bull crap.
================================
(DK): Are you an Athiest?
I did not spend one dime to kill a wolf, nor would I. I have mounted one fish for a nine year old son who made a once in a lifetime catch. The fish was released and a reproduction was made. I do not prize trophies except in the sense that it increases the challenge.
-------------------------------------
(TB): How long was it from the time you pulled the trigger on the wolf until the time you dialed the number to turn yourself in?
================================
(DK): Three or four days, because I did not believe that the 'law abiding members of the hunt' should be put through this sort of crap. Common concern for people. No-one could do anything for the wolf. Only bring missery on the people in the camp.
-------------------------------------
(TB): Did you get your elk? If so, was it before or after the wolf killing?
================================
(DK): I had an opportunity to shoot and chose not to. Before the wolf. I did not hunt after the incident, and did not participate in another trip given to me by friends in Montana in October.
-------------------------------------
(TB): Who was your outfitter and guide service?
================================
(DK): Can't see where that would make a difference, and preferr they are spared your wrath.
-------------------------------------
(TB): I believe you're telling me that the outfitter knew nothing of the wolf kill - I find that difficult to accept...
================================
(DK): I guess you have little hunting experience. It is very likely that no one else heard the shot, if they did it is very likely they would not know where it was taken. How would you tell a shot at a wolf from a shot at anything else? Why would anyone be concerned about a shot during hunting season?
The wolves did not appear on consecutive days. I do not know that they did not return....I never directed the attendent to do anything other than staying out of it. He may very well have told his employer when he saw him. The owner was not in camp for a few days.
-------------------------------------
(TB): What are your perceptions about what they (outfitters) really feel?
================================
(DK): They mentioned the depletion of game they confirmed with the local park service ranger. If they had their choice they would preferr not contending with them. I think they are apathetic toward wolves but dislike having them shoved down their throats.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(DK) Yes, I'm an advocate of wildlife: considering your admitted apathy for the dead wolf, it's understandable that we wouldn't agree on "zealous," either - but that's just an interpretation of degree of advocacy, isn't it?
=================================
(DK): I could, argue for and against re-introduction.
-----------------------------------
(TB): What is your preferred position on reintroduction? I follow the Minnesota Roundtable Discussions - some of which concern proposals (mostly from the ranching community, of course) - for a wolf hunt.
Wildlife advocates (some far more "zealous" than I) have been able to keep a wolf hunt from happening - so far. If/when a hunt is approved, would you intend to hunt wolves? Would you intend to take your son?
=================================
(DK): One of the anti wolf zealots sent me an opinion much like your view but from across the aisle.
-----------------------------------
(TB): He (like you and I) is entitled to his opinion. I'll admit that in some cases the ESA may have gone too far. In other cases, not far enough.
=================================
(DK): I am not trying to strike up an argument with you. It serves no purpose. The issue here is whether or not I was justified in my actions. Most people do not care what the circumstance was.
-----------------------------------
(TB): I care - not only for the dead wolf, but also to learn the reasons behind the crime. Frankly, your killing the wolf and my wildlife advocacy are really very small pieces of a very big pie. My main intent is not to crucify you, but to gain more knowledge and to help people (at both ends of the "zealous spectrum") to find common ground.
=================================
(DK): I was not particularily fearful of being eaten by a wolf, but if they had come closer to the livestock and caused more panic, we the humans were at risk....I would have had little concern for them harassing the livestock if the livestock were not tied.
-----------------------------------
(TB): So there was yet another option (besides scaring them off with noise, a warning shot, etc.)? ...do you mean the problem would not have resulted in a dead wolf if you had just untied the livestock?...Was untying the livestock a simple option available to you which would have satisfied your personal safety concerns?
=================================
(DK): With the condition of my knees, I couldn't have run to save myself. It would seem foolish that I would run at them.
-----------------------------------
(TB): Running at the wolves is not foolish - especially since you were armed. It's one of several accepted and acknowledged deterrents to wolf confrontations. (I suggested others in my last message). I'm telling you that there were options available to you that would have prevented this entire story. You continue to reject any and all that I've offered. Shooting it was *your* preferred solution.
And without trying to sound totally unfeeling, I tend to disregard another referral to your knees. I've got a pair of bad ones myself. If you were physically unable to participate in an activity that requires some mobility, why were you there? Because of bad knees, I no longer ski. Because of a fear of heights, I don't climb mountains. If I feared water, I wouldn't scuba. I invoke the Common Sense Rule, which is where your wolf-killing decision went awry. Had CSR been invoked, you would have exercised better judgement, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
=================================
(DK): The 'Commission' was the choice of harm to humans versus harm to an animal.
-----------------------------------
(TB): The "choice" was not "either/or," Dan. You "chose" to shoot the wolf instead of employing alternatives that would have harmed neither human NOR animal. That, to me, would have been the most preferable, would it not? The choice you made - the wrong one, out of perhaps 6 that I've suggested - is why you're in trouble.
=================================
(DK): Is the problem guns and killing?
------------------------------------
(TB): In and of themselves, no. It's how the gun was used in this case in connection with a wolf-killing that didn't need to happen.
=================================
(DK): The specific behavior of these three wolves was not typical of wilderness raised healthy animals...
-----------------------------------
(TB): They're not "wilderness raised" (yet), Dan - they're *reintroduced* - and therefore are more habituated to humans than their offspring will be. Wolves getting acclimated to living lives *totally* devoid of human contact is several wolf generations away, if ever. Given our ever-expanding human population, that may not be possible at all. You and your guides should BOTH know that.
=================================
(DK): Are you an Athiest?
-----------------------------------
(TB): Negative. Born & raised Catholic (altar boy, even). However, I do not actively practice religion anymore, but also pass no judgement on those who do. The difference here, Dan, is that you're trying to use religion to somehow pass off the crime as being OK. I reject that position. So do the citizens of *our* country, who made it a crime to shoot wolves. Please don't lose sight of that critical item. It IS a law, you DID break it, and you ARE responsible.
...I fall back on the Common Sense Rule. Even in hunting season, shots are not being fired every moment. Guides may be (as you said) miles away, but they surely know where camp is, and they surely know a shot came from that direction. And surely (I would think) they'd ask about it.
=================================
(DK): I never directed the attendent to do anything other than staying out of it. He may very well have told his employer when he saw him. The owner was not in camp for a few days.
-----------------------------------
(TB): Perhaps not the owner, but the guides and other hunters were. Are you saying *none* of those people knew anything about you killing the wolf?
I have another suggestion.
First, I ask again if it would be OK to post our conversations to people who would have much interest in your reasoning and perspectives.
If that's not satisfactory, I invite you to check for yourself the website of the Wolf Justice League, where I would post our dialog. You won't find profanity, disrespect, or personal attacks on the site. You will find much in the way of honest and educational information presented entirely in context by a variety of responsible people. You could post your position on this matter in your own words, if you wish, or I could do it for you.
Again, I don't see that you have downside to this proposal, and you have much to offer interested and reasonable people from a perspective that we will likely never experience ourselves. At worst, if you don't like whatever discussions might take place, or if you wish to simply discontinue, just don't post anymore. At best, you would convey some feelings that others may not have considered.
Take a look. I'm interested in continuing our conversation, but feel it would be much more valuable if others could tune in to it.
Tom Beno
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
Subject: from Dan
Tom,
I have responded in the same way as before.
I have to tell you that at the time this incident occurred, I would have to define my feelings as "cornered", physically and responsibly, by something that did not register as normal to me. I do not know what anyone could have warned me about or what options anyone could have offered. If I saw three wolves, in Minnesota I would have asked instinctively, "If I see three, how many are there and where are they?". I cannot recall the list of options I considered on my own in that brief period.
My intuition is built on my experience and this incident was incongruous with those experiences. The principal considerations I had were to predict what the wolves would do based on our actions. Since they did not seem to be normal from my experience I could not validate. There will always be the "coulda, woulda, shoulda, mighta, hada, aughta but didn't" for all of us. You and I share that, but we will never share the same perspective because we are not the same person and it wasn't you there that day. Would you trust me (rather safe than sorry) to care for your family in your absence? In this instance from what I experienced, I would not trust you with mine.
I did not mean to imply that I was apathetic to that particular wolf. I do, believe it or not, feel really bad about what happened(not because of the consequences to me). At this point and for some time I have had an apathetic view toward the wolf as an issue for me because I could find very few people with whom I could have a conversation that wasn't heated with emotion. The people not steeped in emotion didn't know or care. It does not feel to me like there are many people in the middle of the road on this issue.
------------------------------------
(TB): What is your preferred position on reintroduction?
================================
(DK): I do not believe that there is a possibility for one rule to fit all the possibilities and do not believe there are enough people involved who can have enough rational discussion to review circumstance to practical solutions.
...Why not allow Minnesota or another state to provide stock for the lower 48. I would be willing to bet you could find sportsmen and residents who would pay to have it done or be willing to live trap, add the supporters and save a lot of money. The animals would not then have to be acclimated, simply released.
I have never had an interest in hunting wolves. I am not a trophy hunter. Since the carcass could provide no useful purpose I would see no reason to hunt it. I cannot imagine anyone hunting one without bait and I would not participate in baiting.
My sons would have to make their own choices. It would be my guess that they would not be interested in the time investment for the value of the payback.
If I were you I would start campaigning to make the sale of hides illegal and non commercial or allow only the 'protection league or interior to buy them at legislated prices. If that were true the only people who would hunt wolf would be people in the fringe area where the problems exist because there would be no incentive to others. I know no hunter who enjoys what he does for the sake of killing.
------------------------------------
(TB): Was untying the livestock a simple option available to you which would have satisfied your personal safety concerns?
=================================
(DK): Tom, consider a campsite with a lot of animals nutso over what they are sensing. I am a farm boy. I would not have risked approaching agitated animals. They are big and they are dumb. When they are threatened they lash out at anything including each other. If we could have released them it would have taken significant time. Wolves(any predator) goes after the panic stricken runners. That would have brought them to our presents. Not a good option.
-------------------------------------
(TB): Had (Common Sense Rule) been invoked, you would have exercised better judgement, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
================================
(DK): The CSR is what brought me to Idaho in 1998. This very well may be the last opportunity I have to experience the mountains(my primary objective). My joints are deteriorating as if I had Lyme Disease, which I am told I do not. No one has a prognosis for my future. I would not run with a rifle. I cannot run without one. I simply walk where the task is the easiest. If I had been alone in the woods when this occurred, I am certain I would have watched them as I did the other animals and birds I encountered.
----------------------------------------------
(TB): The choice you made - the wrong one, out of perhaps 6 that I've suggested - is why you're in trouble.
===============================
(DK): Please accept the fact that I wish I could have found an option.
-------------------------------------
(TB): One is a crime (drunk driving), the other is not (reintroducing wolves). So what is your point?
================================
(DK): Both in your words, had a tragic ending. There is an old adage I recalled that led me to that expression: Drive defensively, don't be dead right. If the wolves were tame, why would anyone release them in an area with heavy camping pressure. I found out much later that these wolves were released within a few miles of where we were only a few days before the hunting seasons. From the comments of the area ranger we were pretty well surrounded by camps. I do not know the specific proximity but we saw other hunters and heard them calling and their shots on a rather frequent basis.
This was a drop camp. There were no guides and the wranglers were off at the airstrip several valleys away.
-------------------------------------
(TB): The difference here, Dan, is that you're trying to use religion to somehow pass off the crime as being OK
================================
(DK): It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the establishment of personal values. Mine says care for humans over lesser beings. I have a matching Catholic upbringing, but now practice in the Lutheran church. One of the principals in which I have a value conflict is this: If God would spare his only son to free me from the bonds of sin, why would he condemn me to hell for my humanity. No one can be saved because no one can maintain the letter of the law.
According to the Catholic religion you are doomed because of absence from religious rights, are you not? As a Christian believer I accept the fact that I am a sinner and have faith that I am worthy of Gods love for me and that it is not conditional. That is what causes me to be the best human I can be. In times of crisis, we revert to our most basic values.
There were sporadic shots all around us. We were only one small group of hunters. There were many "was that you shooting" questions. No one asked that question of this shot, so I would validly surmise no one heard it.
----------------------------------------------
(TB): Are you saying *none* of those people knew anything about you killing the wolf?
================================
(DK): That would be an accurate statement from my perspective. My hunting partner from Minnesota knew nothing of the incident until one of his other friends asked about the article in the paper the day after it appeared. This man took time he did not have to freely give up to help me accomplish this trip. Our wives put pressure on him to do it for me. At the time we made the first trip to scout, he was in the process of selling his home and negotiated the sale during the trip. We left the camp when we did (earlier that required) so he could be present at the closings of the sale and purchase. Would you burden that kind of friend with that kind of information? If I had been at all proud of what I had done I would have let everyone know what and why.
I have viewed your site and its content. I would not disapprove of you expressing my views as real possibilities but would not care to participate directly. I cannot afford the time and would not care to be a drop out. That would be too infuriating and frustrating for the people I quit on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
Hello, Dan -
Four things, please:
(1) I've been asked to reaffirm that you understand that Minnesota wolves have not been "delisted." There are motions to that effect in your state, and a confusing statement about it a couple months ago by Bruce Babbitt, but the wolves in Minnesota still have "threatened" status.
(2) As we discussed, I intend to put up much of our conversation onto the Wolf Justice League Outpost. I'll put up a brief introductory, stating that you do not intend to contribute to the conversation on the Board, and that the conversational thread will be for informational purposes. Your email address and other personal items will not be given out. Readers will be invited to comment if they wish, but they should not expect a response. I'll post my own email address as intermediary, if something relevant requiring your attention should be forwarded to you. If you wish, I'll be glad to send you some or all of whatever is posted - or, you can access the site yourself - whichever you prefer. (We have much information about other wildlife issues that could be of interest to you).
(3) To safeguard us both, I'm checking to make sure that whatever is posted will have no bearing on the legal status of your case. If I find that it does, I'll not proceed.
(4) As you know, I'm not big on religious overtones concerning your case or others. But one of my colleagues is tuned into it, and asks if I'd forward the following to you for your interpretation of its meaning and how it might apply to your position.
=======================
Summarizing, wolf mgt, from Biblical view:
1. Puts spiritual, not economic, values first
2. Based on sustainability
3. Based on abundant, not minimum numbers.
4. Based on steward's attitude of servanthood, or accountability to higher authority rather than self-centered or self-serving. Acknowledges some loss simply natural part of life.
5. Uses nonlethal means of protection for livestock first.
6. Comes from character of love, which by definition, extends concern and compassion for individuals, not just populations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
(1) I've been asked to reaffirm that you understand...wolves in Minnesota still have "threatened" status.
================================
(DK): Well, would it not be in your best interest to keep them there or reduce them to endangered to keep them protected? With the past few winters we have had, their declining food supplies could be detrimental to them. This is only my observation(so please accept it as such), but I have hunted deer in the Ely area since the late fifties. There were three times in the year when my whole family gathered, the fishing season opener in the spring, duck season opener in the fall and opening deer season. We were more likely to gather on those occasions than on any other because the extended families had less influence on our time. I used to go into the woods and see five or ten deer a day. The populations seemed to be stable until the past ten to fifteen years. It was a mixed blessing. We saw fewer deer and a lot fewer hunters. In the past five years we have had more hunters in our group and hunted wider areas than we ever have in the past. In the past three years (I was not involved this year) we have seen only four deer in all our combined efforts. We see few if any rabbits or grouse. We do however see a lot of predator tracks. We used to hear and occasionally see coyotes. I haven't heard one in the past five years. There are signs of more large cats than ever before. I have no explanation only the observation.
I am not expecting a defense of the wolf nor am I accusing. It just seems to me if the food supply can't support the population, the predators will move to areas where the food supply exists. That means south in Minnesota, or north to Canada. If they move south there is a high likelihood they will come in contact with humans and domestic animals. If they go to Canada, we have to buy them back. That is why it makes sense to a 'Polak' to move the animals to areas where they are more likely to be left alone. CSR? Sometimes information at face value makes more sense than a lot of debated and discounted or overemphasized factual study, anyone can argue facts. Look at the Clinton condition. 70%, if you believe the polls, say deal with it and go on, but a small minority of the population who we have chosen (the voters among us) to represent us refuse the message. So the argument goes on.
-------------------------------------
(TB): (2) As we discussed, I intend to put up much of our conversation onto the Wolf Justice League Outpost...
================================
(DK): I have visited your site and have found some of the information there to be very interesting. Some of the responses are less than comforting...
-------------------------------------
(TB): 3) To safeguard us both, I'm checking to make sure that whatever is posted will have no bearing on the legal status of your case. If I find that it does, I'll not proceed.
================================
(DK): I appreciate that very much.
------------------------------------
(TB): (4) ...one of my colleagues...asks if I'd forward the following to you for your interpretation of its meaning and how it might apply to your position.
================================
(DK): These are interesting facts I have never recognized or considered. I have never had anyone bring out the significance of those perspectives. My depth has been to try being a honest, caring, loving and responsible human in the human world.
Tom, I don't have a position. I killed a wolf. It did not make me happy. I notified the authorities. I have cooperated with everyone. You asked to understand how I came to shoot. I have tried to explain. You have pointed out my shortcomings. I have tried to describe my nature and how I came to the decision to pull the trigger. Please accept my answer, because it is the only one I have to offer. We can't undo what I did. From: Dan Kloskowski To: Tom Beno
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 3:03 PM
Hi Tom,
I read your posting on the wolf killer. I think you should have asked Paul where he got his lead and given me credit for my honesty. You did mentioned fairness in your initial contact. I didn't run from my responsibility, I did however protect the value of the trip for the others.
Sincerely,
-------------------------------
From: Tom Beno
Hello, Dan -
I debated whether to copy you on the posting or not, but I assumed (correctly) that you'd read it in one form or another. Though we (still) differ greatly regarding your responsibility in the matter, I am glad to hear from you.
As discussed previously, our WJL website is still open for your use, should you elect to take exception to anything that's posted there. If you feel strongly enough about your justification for killing the wolf, we offer you a vehicle in which to express it.
There are still a few significant questions concerning your case - like I cannot accept that your guides/wranglers knew nothing about the incident. Therefore, I believe they are involved, and that you have some kind of agreement with them to keep them out of it. Since I have no proof or testimony, I can only offer it as opinion.
And I don't mean to pick nits, but "honesty" in the context you try to present it (above) is not an accurate term when used in conjunction with "hiding" evidence (the wolf and the collar). Why, for example, did you cut the collar off at all, and "place" both of them somewhere else? I recall your message about wind direction possibly spooking the stock - that could make sense, and could be why that charge against you was dropped. But wind direction doesn't explain cutting off the collar. Your statement was "I removed the telemetry collar from the wolf and carried it off because I didn't believe I could remove the wolf with the condition of my damaged knees." Do you mean you carted off the wolf carcass, but the additional 2 pound weight of the collar would be too much for your knees? That doesn't make sense to me.
From my end, I promised to convey information in the context it was received, and to not post anything that would compromise either of our positions as we approach sentencing. In fact, I copied Paul Weyland on my posting before I even sent it out to my own readership, to make sure I wasn't out-of-line on the information I wrote.
Your claim of not running is another matter of semantics, as is your statement that you have no responsibility (other than to God and your fellow hunters for their continued "enjoyment of the experience"). In the clearer perspective of today's vernacular, when you did not immediately report the incident and decided instead to complete the hunt at your leisure and return to Minnesota - I believe most interested parties would consider that to be "running from the law."
And I dismiss your repeated referral to others' hunting enjoyment as ANY kind of justification for killing the wolf and hiding it. If their personal pleasure was of great concern to you, you should have considered the potential downside to shooting the animal sometime in the prior two days when you were exposed to them.
Can you clarify your statement about Paul Weyland? Are you saying that authorities knew nothing about the wolf killing until you told them?
You returned to Minnesota, when? How long after that did you initiate contact with the authorities, or did they contact you? I'm currently believing they were happening at the same time, that you felt their "hot breath" and that you knew your arrest was imminent. If that's the timing, I believe that tarnishes any claim of "honesty."
Did you call federal authorities in Minnesota or in Idaho, or some other (state) jurisdiction? Why did you not turn yourself in in Idaho "after" the hunt but before you fled back to Minnesota? Did you realize - as I suspect - that you could not escape, that too much evidence was left behind, and that - sooner or later - you were going to get caught? If so, that's not "honesty" - that's realizing it might go softer on you if you were to appear to have "turned yourself in." The timing of those events is crucial, and you did slide in right under the gun, so-to-speak.
Tom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
(TB): There are still a few significant questions concerning your case - like I cannot accept that your guides/wranglers knew nothing about the incident...
===================================
(DK): Tom, I am really sorry that you are unable to accept honesty in people. There are no deals, if there were deals I would have made a deal to share a snitch reward to reduce the penalty. I think you will find that no rewards will be paid. There were three of us in camp and I believe that we were the only three who knew until the attendant told the outfitter when he arrived back at camp after my departure.
------------------------------------
(TB): ...Do you mean you carted off the wolf carcass, but the additional 2 pound weight of the collar would be too much for your knees? That doesn't make sense to me.
================================
(DK): Tom, Well when I saw the panic in the attendant over the collar, I removed it. I didn't think I would be able to carry the wolf away because of my knees. When I returned from the walk with the collar, thinking how stupid it was to leave the carcass, I was so pumped up I managed it.
-------------------------------------
(TB): ...you should have considered the potential downside to shooting the animal sometime in the prior two days when you were exposed to them.
================================
(DK): Tom, I have never tried to justify the shot in any reference to anyone but the three of us in camp. What I did not want to do was ruin their stay in this beautiful place doing what they enjoyed so much by having a lot of unpleasant legal activity. I actually expected the officials to be of your ilk. They are not. They are very professional public servants.
-------------------------------------
(TB): ...Are you saying that authorities knew nothing about the wolf killing until you told them?
=================================
(DK): Tom, I expect they knew there was a beaconing collar. They had no idea who shot until I called. Fish and Game was astounded that I called.
I arrived home late Sunday night. I attempted to contact the Outfitter to let him know what I had done. I was not successful because he was en-route to the camp. When he arrived there The attendant informed him and he called. I told him what I had done and asked if he knew who I should contact. He gave me the number for Idaho Fish and Game as a starting point. That's who I called immediately after our conversation.
Tom, as I told you before the man I was traveling with had done a lot for me to be able to make this trip. Of all the people I was concerned for it would be him. I don't really understand why this is such a big issue. The fact is I really did it without any devious intent. My values give preference to others before myself. I was never concerned about the 'Law' gunning for me. I knew what I was going to do before I ever left the camp. Timing didn't seem all that important once the decision was made. Would the outfitter have turned me in? I believe he is a small business man who relies on licensing to do business. Why should he take chances? I expect he would have reported the incident, but remember, I told the attendant that I would shoulder the responsibility for my actions and I expect he relayed that information and the outfitter honored it. If I had not been contacted by the outfitter that morning, it was my intent to speak to the Eden Prairie police. I am certain they would have assisted me.
I have never been involved with the 'Law' so I was pretty much in the dark about what was and what wasn't important to them. They all expressed their respect for my handling of the whole thing. My name is not Clinton and I am not a lawyer. I spent a night in jail once because I couldn't find my car in a parking lot, I wasn't driving so my car wasn't there. It was grateful for the help and they thought it rather funny. It was a rural area and the jail was the officers spare room. Other than a couple of traffic violations that's it.
Tom, I must say your opposition is as fervent as you are. I have had some amazing offers from outfitters in Ontario, British Columbia and Alaska since this thing started. Apparently everyone believes I did it for fun or on a lark. They are upset because I have no interest in shooting wolves. As I told you I wouldn't spend a dime to do it, now I can add, I wouldn't do it for free either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
On Feb.10 Dan Kloskowski and I concluded our pre-sentencing conversation that had begun on Jan.13.
Two days ago (March 14), almost a week after his sentencing, I contacted him again, and he got back to me. His mood is a bit "testier" than previous, which is likely understandable, given the home restriction he's now on, the lightness of his wallet, and the unwanted electronic jewelry around his ankle. Nonetheless, he responded reasonably well.
This won't be a 10-part series - maybe 4 or 5, or until the content of the exchange loses its value from an education and information standpoint.
Tom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom Beno To: Dan Kloskowski
Hello, Dan -
I've been planning to contact you for about a week, but thought you might need time to re-adjust from the travel, legal proceedings, etc.
As you may have been reading, and as we previously discussed, I've posted most of our January-February discussions onto the Wolf Justice League Outpost - a 10-part series that I've put up over the past 5 days. The final part (10) will be posted tomorrow (Monday, March 15). Here's a direct link to the entire thread:
http://www.jadaproductions.com/wjl/getthread.asp?mydate=All&threadnumber=142 &threadname=Wolf+Outpost&threadtopic=Kloskowski%2FIdaho+Wolf+Killing+-+Sept. %2798&recordnumber=
As expected, the series is generating significant interest (offline, as people have contacted me). There are still pockets of ire from several folks. In general, however, the initial wave of anger that was directed at you has mostly passed, the tone of the messages has modified considerably, and readers appear to be in a genuine learning mode. That was the intent from the very beginning, and in that regard - learning - I want to thank you again for speaking openly with me.
If you approve, I'd like to post a sort of epilogue to that series. That is, the "heat of the moment" is long-gone, the emotional spike that I'm sure encompassed your entire family has likely stabilized somewhat, and you're probably ready to put this unfortunate chapter to bed and get on with your life.
However, I believe you're substantially homebound for another three weeks or so. Though communicating with the "wolf community" through me might not be your first choice as to how to spend your time, I think I've honored the trust you gave me, and you might agree to a brief continuation
I'm not looking for a statement of remorse or apology for your actions - that's for you to determine. What I would like to know is - given the same set of circumstances, knowing what you know now, would you have done things differently? If so, in what ways? Remembering that - like it or not - wolves appear to again be a part of the long-term American West, and there will certainly be more human-wolf interactions in the future, what recommendations would you make that could prevent a similar situation(shooting) from happening again?
I'm also still a bit in the dark about some details of your case. Could you please clear them up for me, concerning the placement of both the wolf carcass and the telemetry collar?
Per your previous message and my discussions with USFWS Law Enforcement, I believe you hauled the wolf carcass downwind approximately a mile-and-a-half (you mentioned concern about the stock being further agitated if the wind were to shift). You then hid/buried the wolf beneath some brush - is that correct? Prior to that, however, you cut the collar and took it about two miles - in the *opposite* direction. Is that also correct? If so, were those not significant efforts to hide the crime and evade capture? Were those items discussed at sentencing? Did you testify at all yourself, or was everything handled through your lawyer?
Are there any items about the case that you feel were handled unfairly or improperly? Were you at a disadvantage in any way through the entire event, or did you simply, at some point, realize - oh, oh - I screwed up, and now I'm going to have to pay the price?
Although I'm certain the $15,000.00 fine/restitution will dent your pocketbook somewhat, in retrospect, do you feel you were "leaned on" by the judge, or do you accept that the sentence may have been proper, given the crime? Now that a somewhat hefty fine has been levied, do you feel that will act as a deterrent to future wolf-killings, or will hard-time (prison) be required to get folks' attention?
As always, I'm interested in your perspectives.
Tom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
Hi Tom,
This has been an amazing experience I must say. I certainly have more respect for our federal law enforcement than my ignorance allowed in the past. They are truly professional and respectful. I expect they can be really 'efficient' with bad apples too.
I have inserted as in the past. Sorry if I upset you with what I have to say, but you ask for what I see and believe. I am truly a 'middle of the road' person. My view is that anything in excess(either way) is probably not reality.
Thanks
---------------------------
(TB): Given the same set of circumstances, knowing what you know now, would you have done things differently?
==========================
The outfitter abandoned the area due to continued harassment by wolves. They spent multiple boxes of ammunition warding them off. They did not have further daytime visits as we did.
----------------------------
(TB): .what recommendations would you make that could prevent a similar situation (shooting) from happening again?
=========================
(DK): Tom, I have no answers. I was told of a man in Montana who shot a grizzly that entered his tent. He was not physically injured before he shot and was fined $30,000. I wonder if that act will ver be repeated. He was told he could try using pepper spray but there were no guarantees it would work, just a suggestion. He was also told he could have struck the bear on the nose with a stick because that sometimes would drive them off. $30,000 is a small price to pay for your life or the injuries he might have suffered.
---------------------------
(TB): Per your previous message and my discussions with USFWS Law Enforcement, I believe you hauled the wolf carcass downwind approximately a mile-and-a-half (you mentioned concern about the stock being further agitated if the wind were to shift). You then hid/buried the wolf beneath some brush - is that correct?
=========================
(DK): yes
---------------------------
(TB): Prior to that, however, you cut the collar and took it about two miles - in the *opposite* direction. Is that also correct?
==========================
(DK): yes
--------------------------
(TB): If so, were those not significant efforts to hide the crime and evade capture?
==========================
(DK): no
If I wanted to hide the crime I would have destroyed the collar instead of allowing it to go beacon. If I wanted to evade capture I would not have called the authorities. That was also questioned at the sentencing. The prosecutor made the point that I was directed to call the authorities. I was in the sense that I ask for direction because I didn't know who to call.
---------------------------
(TB): Were those items discussed at sentencing?
==========================
(DK): yes, they were considered irrelevant.
---------------------------
(TB): Did you testify at all yourself, or was everything handled through your lawyer?
==========================
(DK): I am not allowed to testify, but I was given the opportunity to make a statement, which I did.
---------------------------
(TB): Are there any items about the case that you feel were handled unfairly or improperly?
=========================
(DK): no
---------------------------
(TB): Were you at a disadvantage in any way through the entire event, or did you simply, at some point, realize - oh, oh - I screwed up, and now I'm going to have to pay the price?
=========================
(DK): How many times and how many ways do I have to answer this question? I turned myself in because my value system said it was the proper thing to do. The decision was made at the time the incident occurred. I knew what I did was serious and I treated it as such.
---------------------------
(TB): .do you accept that the sentence may have been proper, given the crime?
========================
(DK): You would have to ask the Judge that question, it was his decision.
--------------------------
(TB): Now that a somewhat hefty fine has been levied, do you feel that will act as a deterrent to future wolf-killings, or will hard-time (prison) be required to get folks' attention?
=========================
(DK): I believe what happened to me will happen again, and I don't believe any amount of threat will make people choose to suffer. I doubt that many would be as honest as I have been if they knew the outcome. That seems to be the lesson everyone expects me to learn from this. The likelihood that this would ever happen to me again is slim to none, but I would be the same person I have been.
I did not go to Idaho to shoot a wolf. I didn't do it because I was a frustrated hunter. I didn't do it for the thrill. I didn't do it on a lark.
I didn't do it because I hate wolves. I didn't do it because I am a cold blooded murderer. I didn't do it because of game predation. I didn't do it because of some blood lust. I didn't do it because I hear voices. I didn't do it because I have some homicidal character flaw. I didn't 'savagely hunt it down and kill it'. I am not likely to strangle kittens in a sanctuary, or get a gun and shoot my wife and kids for the thrill, or any of the other perversions I have been accused of or am expected to perform.
I find it interesting that you should estimate the trip at $8,000, as I have said before this was not a guided hunt. We were in a drop camp. We provided our own food and other supplies. The outfitter provided the livestock and camp equipment.
I've been told I was a trespasser in the wolf's territory. I believe the wilderness areas were set aside for 'we the people and our ancestry' to enjoy. I don't think that excludes enjoying all the animals that live there.
I feel really sorry for the people who are such strong advocates and will likely never experience the wonder and the grandeur.
I met people in the court room who changed my vision of some things. I was in absolute awe of the Nez Perce representative. I almost forgot where I was as I listened to the man. I had the fear that he would hate me as your constituents do. To the contrary he took the time to speak to me of his empathy for the pain and the experience. He invited me to visit if I ever go back to Idaho. I assured him I would return and that I planned to bring my family to experience the awesome beauty of the land.
My suggestion to you would be to take up a cause against perp's who commit crimes against us our youth and elderly. I do believe in the ESA for the California Condor and animals that are truly in danger of extinction. I do not believe you need the ESA to re-introduce animals that are not in danger. Nature has done a really good job of selection without our tampering.
You create the conflict and are upset when people object. Make an honest attempt to put yourself in the shoes of a struggling farmer or a family with a pet that is as much a member of the family as any human member. I must have more faith in human nature than you because I do not believe that people involved in surviving are evil because they want to protect themselves. I don't believe that farmers or western ranchers would go on a mission to eradicate wolves.
You obviously don't agree on population numbers, but you are not suffering their losses. I think they are willing to accept loss, they just don't want to be sole or primary supporters by their livelihood. You are vocal and passionate, but I believe you represent a small percentage of the people. I think that may be born out if what I read in our local papers can be believed. The 'silent majority' may soon be driven to be heard.
One of the facts brought out in the Idaho court room was that there was one incident for every three introduced wolves in 1998. If we had that sort of conflict in Minnesota with 2500 wolves, people would not put up with it for very long. There are other animals and birds in trouble that may suffer even more from protection of predators(in general). What happens if predator control including wolves is required to protect them? I think I am beginning to babble and speculate and I do not consider this a soap box. From: Dan Kloskowski To: Tom Beno Hi Tom,
Sorry if I upset you with what I have to say, but you ask for what I see and believe.
---------------------------------
(TB): No problem, Dan, I'm not upset - still concerned, still learning. I'm asking questions and you're answering, but no one said any of this was going to be easy. People are interested, so there are still reasons for us to continue, if you're willing.
=========================
(DK): I did learn in the court room that these wolves were native, not re-introduced wolves. The pups were collared but the female was not and therefore not an introduced wolf.
---------------------------------
(TB): Who provided you with that information? Collaring does not determine whether a wolf is a natural disperser or reintroduced. In fact, the majority of wolves in both Yellowstone and Idaho - reintroduced wolves - are NOT collared.
The wolf you killed was #B60M of the Chamberlain Basin Pack. He was sired by the alpha pair B9M and B16F, probably in their 1997 litter. Both parents are reintroduced wolves, they've been together and mating since 1996, and I can backtrack B9 with high degree of certainty from Hinton, Alberta, Canada. If you have information to the contrary, please advise.
========================
(DK): I now believe they were starving and therefore aggressive.
----------------------------------
(TB): That's another interesting comment that I believe is inaccurate. Why would you now believe they were starving, but you made no mention of skinny, starving wolves as you carried one off in the boondocks? Wouldn't you be more able to make a better judgement call on that while the corpse was in your arms, rather than as you sat at a table in a courtroom six months later?
========================
(DK): I was told of a man in Montana who shot a grizzly that entered his tent. He was not physically injured before he shot and was fined $30,000.
------------------------------
(TB): Your sources of information seem questionable, Dan. If you have more information on this grizzly/$30,000 case, please advise. Meanwhile, I'm already doing some digging on it. We'll revisit it in another message.
========================
(DK): I find it interesting that you should estimate the trip at $8,000...
-----------------------------
(TB): The figure (average) for an out-of-state hunter was about $8,400.00, gotten from another Idaho outfitter as I was researching your case. If you didn't have one-on-one (guide/hunter) service (I didn't realize that until your last message), it's logical that you would have spent less.
========================
(DK): I met people in the court room who changed my vision of some things. I was in absolute awe of the Nez Perce representative. I almost forgot where I was as I listened to the man.
-----------------------------
(TB): The man was Levi Holt (Black Beaver), Nez Perce Tribal StoryTeller and Spiritualist who currently works for both the Tribe and the Wolf Education and Research Center in Winchester, Idaho. I agree with your assessment of his reasonableness and willingness to forgive and learn.
========================
(DK): You are vocal and passionate, but I believe you represent a small percentage of the people...The 'silent majority' may soon be driven to be heard.
----------------------------
(TB): That's another issue, Dan - we can develop it later, if you'd like. My short initial response is that the majority has already spoken, and they (we) established the law we're discussing.
An item I forgot to bring up...I believe another part of your sentence is that you're to write some type of essay or report to be submitted to Judge Lodge by early May. What's that about and what kind of research will be required on your part?
In closing this message, a colleague asked that I send the following to you. The author is Dr. Gerry Ring Erickson, Washington State Representative for Defenders of Wildlife.
=======================
From: Gerry Ring Erickson Tom,
Please convey my personal appreciation to Dan Kloskowski for his willingness to share his personal thoughts on this unfortunate situation and his stamina in continuing throughout your perseverance. The depth of discussion that you have covered through your questions and probing will help those of us who will be involved with USFWS, NPS and state agencies in developing a wolf management program for the Olympics if wolves are ever reintroduced there.
Dan's painful experience will be a consideration. On one hand, folks will need to know that WJL will push authorities to insure full legal investigation and prosecution of wolf deaths. It may help wolves if folks realize that killing a wolf will result in legal exposure nearly equivalent to a human homicide. On the other hand, this system will need to have some degree of human compassion for those areas where wolf management and control guidelines will be too fuzzy to clearly define (a priori and ex poste) what is right and what is wrong.
Is drawing boundaries too simplistic? Within this area (the Park and Nat. Forests) wolves are completely protected, outside the area they are fair game? That is almost the prescription that Dave Mech is suggesting for Minnesota.
Do we just allow harassment outside the area and removal only by state/federal authorities? What about wolves that are in the act of killing livestock or pets? What about self defense and defense of family or friends?
Hard questions, no easy answers, yet. Your and Dan's discussion helps. Thank you both for sharing it. And thanks for cc'ng my DC colleagues.
--- Gerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Beno People are interested, so there are still reasons for us to continue, if you're willing.
=========================
(DK): OK!
---------------------------
(TB): I can backtrack B9 with high degree of certainty from Hinton, Alberta, Canada. If you have information to the contrary, please advise.
=========================
(DK): One of the witnesses the prosecution brought forward was a man who worked for the Nez Perce tribe as a telemetry tracker. He was the person sent in to retrieve the beaconing collar. He reported that 'all' of the re-introduced wolves were collared. He also reported that this alpha female was not collared and therefore was a native wolf. He implied the den was located and the pups were collared.
---------------------------
(TB): Why would you now believe they were starving.
=========================
(DK): I have never before handled a wolf. Like a lot of dogs with heavy long haired coats visible size and physical size are significantly different. This animal appeared to be larger than my seventy pound short haired dog, but seemed a lot lighter.
I only went by what I was told. That was, that the female was a problem wolf from Canada who was not disposed of because she had pups. That they had been pen raised for a year and were released in the area two weeks before the incident. Obviously none of which was true. That information came from someone in Red Lake Ontario. I did not keep the letter but remember the post mark.
As with many of the letters I received the names were most likely fictitious and the addresses were of kind. Most were simply signed 'anonymous', 'enraged sportsman', 'defender' or some such. Some had very creative names and addresses. For example one came from Eden Prairie with a pretty sick message to my wife, a perverted name, and the return address was non existent.
--------------------------
(TB): If you have more information on this grizzly/$30,000 case, please advise.
=========================
(DK): It was an article in a magazine. I do not remember the name but I think its primary topic was Large Bears and the associated problems. It was something I picked off a chair at the Boise Airport. I wish I had taken it, but I left it where I found it in case the owner returned. It might possibly have had Alaska or Outfitter in the title.
---------------------------
(TB): .Levi Holt (Black Beaver), .works for both the Tribe and the Wolf Education and Research Center in Winchester, Idaho.
=========================
(DK): He deeply impressed me with his demeanor, image and the messages he had. Unfortunately for me, I have never had the opportunity to meet a man like him. I certainly have gained a new respect. I am 'eager' to return to Idaho with my family to show them the grandeur that exists there and to take the time to meet this man who so graciously invited me in. I find it truly sad, that it takes this sort of incident to have the opportunity to encounter each other.
--------------------------
(TB): .the majority has already spoken, and they (we) established the law we're discussing.
=========================
(DK): I am not particularly referring to law. I am expressing the belief that more people in number than those who have actually participated in the past will be getting involved. Sort of the quote of the Japanese admiral who said 'We have roused a sleeping Giant'.
-------------------------
(TB): .you're to write some type of essay or report to be submitted to Judge Lodge by early May..
=========================
(DK): I am not sure it is an essay. I believe I am to report what it is that I have learned about the ESA and re-introduction. Roy Heberger has provided a lot of reference material and I plan to contact Levi for more. I am certainly glad to have 60 days, because it looks like there is a lot of information.
The very top item in the pile of items I received from Roy would have gone a long way in helping me know who to contact and what to do if I had it before the hunt. I don't understand why the Feds can't get the state to send this kind of information with licenses that every hunter receives. The title is 'Wolves in Idaho'.
The problem that remains is the fear of the government. The reason I did not want to report what happened while I was in camp truly was in the interest of the other people there. My fear for them was that they would be hauled away in cuffs along with me as accessories to my actions. Big brother has a fearful image to people who have never had contact.
I have to say my experience with the Special Agents both in Minnesota and Idaho were cordial and respectful. They both tried to set me at ease about the process and the outcome, which I really appreciated. I do feel the same about the prosecutor even though we were at odds. They all had there jobs to do and reminded me on several occasions that even though they are enforcement they are public servants, a view I never had. My mother immigrated from Finland and my Father's grandparents came from Poland. They were all extremely intimidated by government and authorities of any kind, for obvious reasons. Those unhealthy fears are passed on subtly but deeply.
---------------------------
From: Gerry Ring Erickson Hard questions, no easy answers, yet. Your and Dan's discussion helps. Thank you both for sharing it.
=========================
(DK): Having had this experience, one I would never have expected given the wariness of the wolves I have been in contact with, I understand your concerns. Most of my relatives live in the Ely Minnesota area. Most of them are very resentful of the presence of the wolves and are particularly bitter about the Wolf Center's presence in Ely. There have been incidents that breed these feelings.
A family who used to live there in a rural setting lost several animals, the most unfortunate was the family dog. The three children were playing in the yard when a wolf appeared. The kids ran for the house while their lifelong companion was killed and eaten as they watched from the front window. Those kids and their mother fear and hate wolves. It was a long time (late teens) before they felt safe anywhere outside.
My personal experiences involve being circled to a down wind position and disappearance. Confirmation took finding tracks since the most I ever saw was shadows. These encounters are not infrequent in the area where I have hunted deer for many years. One encounter I had was while resting as I was dragging a deer out of the woods. I stopped for a rest and to have a sandwich and something to drink. I was fumbling with a thermos when I looked up and saw a wolf in plain view trying to figure out what was going on. I got the coffee open and in an instant the wolf got its scent and tried to locate me. When it did, it disappeared.
The other plain view I got was while ice fishing. A pair of wolves came out on the lake looking for discarded fish to scavenge. We watched from outside our fish house as they covered the area managing to steal a fresh fish from a house about a hundred yards from us. My sons and I have lain in tents in the BWCA and listened to wolves running prey and howling through the night, I don't believe there was fear, but there was considerable excitement for them to chatter about.
There are some issues that can only be determined in the heart and moral values of the people involved. I think that it is incredulous that our government would try to legislate a moral issue like abortion. I understand the human rights issue involved, but these decisions belong in the churches and doctors offices, not on the streets and in the government houses. I believe we have a responsibility to protect the endangered species.
Without knowing more than I do, never having read the legislation I believe it is intended to do thing like recovery of the California Condor and other species in that position. I believe we need something short of absolute protection in the case of predatory animals not in that dire need. I feel that the protection of predators would be in the spirit of the ESA if man were deterred from the commercial exploitation and non hunting of the species to protect them. The people most stringent of their protection will probably never visit a place where the animals are surviving and the only sight they will have is in cages. From that safe position of admiration it is easy to climb onto a bandwagon with little consideration of the people who suffer the consequences of those actions. I think it is this view point that causes me to be apathetic to the plight or recovery of the wolf.
I feel that I have a sense of understanding on both sides of the issue and don't believe I can resolve the conflict for myself. I simply do not have the energy or desire to convince either side that there are possible concessions for both that will accomplish something acceptable for society.
Our new Governor has made some observations that people with political bent need to begin considering. His observations of votes and population showed him that about 15% of the population 7.5% left and 7.5% right have made the decisions for the state and country in recent history. He did not attempt to appeal to that group in his election in Minnesota. He went after the 85% who are disenchanted with politics as usual and do not feel represented by the two party 'good ol boy' system offering the lesser of evils as candidates.
He refuses lobbyists and activist groups as anomalies and non-representative of the general public. He is offering middle of the road, good for the state and its population as his position. If this catches on across the country the majority rather than the vocal will begin to effect decisions. This was the largest vote cast in Minnesota, the 'ol boy' considered to be a 'shoo-in' came in last and the 'lesser of evils' was second, and it still represented only a small percentage of the available voters. Neither party believes they lost votes to 'the Wrestler' and really don't acknowledge his party affiliation. So, who is paying attention?
That is the most I have been involved in a political discussion in 25 years.
Thank you both.
Sincerely,
Dan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
(DK): A man who worked for the Nez Perce tribe as a telemetry tracker reported that 'all' of the re-introduced wolves were collared. He also reported that this alpha female was not collared and therefore was a native wolf.
(TB): I believe all reintroduced wolves into Idaho perhaps *were* collared, Dan, at the time of release (15 in 1995 and 20 in '96), and possibly still are. There have also been several recollarings, but given the remoteness of terrain - not to mention costs - it would be impossible keep all of them - plus their offspring - collared now.
And you may have understood that any wolf born in Idaho to reintroduced parents could now be considered a "native," but that's not the case. There is only one native wolf known to be in Idaho at this time (migrated down from Canada), and it's a male - #9013M, the alpha male of the Kelly Creek Pack up near Lolo Pass, several hundred miles north of where your campsite was in the Frank Church Wilderness.
==========================
(DK): (re: grizzly/$30,000 case.) It was an article in a magazine. I do not remember the name but I think its primary topic was Large Bears and the associated problems. It was something I picked off a chair at the Boise Airport.
-------------------------
(TB): I'm still checking, Dan, but it appears that it might be an over-sensationalized article of half-truths of the National Enquirer type. I'll still revisit this with you when I have the rest of my input on it.
Note that some hunting magazines (Field & Stream, Outdoor Life and Outdoor News, for examples) have printed notoriously inflammatory and inaccurate articles about wolves. Sensationalism sells, and if game harvest numbers are down (for whatever reason), wolves turn into scapegoats and great excuses. I'm sure you heard something along those lines while in Idaho.
Likewise, previously respected organizations have also been caught chasing dollars instead of truth. Here are two examples:
National Geographic televised a poorly-researched and deliberately misleading story last October about wolves in the DuNoir Valley in Wyoming and a one-sided interview with Richard Humphrey down in Arizona. Activists raised a stink, but since they don't have big dollars behind them like Farm Bureau and big cattle ranching, National Geo thought it fine to re-televise that piece of trash again last month - so they did. I cancelled my membership with them after 22 years. A thoroughly researched review of that program is on the WJL Outpost.
Jim Dutcher - of the emmy-award winning "Wolves at our Door" - feels that gray photographs better than black, and that wild wolves shouldn't be wild when he's filming, so he had Aipuyi - a black wolf - killed in 1993 and covered it up for 5 years. That event shouldn't disrupt the flow of dollars into anyone's pocket, however, so he's back in negotiation with The Discovery Channel for another film. When dollars are the topic, ethics and morality are excluded from the conversation. The details behind this travesty are also on WJL Outpost.
==========================
(DK): I find it truly sad, that it takes this sort of incident to have the opportunity to encounter each other.
-------------------------
(TB): The worst is behind us (except for your present limitations and lighter wallet). But the plus side is that many folks are getting an education as a result. There's a distinct possibility that lessons learned from this experience and our discussions about it could actually provide some insight toward prevention in the future. That is, prevention of both the crime AND the circumstances that led up to it.
==========================
(DK): I believe I am to report what it is that I have learned about the ESA and re-introduction.
-------------------------
(TB): Do you know if it'll be made part of the public record? By the time you do whatever research is required for the report, I'm sure there will be things in it that I can learn from.
==========================
(DK): Roy Heberger has provided a lot of reference material.
-------------------------
(TB): I know Roy. He thinks I chase demons (that I see illegal wolf killings at every turn and conspiracy under every rock). I'm hoping to change his mind a little bit about that.
==========================
(DK): I don't understand why the Feds can't get the state to send this kind of information with licenses that every hunter receives. The title is 'Wolves in Idaho'.
-------------------------
(TB): Part of the problem is that the State of Idaho refused to let their Fish & Game department be involved in wolf recovery. That same Idaho Fish & Game is currently in a state of disarray and uncertainty.
Fortunately, the Nez Perce stepped forward and are still the wolf coordinators for the state. Under their tutelage, it's also one of the smoothest running areas re: wolves in the country. In fact (as you well know), yours was the first illegal (or at least prosecutable) wolf killing there.
==========================
(DK): The problem that remains is the fear of the government..Big brother has a fearful image to people who have never had contact.
-------------------------
(TB): Granted. In all fairness, however, USFWS gets severe pressure from both sides. They can't even sneeze without one side or the other taking exception. Law enforcement, in particular, is ridiculously understaffed and underfunded. Our friendly politicians - in the West, primarily - are heavily influenced (read - financed) by private interests like big ranching and the extraction industries. They've been able to redirect funding away from law enforcement and wildlife for years, yet find $40 million annually to fund ADC/Wildlife Services, again in direct support of the ranching industry. Something's wrong with this picture.
==========================
(DK): I have to say my experience with the Special Agents both in Minnesota and Idaho were cordial and respectful.
-------------------------
(TB): That's been my experience in the northern Rockies, also. However, I've found their counterparts in the Southwest and Federal Prosecutor Reese Bolstwick's office in Tucson to be cordial, but less responsive and barely accommodating. The difference in professional mannerisms between the two areas is surprising.
==========================
(DK): .I understand your concerns. Most of my relatives.are particularly bitter about the Wolf Center's presence in Ely. There have been incidents that breed these feelings.
------------------------
(TB): Please elaborate on that. Dave Mech and IWC in Ely have much respect in biological circles (though Mech has been under recent attack). The recent disregard for the Roundtable Agreements (or rather, as they're being tromped on and circumvented by ag interests) - has the area inflamed and heading for more litigation. I just got an email from Mech today (Thursday) acknowledging the difficulty, but he'll be unavailable for maybe the next 10 days, and the uncertainty up there will likely continue.
I understand the family dog incident you spoke of - but what divisive incidents are attributable to IWC?
==========================
(DK): I believe we need something short of absolute protection in the case of predatory animals not in that dire need.
--------------------------
(TB): We, as a species, have repeatedly demonstrated that if we don't protect our wildlife, there will almost literally be none left. We've proven - certainly to my satisfaction - that when we leave wildlife issues to the whims of entities like our government of the 1800's and the Farm Bureau of today, wolves would (again) be annihilated. I believe absolute protection against that (repeated) atrocity is a proven necessity.
==========================
(DK): The people most stringent of their protection will probably never visit a place where the animals are surviving . it is easy to climb onto a bandwagon with little consideration of the people who suffer the consequences of those actions.
-------------------------
Where people come from is immaterial in our society. I have no great need or desire to have my federal tax money go for road repairs on Interstate 94 in Minneapolis, or for a new runway at an airport in Texas, or for rocket science to the furthest reaches of our solar system. It's the democratic system we live under, and that includes the protection of endangered species that may wander into private areas. Of course there will be problems - solutions (or lessenings) for which should be decided by reasonable people.
However, as your (Minnesota) ag community is showing the world, reason and practicality don't count unless they say it counts.
==========================
(DK): Our new Governor . refuses lobbyists and activist groups as anomalies and non-representative of the general public.
-------------------------
(TB): Right. Until he needs campaign money (or another issue), and he gets squeezed by those powerful lobbyists. The jury is still out on Jesse Ventura. How many times have we seen high-fallutin' early-term puffery crumble in the face of today's political reality? We'll see how strong Jesse the Mind is when Jesse the Wallet says, "Feed me."
I wish the man well, and though he stomped on Native Americans (of which I am not one) in the press and made a few other clumsy and dumb rookie moves, he still has plenty of time to make a positive impact for your state.
==========================
(DK): That is the most I have been involved in a political discussion in 25 years.
-------------------------
(TB): Right again. We may have deviated from the main topic a bit. Please get back to me when you can, and I'll try to tie together more of that grizzly story.
Tom Final Messages and Kloskowski Paper
From: Dan Kloskowski To: Tom Beno
Tom,
I guess this is my paper so it is sharable. I hope you enjoy it as much as the judge has.
Dan
------------------------------------
April 16, 1999
Honorable Judge Edward J. Lodge
Dear Honorable Judge Lodge:
I have learned a lot through this experience. I must say the part most familiar to me has been the gray wolf. My older brother is a retired biology and natural history teacher of thirty-eight years. I have spent most of my free time since the middle fifties in the Ely, Minnesota area where my two older sisters lived with their families until they passed away. My brother and my sons have spent most of the fishing openers together in the BWCA wilderness. It has always been an educational experience for all of us. It seems we have some sort of encounter with the wildlife there every year. This event began with my dad and brothers in law when I was about eight years old. There are always camp stories about the one somebody caught or the incident that made for a lasting memory. My sons have heard some of the stories so many times they believe they were there.
This trip to Idaho was a lifelong dream to experience the mountains. I can honestly say it did not have the expected outcome, but the overall experience is not diminished. I have seldom realized how insignificant man is in comparison with the rest of nature. It has been a long time since I have had the opportunity to spend significant time with livestock. I lost all sense of time while I was there. No presidential scandals, no MTV, no clock schedules, none of those daily annoyances and distractions. I simply enjoyed being there. I really did not spend much time hunting. The rest of the experience was enjoyment enough. Having the time to visit with simple folk who are close to the realities of life took me back to the memories of my immigrant grandparents' farm, where I grew up. Most of the people I know require room service and a pool as a minimum. I cannot imagine what they would do or think if they had to shoe a horse or mule before they could leave.
I hope the attachment is what you were looking for from me.
Sincerely,
Daniel T. Kloskowski
----------------------------------------
"What is it about the Wolf?"
MY VIEW
It appears to me that the wolf has many personalities attributed to it by we humans. The biggest problem with the wolf is humanity, not in the sense that we have done terrible harm to the wolf, but because we are trying to make something of the wolf that it is not. We are more concerned with our personal gratification and ideals than we are in the welfare of the wolf. We are attaching our values and structures to an animal with its own very select set of rules of survival. My confrontation with the wolves in our campsite was not a conflict with an ideal, myth or law, it was with gray wolves in their environment organizing to do what gray wolves do in the presence of prey.
WHERE DOES THE IMAGE COME FROM?
From early Christianity the wolf was used in parables representing deceitful cunning and trickery. Based upon what I understand, I would say that those references make more sense attributed to the coyote than the gray wolf. Unfortunately they are not differentiated but associated; all wolves are treated as a generic entity. There are stories of wolves in sheep's clothing referring to the friendly looking harmless approach of someone with treachery on his mind or a false profit. In France there came a story about Red Riding Hood. There the wolf represents a lecher who would stop at nothing to compromise young women. Americanized, it lost its message and became Little Red Riding Hood a story about wolves eating people rather than the metaphor fear of getting into bed with a 'Wolf' who represented himself as a trusted person in a familiar place. From central Europe came the fears of werewolves and all the horrible tales associated with them. Wholesale slaughter of animals and people occurred to eradicate the cause of the fear instilled by the metaphysical image.
In the Americas the native cultures of the Northwest had two sacred images. One was the gray wolf, the other the crow. These cultures worked together to maintain their spiritual connections with these symbols. The wolf-honoring group had rituals for the purification of weapons used in the killing of wolves, implying that they had reason to control the wolf. This wolf-honoring group would ask the crow-honoring faction to kill wolves for ceremonies requiring hides or carcasses, so it was not a trivial act. I can only find implications of some special meaning attached to gray wolves in the north central part of the country. These cultures were likely southern Canadian more so than northern United States.
There were many native cultural groups across the country that had high admiration for the coyote's cunning and trickery in its solitary habits.
The Europeans brought their fears and taboos to the Americas with them. The fears were passed from generation to generation here as they were in Europe. When the Europeans brought their domesticated livestock here, they had problems with predators not in any particular part of the country but everywhere. People did not differentiate the many types of wolves in their condemnation. All wolves were a problem because they were competitors for a livelihood in the food chain. Hides were traded by Indian cultures for desirable European goods, so the native cultures took advantage of the wolf for their personal well being as well. Eventually the United States Government (European Protestant value based people) took charge of the problem and methodically removed the threat by every means available. Such notable people as Theodore Roosevelt were at the forefront of the attack. The 'pack/gray' wolves, because of their life style and cultural grouping, were considered the easier of the wolf targets, but the devastation new no bounds and made no effort to differentiate species; they were all wolves and deemed necessarily evil. The coyote has met more methods and attempts at control by humans than any other animal on the continent, being baited, poisoned, trapped, snared, driven, shot from vehicles and planes and it is still strong and building in population as the rural community becomes more corporate and less individual.
HOW HAVE THINGS PROGRESSED?
Our culture changed from entrepreneurial, agricultural, and rurally based to a highly regulated, corporate and urban basis. People lost their attachment to the land and rural values. Independence, loyalty and cooperation required rurally were replaced by competitive individual socioeconomic stratagem. Everyone needed to pace the 'Jonses' economically then causatively. People wanted to begin to see the things they were missing by their abandonment of the rural environment. Their idealisms called for zoo-like participation in an open-air setting, so they chose the wilderness and park systems as their location of choice. Unfortunately, the areas were inconvenient and generally inaccessible without considerable expenditure of time and money.
Eventually as we began to look at what we had done to our environment, we suffered regret and concerns of self-preservation. It took a long time to arrive at the Endangered Species Act. I believe in its intent it is a pure and responsible piece of legislation with clear objectives, its strategies and tactics left to biologists and other field experts. There are few emotions other than passion for the outcomes. There are examples of its success in recovering depleted species, including the red wolf of the southeastern part of the country.
People now detached from the land and the entrepreneurial rural areas of the country brought personal agendas for re-introduction to the government. I believe it was well intended but has more to do with personal goals and views than it does with the wolf. It is an easy step onto a bandwagon when your appreciation is a magnificent animal in a caged artificial environment instead of roaming through your livelihood. As with the people bringing the demands I have not yet discussed the element at issue, the very real, gray wolf. The collision of a good, clear, and fundamentally based piece of legislation with a new idealism occurred. Neither issue is negative in nature or intent, but creates a political pawn at every level of government, from the individual who hates, to the activist, to the legislators (state and federal), to the past presidents and our current president who have an appeal agenda associated with the environment and the ESA.
SECTION SEVEN OF ESA
Instead of creating this highly complex and difficult piece of legislation regulating the rebuilding of a residence as a stand-alone law, it was folded into the ESA as section seven, making ESA the target of conflict because of its new diluted nature. I have read and read and read information on the re-introduction section added to the ESA and the ideals and premises on which it was built. The scientific issues are clear, section seven is certainly not clear, it mixes technical, political, industrial and idealistic premises. Terms, (used throughout Federal Register volume 59 number 224 section'50 CFR Part 17' and its preceding part and subsequent parts) including 'Endangered', 'Threatened', 'Non-essential', 'experimental' , 'experimental population' and 'Non-essential experimental population' describe and define the animals synonymously at times and carry their own specific meaning it is certainly confusing. The term 'Non-essential experimental population' seems to me to be a very misleading phrase for an animal afforded so much protection under the law. I have read this Federal Register excerpt and some of its references and can only follow portions of it. I must admit my ignorance here in that the document references itself in ways that I am unable to follow. It is written with great intent in pleasing all the people all the time, sort of a business world 'CYA' report making for uncertainty and conflict by its very nature. It is rather specific to the Western United States but makes references to Minnesota and the United States. It deals with boundaries and what I read as 'Shalts' and 'Shalt Nots ' still not dealing with the real wolf, but people's ideals for and fears of the wolf. The rules for humans are not consistently black and white, either by specific statement or referential implication, they have enough CYA content to make them imprecise.
WHO CAN DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS?
PRIVATE LAND, LEASED FEDERAL LAND and FEDERAL LANDS; INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE EXPERIMENTAL AREA. BEFORE AND AFTER SIX BREEDING PAIRS ARE ESTABLISHED.
What are the possible combinations and possibilities? I have been referred to the final three pages of the rule to identify the control actions. I am sorry to report that I cannot clearly describe the possibilities. I will take a shot at private land since I am able to find clearer descriptions.
On private land all control is to be provided by Government authorities until their attempts fail to remedy the problem, then the landowner can be issued a time limited permit to kill 'the' wolf (obviously readily identifiable). This only after repeated losses and evidence of wolf specific damage, assuming there is any trace of the prey to evaluate. Are there enough people in the Federal Services to go around? That could be another bone of contention inside and outside the government. However, in other places and documents i.e. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 'Commonly asked questions about the experimental rules for wolves', sometimes in the same context, it says the landowner can kill a wolf in the act of attacking or feeding on livestock if the kill was observed so the exact wolf causing the damage is killed. Anything less than 'caught in the fact' is considered baiting. In the same documents and at times in the same context it will state that a landowner cannot frighten or hurt a wolf except to defend 'human life and safety'. It implies the wolf must be killing a human to deserve defense, but the terms 'human safety' and 'threatened by a wolf' are used without definition or guideline. Since these are human perceptions, I expect they would be difficult to define in such a document. In my specific experience I was concerned about human safety and felt threatened by the circumstance but obviously did not meet the criterion. There are references to killing a wolf attacking you or someone else. In that specific context it goes on to reference medical records of a hundred years clearly informing you that there is no history of a 'healthy wolf' attack resulting in 'serious injury' to anyone, anywhere in North America, predetermining your lie if you were to report such an attack. There are reported incidents of attack on mounted horses and horse drawn wagons. Would that constitute a 'safety/threat' circumstance to humans inside and/or outside the experimental area? How would you defend yourself under those conditions? Although those 'pleasing/appeasing' terms exist, the statement 'there is never justification' rather negates the need for definition.
SO WHAT RULES APPLY?
Unfortunately, none of this information is put forth to people who enter the area even though there is some arguable but less complicated documentation available from Fish and Wildlife in its frequently asked questions paper. Visitors come to entry points and access controls operated by the Forest Service like the lady stationed in Chamberlain basin. She meets every plane that arrives there and I expect is in contact with a lot of other visitors. Why doesn't she provide information like the 'Wolves in Idaho' brochure produced by the organizations responsible for the re-introduction? I expect there is need to be providing information relative to bears also. I do not believe the information would have stopped what I did, but it would have helped me know what the rules for dealing with the incident are. It seems more acute for visitors with livestock, a natural foodstuff for large predators, than hikers and campers. Why are the outfitters so ill informed and unequipped with available information? I would not have been particularly concerned about the wolves if I had been alone or with only human companions. I don't expect wolves would have shown the interest or persistence around us if there had been no livestock. Part of the re-introduction process was the assessment of the effect on revenue. Changing accessibility would have several negative effects on programs other than recovery. Hunting and outfitting is big business and supports a lot of state programs.
WHAT PART DOES THE STATE PLAY?
I have no idea what it is about the wolf that puts state government at odds with the federal government, but I expect the document to be near the heart of the matter. The wolf is not quite as neat and rules based as the human ideal for it. The wolf does not understand 'the political game'; it plays by the rules of survival. States have to deal with the local issues and do not carry the intimidation that the federal program does. Blaming the Federal people is an easy copout to avoid dealing with the social problems.
SO MUCH FOR STATISTICAL INPUT
I find it interesting to look at how statistics appear to be involved in making these decisions and the effect on opinion.
My beliefs when this process began.
When a survey of a small number of people from a wide area with little more that half of the people responding represent a decision of this nature, it seems less than representative. Statisticians, in my experience with big business, look at numbers in order to prove or disprove premise, not to make unbiased good sense unless they have years of historical detail on which to model. When forty percent of the people receiving the survey do not respond, it seems like a negative signal. Fifty plus percent of the respondents have a neutral to negative attitude and could answer only one third of the knowledge questions. It demonstrates something short of strong, knowledgeable or positive inference. Sixty percent of respondents were positive on the binary question to introduce. It seems less than responsible to adopt this controversial policy from such weak inference. More controversy is building and it still does not represent the real wolf, only human insistence.
A noteworthy point of perspective contrary to activist argument and my beliefs to this point, inserted by a credible, positive and helpful critic; 'Policy does not and did not come from statistical inference based on surveys. It is not a vote or even a measure of popularity that takes us to policy decisions. Recovery is our job. Using the best science we have we do what we can legally do to get to the objective. There is a very common misconception, when people comment on hearings, that their personal opinion counts. For EIS hearings, what counts is identifying new issues, concerns and opportunities. For ESA hearings, what counts is the science. If new scientific information is brought to the table it is used. Not much else is used in such rule making. The exception to this may be understanding of issues.'
It helps to understand the rules of engagement. If the Minnesota round table had operated with this understanding, the outcome may have been more productive and beneficial to the wolf than the self-serving interests of some participants. Unfortunately not all factions of the human issue deal within those rules because outside them they aid in confusion and obfuscation of the undertaking. So, the squeak goes on!
RECOVERY EXPECTATIONS
Another people problem affecting the wolf is concern over maintenance at target numbers and densities. In Minnesota we have a controversy that is arousing the general public again. This is not a new issue here, and I expect it is a significant issue in the Northwest as well. There were initial plans and targets that a lot of people disliked but grew to accept. Public 'opinion' and official 'count' has long been a point of contention.
One of the reports I have read goes into deep detail and discusses pro's and con's, evaluates alternatives and methods, then in one short paragraph summarizes the whole paper. It says good planning and methods can monitor populations and their movements, but the primary problem is the human sociological acceptance of this predator.
Minnesota is now at double the target number, and advocates want that target to triple before controls are put into place. In an attempt to placate the public, the DNR here formed a group of 'interested and informed' parties to work out a control program proposal. The public does not seem to accept the result of that forum and have gone to their representatives to defeat the proposal. The activists are looking for 'traitors in their ranks' and are lashing out at all possible venues including the most knowledgeable supportive advocates of the early plans. The public attitude is that they will accept the original proposal but do not want more dictation from non-representative squeaky wheels. These problems are still peoples' self indulgence and gratification; the science involved includes the sociological concerns and realities surrounding the animal and a viable habitat.
EXTREME HUMAN REACTIONS
Most of the people we are trying to appease will never know if there are actually any wolves anywhere in the country except for zoos because they will not leave the paved streets of their complex.
The most venomous hate mail I have received as the result of my experience has come from densely populated urban areas. It was, with the exception of a couple, from women who were incensed that anyone would travel half way across the country to hunt down and murder something few people ever get to see. They had no idea what happened or who I was, but they wanted me to suffer and in some cases die for what I did. They asked for the penalty to be the same penalty as premeditated murder of a human. Those from anonymous senders were discarded without review after the first few. From my view this is not an animal issue, it is a people problem and the wolf is the goat.
I have lost respect for activists as a positive influence on this issue, following like lemmings, unthinking, selfish, demanding, unfeeling, blindly accusing as did their forefathers regarding witches and wolves.
THE REAL WOLF
The real wolf does not recognize human boundaries and does not differentiate food sources. It takes whatever undulate population is available, because they are susceptible to the herding techniques used in hunting. It does not recognize itself as a threat of any kind. It is one thing, a socially organized and structured predator with its own set of rules of order. It does not understand that killing livestock is a bad thing. It also doesn't acknowledge its mistake when it returns to the easy food from its relocation point. It is one of the most adaptive animals in nature. It does not care if the animal it kills belongs to a 'down and out' entrepreneur or an 'affluent corporate operation' on federal land. It is hungry and opportunity presents itself. If the availability of food is scarce in the area, the wolf will attempt to move. It will also scavenge anything available; garbage, pets, carrion, camp food or anything else edible it can find.
If an individual cannot find an acceptable social group to bond with, it will travel until it finds acceptance. Encyclopedia facts include the ability to cover a hundred and twenty miles or more in a day, it is a very capable straight-line traveler. This movement on a line rather than the meandering travel of most other animals is what allows it to cover such great distances. Part of the problem is this social structure; the wolf can become its own worst enemy as it seeks out its own social connections. It breaks the rules and expectations man has set forth for it. When socialized to a pack it recognizes its own pack boundaries and honors the boundaries of other packs. As described in a TV documentary, it will suffer starvation while another pack dominates an area of abundance. If there are significant numbers of packs, a centrally surrounded pack will diminish because of this social trait. These characteristics have contributed to its downfall.
That does not diminish its physical capabilities as a hunter. Any animal that can travel at thirty-five miles an hour and move sixteen feet in a single bound, is definitely a capable adversary for its panicked victims.
The coyote is a solitary survivor dependent on its individual abilities to locate food. It eats anything that is available especially small game and works harder for its survival. The gray wolf is raucous in its hunting habits and social behavior. It draws attention to itself by its habits, which leaves it vulnerable. It will use distraction to grab the attention of its prey while other members of the pack make an organized attack from angles and ambush. The wolf is unconcerned about collateral damage because it offers additional opportunity to prey and knows the more confusion it can cause, the more likely it is to be successful. It is not a particularly neat or complete eater and manages to provide for other scavengers and meat eaters. These are the survival characteristics of the wolf and the parts of his nature that breed the fear.
Man's development of the domesticated progeny of the wolf is no real comforting image. The German shepherd no longer used to herd, but to be aggressive protectors can appear to be and are often mistaken for wolf. Alaskan crossbred wolf/dog mix working breeds with distasteful dispositions are another negative image the wolf must contend with. In Minnesota we have several organized sled dog events. Most dogs tend to meander when they travel, but the wolf likes to run in a straight line. A breeder who attends these events to sell dogs runs a hybrid wolf and husky team for that reason. He is continually reminding people that these are 'working wolves' with some dog in them and need 'a certain firmness' in their handling. They are always hungry, fighting, jumping and nipping, you should see the kids and most parents react.
There is another side. The gray wolf maintains a close family support system for its young. They literally live the quote 'It takes a village to raise a child'. There is a single breeding pair of wolves in a pack. That 'royal pair' is the dominant pair comprised of the dominant individuals, mated for life. They are so highly supportive of pups that pack females actually undergo physiological changes paralleling pregnancy that allows non-birthing females to suckle the pups. Males and females alike will return from hunts and regurgitate food for the pups. The offspring are fawned over by the entire pack, and with all that support the success rate through the first year is still only about fifty percent for pups in the wild without the benefit of inoculation and other care available to monitored litters.
MY MINNESOTA EXPERIENCES
I have lain in tents in the Boundary Waters Canoe area of Minnesota with my sons and brother on many occasions, listening to the plaintive howls of a wolf pack. There is little else in the wild that can exhilarate and create curiosity as that sound. We have spent hours speculating what it means and what is going on. Sometimes stationary, and we believe conversational, at other times moving and strained, in pursuit of nourishment we surmise.
You don't have to go far in Ely or anywhere else in Minnesota to see the beautiful art and decoration based upon the spectacular physical characteristics of the gray wolf. I have worn out many sweatshirts with wolf images on them.
I have on many occasions been paralleled in my travels and circled when stationary. On two occasions I was actually able to clearly view free and wild wolves. On one occasion I was dragging a deer out of the woods, when I stopped for a rest and some food. I had found a warm place in the sun against a tree. I had my sandwich on my knee and was fumbling with a thermos when a large wolf materialized in front of me, obviously trying to figure out what was going on. The smell of coffee wafted up and he disappeared as suddenly as he had appeared. He was a short ten yards away. There was no snow that year so I have no way of knowing how many animals were actually there, but I expect it was not a lone animal. It was exciting but not a fearful incident at the time. The other opportunity was on an ice-fishing trip into the BWCA. Two wolves came out on to the lake looking for rough fish left on the ice by fishermen. We expect this was a routine for them, one of them having a stiff hind leg or hip and a compacted path to and from the lake surface. They managed to steal a fresh fish from a fish house about a hundred yards away, we stood outside and watched them until they disappeared. I truly appreciate those two non-artificial opportunities to see wolves. I have spent a lot of time in the Ely area since the middle fifties, and recall the presence of wolves during all of those years.
IN CONCLUSION
I believe in the intent of the ESA as good and species relevant. I believe that re-introduction is an issue separate, political and people based. It is more a human idealism than an animal need. I believe that if the gray wolf were protected like any other large game animal and wanted to be in the areas where we are forcing it to reside, it would be successful. I understand that the timeframe would be protracted, but I feel the impact would be more gradual and therefore more acceptable. People and wolves would be able to acclimate as an aging and learning progress. I am not representing my beliefs as solutions to these very complex human problems.
I simply have faith that the method has worked in the case of deer, moose, elk, sheep, goats, mountain lions, grizzly bears, the greater Canada goose, the snow goose and others. Unfortunately, they may not choose to live outside the window of an advocate or in the showcases that humans have chosen for them. That fact does not invalidate the concept. Let the animal choose, be willing to control it where there are problems and proliferate where there are no problems or acceptable levels, all local issues. We have a very small herd of Elk in Minnesota that is able to survive. There is a harvest of those animals.
I do not like the image of humanity the 'wolf issue' presents. That image brings out the worst in all of us no matter which side of the issue we share. None of which really has anything to do with the living, breathing animal or the environment it requires to survive. It has more to do with human whim, passion, ego, fear, hate, control and power. Love and respect will never be able to be legislated any more than common sense or good judgement can. The more you push the more resistance you meet, consider the most perfect man to exist (Jesus) on the good side, too good to be trusted, and the worst image of the wolf on the other, too bad to be trusted, both have been persecuted by the best of us.
I have not changed my view of the gray wolf. To me it is simply a part of nature, 'NOT' law, politics, myth, hated, loved or normally feared, but simply respected for what it is. I felt threatened by a circumstance that involved wolves. I reacted defensively and decisively based on my values, experiences and intuition. The legal system has dealt with me in kind and I accept that.
So, What is it about the wolf? In a word, history. Three thousand years plus I expect. I believe that the scientists responsible for re-introduction recognize the facts of the matter. They ponder the maps of the original habitat that supported hundreds of thousands of wolves and are able to view factually what the rest of us should be able to conjure up in our minds eye. The geography is there, the map still shows it, but the picture is different in every other respect. Will it ever be what it once was? No, not as long as man continues to progress. The wilderness of today is the privacy plot of the future. Ask the long time natives of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Urban dwellers are abandoning the hectic urban pavement for privacy, scenery and serenity. The problem is they bring their paved and pampered ways with them. They want the open wild, but they want it convenient and neat. They used to go to Arizona to avoid allergies, but they miss the grass and trees of home so they plant. Does it make sense? It is understandable, knowing humans. What will it mean for the wolf? Ups and downs for the pawn, legal battles in a tug of war over the realities and the demands of the 'kinder gentler' clan.
Daniel T. Kloskowski
Created © 2000-2001 KChapman Images on this page created by the author Copyright. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work posted within this site is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research, editorial and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html ] |Email|PAWPRINTS|Home|Wildlife Backgrounds|THE PREDATOR|
|
