Last evening, Loki passed away. This was not a surprise by any means, as he has been on his way out for over a week now.

Early last week, Loki stopped eating and became extremely lethargic. He ceased coming to the fence for his med-ball, his interaction with Zoe became minimal, and normally a skittish animal, he showed no response to caretakers in his enclosure. As we watched him, slowly starving himself and fading away, the idea of euthanasia came up and became quickly dismissed.

While euthanasia is always a difficult idea, when dealing with captive-bred wolves, it can become increasingly difficult. A wolf in the wild generally has a life span of only 6-8 years. This can be because of the stress of hunting, roaming and living in situations that are not always perfect. Also, in the wild, if an animal begins to show weakness whether because of age, sickness or injury, they are immediately ousted from the pack.

In captivity, our animals are provided with food, deal with only one mate, and are provided with veterinary care and vitamin supplements. We have animals that have lived beyond 17 years of age, more than half the natural life-span for a wolf.

When one begins to think about how unnatural this is, questions of ethics and morality are forced. Are we doing what is best for the animal in prolonging a life that is naturally meant to be less than half of the current lifespan? Further, by prolonging life of the animal at all, is this truly the most humane when dealing with an animal that is truly supposed to be in the wild? Is this prolonging of life merely prolonging imprisonment? Would being euthanized in a regular dog pound be a better choice so that the animal could become free, at least in spirit?

But we have decided to allow these animals to live their lives out in our sanctuary. And by doing so, we have accepted certain responsibilities. We have in some ways, accepted the responsibility of the pack. As other pack members do, we provide food, companionship, and safety to our residents. When an animal reaches a point where the quality of life is beyond redeemable, should we too accept the responsibility of the pack to end the suffering? Is euthanasia the closest method to mirroring the ousting of a weak member from a pack? Or is our place meant to be to leave the animal to die of its own--no matter how lenghthy and gruesome of a process this may be? Is it more "natural" to let the animal go without assistance? Can anything be considered "natural" when a wild animal is forced to live his/her life out behind chain-link?

As Loki began to pass away before our eyes, I found myself compelled to sit in his enclosure frequently. I did not pet him or attempt to offer comfort. Loki has never been a social animal, and while as Amarock passed, I attempted to offer her with the comfort of soothing pets and silent companionship, I simply offered Loki my presence from a distance. As I sat there throughout the days, I went from feeling sheer pity at his suffering, to accepting his path, to feeling anger at his life... From one end, my relationships with domestic dogs began to take precedence. I looked at Loki as a companion animal, a member of the family, passing to another world and leaving a family behind. However, with time, I began to realize in myself that this is a totally different world... Loki did not lead a life like a domestic dog. He was not part of a human family. My anger began to rise as the moral dilemma of prolonging imprisonment surfaced in me.

Life at the Sanctuary is often culminated with death. Only in Isis's death did I feel her presence the way that those had grown with her felt. As Amarock passed, my heart ached at the loss of a social animal but rejoiced that she no longer had to drag her hips behind her and trip over her own legs. As Loki passed away, he brought more issues to the surface of my mind...

Dealing with captive wolves, even while understanding the major differences, can easily allow one to fall in the emotional mindset of domestic dogs. The differences go beyond simple precaudal glands and rounded ears verses pointed ears, and even beyond acts of ritual domination... There is an entirely different moral code. When we as rescuers take on the responsibility of their care, we must also take on the responsibility of the pack and of nature... Something that remains out of our grasp...

Voice of the Wild

Voice of the Wild

Walking into Broader Horizons

Last week, two of our animals went for their first walks in years. Since I came to the sanctuary, as with most new volunteers, I've fallen in love with Amadeus. He's a lovable guy who's especially affectionate with females. His two penmates, Shauney and Wapahnee, are very low-content, low-maitenence girls who love to go for walks. Amadeus, on the other hand, up until recently, was scared to death of collars.

This fear is two fold. In Amadeus's original home, instead of giving him a collar, they simply wrapped part of the three foot chain around his neck. As he grew larger, it became embedded in his skin and had to be surgically removed when he was rescued. Also, Amadeus has a tendency toward ear infections. In his original time at the sanctuary, the only time he went for walks was when they led to transport to the vet. These two situations have caused him to be very shy toward collars.

For weeks, I tried to get Amadeus accustomed to various collars as well as attempting a harness. Other volunteers and staffmembers also attempted this process, however, to no avail. Eventually, when it came time to move the Seal Beach pack (as the threesome has come to be known) we had to use more forceful methods.

Gary and myself, along with the assistance of our two volunteers, James and Hallie, ended up cornering Amadeus to put the collar on. As expected, Amadeus was nervous and fearful. As Gary tried to put the collar on, Amadeus snapped and growled and cowered into my arms. As eh became completely submissive, I was able to easily slip the collar around his neck. As we led Amadeus outside of the enclosure, he was at first nervous. Once outside, however, it was though he realized, "Hey, this is okay!" The rest of Amadeus's walk was an adventure for him, and since then, this wonderful guy has been on four other walks, each becoming progressively easier and more enjoyable...

Gaia, another low-content animal, had never been on a leash before. Previous attempts had been made, however, she always became too frightened. Recently, after Gary made an attempt, I was able to walk right in, and as she rolled onto her back submissively, slip the collar over her head. Once on the leash, Gaia became nervous and didn't know what to do. We took two steps out of the enclosure, and then she decided to go back in. After walking around inside some more, we tried leaving again, and this time, Gaia became braver, and we suceeded in going for a walk, followed later in the week by two more.

Leyton's response when we brought Gaia to the office was classic. "Gaia? Oh Gaia!" Followed by much love and affection.

I can't express how fulfilling it is to make these advancements in the life of an animal here. When an animal puts their trust in you, allows you to do something to them that frightens them, and they then realize that it is for their sake, you cannot help but swell with pride and more love for them. Walking Amadeus had always been a dream for me. Those first few steps out of the enclosure made me feel as though, if for no other reason, my time here and the relationships i've built with these animals have been worth it.

Five Year Review of the Mexican Gray Wolf Reintroduction Program

Death by Opinion
A Five Year Review

Angel Bennett & Gary Fuller

Recently, I had the opportunity to attend the Five Year Review of the Mexican Gray Wolf Reintroduction Program. Located in Silver City, NM, this conference brought together four distinct groups of people representing four distinct opinions of the wolf reintroduction program currently underway in Arizona and New Mexico. While the majority of attendees were pro-wolf, local ranchers also attended, expressing live-stock concerns and their discontent with the reintroduction efforts. Even those of the pro-wolf advocate group varied between professionals and common lay-men. Also, a group came simply seeking understanding of the Mexican Gray Wolf, its problems, and reintroduction. The last group, represented by the reintroduction committee, was there to explain the reintroduction process and its progress over the last five years. In many ways, this conference was a microcosm of the effects opinion will have on the fate of wolves world-wide. My objective for attending the review was not to assist in charting the future of this program, but to observe the process. My job as Assistant Director of one of the nation’s top wolf and high-content wolf-dog sanctuaries, has given me a different, yet hopefully unbiased opinion. From this prospective I listened and observed the factors and comments that will eventually save or destroy the Gray Wolf population that remains today.
Concerned ranchers, representing a minority, were generally well mannered, yet made statements at times that were beyond the realm of plausibility. A claim by one rancher that a pack containing five Mexican Grays, including two yearlings, was enlarge responsible for 1,300 deaths in his cattle herd, was unquestionably unreasonable. Another seemed to blame the drop of 20% in his calving rate solely on the Mexican Grays located in his area. One rancher claimed that his business suffered such radical losses due to the reintroduction of a wolf pack in his area that his “dude ranch” had to be shut down. While these three examples were quite extreme, others were very well founded. In an area of the United States where cattle production is an important segment of the economy those realistic concerns expressed must also be addressed if the program is to be successful.
By far the largest opinion group at the review was the Pro-Wolf group. In this group there were two distinct sub groups represented. Representatives of the national organizations, like Defenders of Wildlife, The Center for Biodiversity and other local wolf organizations, all brought their agendas to the meeting. Most of the presentations were very broad-based and illustrated their concerns for future reintroductions as well as a critique of past performance by the committee. While blatantly agreeing that the reintroduction program was accounting for the decline in the Mexican Gray Wolf population, contradictory cries of “Release them all!” were expressed by the same organizations. While again some areas of concern were quite well founded, there were misinformed and sometime contradictory extremists that offset the voices of legitimate concern.
The second sub-group was comprised of common citizens expressing their desires for successful reintroduction. These people represented about half of the total group, yet consistently spoke on platforms of misinformation. While this segment of the pro-wolfers could carry the greatest impact, their erroneous concerns and unreasonable requests no doubt greatly reduced this effect. It was not from lack of dedication, yet more from a lack of credible information and understanding of the true process required that many of the voices were muted. We must all take an active roll in formulation of a successful program, but to be a benefit to this program, we must first educate ourselves and understand the obstacles we must overcome.
Thankfully, there were those at the review that attended just for the purpose of educating themselves. Without current opinion, they attended to become informed. Coming from all walks--ranchers to shop owners--they came to understand, with the cry from the Earth each time another animal slips into extinction their only common bond. They were willing to cooperate if they only knew how. They were willing to support, just unsure who or what. Concerned citizens of all types were willing to learn. They came there thirsty, but found no fountain to drink from. With a swirling of misinformed opinions, stifling the little factual information provided by the Reintroduction Board, those who came to learn were given little opportunity.
Representing the Reintroduction Program and its convening authority, a five member panel also formed the last group in attendance. This panel had the responsibility to disseminate the information of the reintroduction process gathered over the past five years. Among the positions filled by the committee, one was obviously that of mediator for peace talks when no one wants to talk peace. Included in this agenda was an overview of the future revision of the current program, both in 2006 and long term. This was well presented and very factual. A complete copy of the five year report was made available to all in attendance and is currently available to the public upon request. A moratorium on releases was to take effect when the breeding population grew above six breeding pair. This was not accomplished last year, with only five breeding pairs counted. The current population of 35 wolves remains too distant from the total population targets of 100 wolves to allow this figure to be presently considered.
To date, branches involved in the reintroduction of the Mexican Gray Wolf have spent a total of over 14 million dollars toward this end. The results of these expenditures and combined efforts regrettably show a reduction in the wild wolf population over the Blue Range area. While opinion would point to as many causes as opinions polled, the results remain the same: We have found no profound answers to successful reintroduction and the road to extinction is being paved by good intention.
While the committee attempts to act on the basis of sound scientific analogy, their very existence was developed from overwhelming public opinion. It can be said that public opinion remains the single greatest motivating force today. Whether this force assists in the development of the program or hinders its success remains a question. With sadness, my observations have shown me that this field of opinion has been far off balanced by extreme views on both sides. The disruptions of extremists in forum not only reduce the impact legitimate input could have but also add nothing more than confusion to those people attending with a desire to learn more. With a greater number of pro-wolf supporters gathering at these meetings, shear numbers become a motivating force of their own. While the reintroduction program is not a government attempt to grease the squeaky wheel, public pressure does shape its policies.
Even with wolves out of bounds being responsible for a high percentage of illegal takes as well as considered the greatest failure of the program, the program still seeks to place pack territory as close as 3 miles of occupied dwellings and five miles from towns. This situation forces the wolves’ interaction with humans and prompts concerns from people on the boundaries of these territories. In an effort to establish areas acceptable for reintroduction, it is not the needs of the wolf but the availability of land that continues to dictate these sites. Sadly, wolves don’t read maps and out of bounders will remain a great failure. As we force these animals into confrontation with man, we continue to watch their numbers dwindle.
We seek to save a vanishing species, yet our enthusiasm to do so appears to be accelerating it to its extinction. We expect an animal such as the Mexican Gray Wolf to behave in a way dictated by public rules and laws. Even if they were to conform, would we still have the animal we sought to preserve in the beginning? The process of formulating a program of successful reintroduction cannot continue on a trial and error basis if the Gray wolf is to survive in the wild. We must consider the wolf’s terms in this process and conform to its needs or consider the possible failure of this multi-million dollar experiment in behavior modification.