Jury Reviews Evidence and Determines Wolf Killed Young Ontario Man
The self professed wolf expert, Dr. Paul Paquet, that strung this court along and the Carnegie family along with is incorrect “expert”. This important public safety information has been delayed for over 2 years due to his lies in trying to rewrite what the evidence and eye witnesses clearly saw. This was not only a miscarriage of justice to the family but put public safety at risk.
I recommend that all data, science and studies reviewed or authored by Dr. Paul Paquet shall be removed from the records of the wolf program and all his information shall be researched again by an independent source. If this man cannot properly identify a bear or wolf track or even clearly review a mountain of evidence pointing to wolves, what other misinformation has he perpetuated on the current wolf science?
Jury at inquest to determine whether Ont. man killed by bear or wolf
PRINCE ALBERT, Sask. — The jury at the inquest into the death of an Ontario man killed by wildlife will start deciding Thursday whether it was a bear or wolf that killed him.
The distinction is important to biology groups, the public and the family of 22-year-old Kenton Carnegie, said his father, Kim Carnegie, of Oshawa, Ont.
“We believe we had an obligation to the public to let them know how Kenton died,” he said after the third day of the inquest wrapped up Wednesday.
“How is Saskatchewan going to develop a wolf-human conflict plan if they believe a bear killed our son?”
Kenton Carnegie’s body was found Nov. 8, 2005, about a half kilometre from Points North Landing, a remote community about 120 kilometres northeast of the Key Lake mine and more than 750 kilometres northeast of Saskatoon.
The co-op student with the University of Waterloo was working with an Ontario geophysics company in northern Saskatchewan when he was killed.
The inquest heard from two experts on the issue of whether it was a bear or wolf that killed the young man.
Dr. Paul Paquet, a self-employed researcher with affiliations to universities across Canada, said it is his opinion that it was a bear that killed Carnegie.
He reviewed evidence, including interviews, autopsy reports and photographs taken at the scene, and wrote a report on his findings.
“The ultimate conclusion was that it was an attack by a large predator. We know that for certain,” he said.
Paquet said the evidence eliminated a grizzly bear or a cougar. He wouldn’t rule out a wolf, but suggested the feeding behaviour was consistent with a black bear.
Although a necropsy performed on two wolves that were killed revealed hair that was likely human in the animals’ colons, a DNA sample could not be gathered to definitively link it to Carnegie.
Paquet cautioned the hair could have been consumed at the dump. “The probability of the attack being that of a wolf is very, very low,” he said. “Documentation in North America is poor. I’m sure wolves have killed people before, we just have no documentation on it.”
Mark McNay, recently retired as head of the research department at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, argued it was wolves that killed and partially consumed Carnegie.
He said bears most likely would have been in hibernation when Carnegie was killed (Paquet argued that male bears might have been out looking for food).
McNay said the people he interviewed had not seen a bear in the area for several weeks before Carnegie’s death and for months after.
In photographs of the site, what Paquet identified as bear tracks were actually wolf tracks, said McNay. The tracks were on the lake’s surface, which had not completely frozen over. When the wolf stepped into the ground and broke through to water, the water came up and made the track larger, leading people to believe it was bear tracks.
McNay said it was also unlikely that two wolves would have eaten the same hair from the dump on the same day Carnegie was killed.
As for the argument that wolves don’t attack humans, McNay said that is not the case anymore because wolves are becoming habitualized and losing their fear of people.
“These incidents of wolves and people, predictably, are going to increase,” he said.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:39 am
“Although a necropsy performed on two wolves that were killed revealed hair that was likely human in the animals’ colons, a DNA sample could not be gathered to definitively link it to Carnegie.”
OK why the heck not? Did Paquet not save the material? Was there not a DNA capable lab in the whole of Canada? This is suspiciously like the loss of the biological remains of the Mexican wolves that were the founders of the Aragon and Ghost Ranch lineages. That also mysteriously disappeared.
Why on earth are these so called scientists covering up evidence?