Since Mr. Dimas sent the letter, the Commission has sued Finland for authorizing the killing of wolves and the ministry of agriculture and forestry has submitted a management plan for the wolf to the Commission.

LARS MAGNUS HAGELSTAM

Göksgränden 12, 02580 Sjunde�

09-2628166, 041.5453803

magnus.hagelstam@kolumbus.fi

European Commission

General Directorate/Environment

Mr. Pierre Schellekens

B-1049 Brussels

Belgium

Sjunde� 1.2.2006

Dear Mr. Schellekens,

In his letter addressed to me of 23 June, 2005, Mr. Dimas expressed his view that the protection of species must take into account the various human dimensions, including safety of citizens and that the Commission believes that a solution can be found that respects both the concern of citizens and the conservation of wolves. Unfortunately, there is no sign of this happening.

Below, I try to describe the reality on the ground, the development of the situation and the forces that steer it. Wherever possible, I cite my sources and their contact information for easy corroboration of facts and further, independent investigation.

TABLE OF CONTENT

RURAL SOCIETY IN FINLAND.. 2

THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THE SAFETY OF CITIZENS. 3

THE SITUATION IN THE FIELD.. 3

THE FEAR OF WOLVES. 3

ATTACKS ON HUMANS BY WOLVES. 5

MAN-EATING WOLVES. 6

WOLF PROTECTION IDEOLOGY.. 7

SECRECY, DOCTORED FIGURES, MISLEADING HALF-THRUTHS, PRESSURE AND LIES. 9

ECHOS FROM THE COMMISSION.. 15

PUBLIC REACTIONS. 17

RURAL SOCIETY IN FINLAND

In order for you to understand what is happening, a brief description of rural societies is necessary.

Finnish rural communities are tightly knit societies. Hunting, fishing and gathering are important both economically and socially. Many keep hunting dogs and these are regarded as family members. Hunting rights belong to the landowner and may be exercised by persons that have passed a hunter�s exam and who belongs to a one of the 1.600 Game Tending Societies (Viltv�rdsförening), each of which reports to a regional Game Tending Area (Viltv�rdskrets). Most hunting is carried out with a single dog, the main types being �ajokoira� which drives hare and fox by tracking, �harmaakoira� which tracks and stops moose and �pystykorva� which barks at black grouse and capercailzies sitting in trees. Small game is hunted free of licenses in season, alone or in groups of 2-5 hunters.

Moose licenses, about 70.000 annually, are awarded by the Game Tending Areas to properly organized Moose Hunting Groups on the basis of population counts carried out annually in late winter. Moose is hunted by big groups of men and some dogs over large tracts of land. Moose Hunting Groups have achieved military precision and almost military discipline and hunters are quickly deployed and redeployed over large areas. Quotas and rules are religiously adhered to. This is facilitated by most men having been trained in the conscript army and by the pre-war voluntary defense forces (Skyddk�rer). It is common for the Moose Hunting Groups to under apply for licenses to get a better yield next year and for forest owners to press for more moose to be felled. Moose yield an annual 1 million kilos of beef-like meat.

Each Game Tending Society appoints a Predator Contact Person (Rovdjursförbindelseman) who collects all observations of predators made in his area. Thus, practically every part of the country is under surveillance and the wolves as well as the moose are known almost down to the individual animal. The Game Tending Areas annually forward the figures reported by Predator Contact Person to the Game and Fisheries Research Institute, and it reports its finding to the Game Tending Manager (Viltv�rdschef) of each Game Tending Area, who are civil servants.

Hunting, gathering and outdoor life in general is central to the fabric of society and the meaning of life for people in rural areas. They would qualify as indigenous people were they not most of them well-to-do and highly educated, and were their ethnicity not that of the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Finland.

Seemingly endless wilderness is, in fact, well tended and well guarded forest with GSM coverage. No vehicle, man, or beast can move there without being observed by somebody. Anything out of the ordinary is reported by cell phone and becomes common knowledge in an instant. In Ruokolahti, for instance, school transport for children is arranged only when wolves are not in the area � there are always one or several persons in the forest, they keep watch and report by cell phone to the Community center, which in turn alerts the taxis.

In such communities, children and adolescents move alone for long distances in complete safety � on foot, on bicycle and on skis, on roads and through forests, in daytime and at night, in winter and in summer.

This way of live has evolved since the wolf was removed from the living environment in the late 19^th century. In 1881, the predecessor of today�s ministry of agriculture and forestry, the agriculture expedition of the Imperial Senate, decided to bankroll and to organize the removal of the wolf because of the enormous damage it caused to livestock, its recurring eating of children and its spreading of rabies. Since then, wolves have been kept at bay through constant vigilance. Finland is the only part of the territory of the former Russian empire where this has ever succeeded.

THE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THE SAFETY OF CITIZENS

According to the plan, the wolf shall be allowed to spread to the whole country, including its densely populated areas. The plan addresses the safety of citizens as follows: �The existence of wolves influences human activities in many ways, such as the keeping of dogs and other house animals, but also on how children are allowed to move outdoors. Even as the wolf has not been reported to have attacked a human in Finland in over a hundred years, people still do not trust that the wolf is not dangerous and fear the wolf (Lumiaro 1997, Bisi & Kurki 2005). The background of this is among other things fairy-tales and myths, but also real cases of children being killed during the 19^th century. Many municipalities have arranged school transport for children because of the danger of wolves, which causes additional costs to the municipalities.�

The report fails to discuss the aspect of the fundamental rights of the citizens although this was a recurring theme during the meetings of officials with the public that preceded the plan. See the report �Susipuhetta Suomessa�, Wolf Talk in Finland. Comments from the public: The city of Fredrikshamn 13.5.2004: �The wolf breaches the sanctity of the home and the protection of property, it makes the rural areas unequal and nobody intervenes. The Finnish authorities have to do something about this, it already breaches the constitution.� The village of Suomussalmi 12.5.2004: �The current legislation is terrorism�. Tohmajärvi 28.4.2004: �The fear of wolves is a reality. In the 1950�s, children were brought to school with horse (sleigh or carriage) because of the danger of wolves, and at that time hunting was free.�

THE SITUATION IN THE FIELD

Wolves multiply fast and lose their fear of man. They routinely kill dogs in peoples� front yard, such as in Ruokolahti, pop. 6.000, where they killed 20 dogs in the space of one year. One single wolf has killed 45 dogs in Wolves have also specialized on sheep, such as one that has killed about a hundred in Ostrobotnia and on fur animals, such as the one that bit the feet off a large number of blue foxes in their pens. Lately, wolves have been found sitting on the porch of family houses and the inhabitants usher them off with broomsticks. A pack of 15 wolves occasionally hangs around in and around the village of Kuhmo and when they are, children are not allowed out of doors and dogs plainly refuse to go out.

180 applications to kill fearless, threatening or livestock-eating wolves had been submitted by last fall and 155 were refused. The remaining 25 caused the Commission to sue Finland.

Recently, two big wolves settled in and around the center of the city of Kajaani, pop. 36.000. Authorization to kill them was quickly awarded and they were shot even before having killed their first family dog. The point was not missed that wolves are permitted to terrorize the population in rural areas but not that of the cities.

THE FEAR OF WOLVES

I let two ladies from Sweden express how affected people feel about having wolves in the neighborhood. Feel free to have the original Swedish texts below translated into English.

�Marie i Risa� wrote the folloing letter to the editor of Mora Tidning on January 30^th, 2006. Download from www.folkaktionen.com.

�Vem garanterar barnens säkerhet?

Jag blir s� ledsen när jag läser alla notiser i tidningarna. Jag undrar om ni som skriver har barn, hundar, eller andra djur som ni vill vistas med utomhus? Bor ni i centrum och aldrig är ute i naturen själva? Ska alla bo i centrum? Ska man inte ha valfriheten att bo i en by utanför Mora? Jag själv bor i Risa alldeles utanför Mora, p� en underbar g�rd och vi har haft vargen p� g�rden, faktiskt tre stycken, i omg�ngar. Jag känner mig väldigt olustig när jag kommer hem fr�n jobbet p� eftermiddagarna och m�ste g� in och börja med maten till mina barn, som är tv� och fem �r gamla. De vill vara ute och leka tills maten, är klar men jag vill (törs) inte lämna dem ute själva, eftersom jag vet att vi har haft varg p� g�rden i omg�ngar. Jag vill inte skrämma upp mina barn, s� jag nämner ingenting om vad som vandrat över v�r g�rd, men jag kan inte heller förklara för dem varför jag inte vill att de ska f� vara ute och leka själva tills maten är klar (det har de f�tt förr, men d� hade vi inte dessa problem med vargarna runt husknuten heller). De älskar att vara ute i snön och leka. Kan n�gon garantera för mig som orolig mamma att ingenting kommer att hända mina barn när de är ute själva och leker? Naturligtvis har jag koll p� dem genom fönstret, men de blir jättearga p� mig när de inte f�r vara ute och leka själva, medan det fortfarande är ljust ute.

Det m�ste vara n�got konstigt med vargen, att de g�r in i byarna. Ska inte de vara skygga djur? Hur kan de vara s� vana vid människan som det verkar?

Vi har ocks� tv� jämthundar som behöver motion. Numera vill vi inte ut i skogen och släppa dem. Hur ska vi motionera dem? Det är inte läge att cykla med dem nu, när det är vinter och snö. Är det inte synd om dem som inte f�r springa och h�lla konditionen uppe?

Allvarligt talat s� först�r jag inte vad som har hänt. Att det har blivit s�dan explosion av vargar nu. Det är först det g�ngna �ret som jag upplever att det har ökat med varg, dessa hundar och kreatur som blivit tagna (i fäbodarna i somras). Det har man knappt hört talas om förr, rivna och dödade hundar.

V�ra levande fäbodar är ocks� n�got som jag är stolt över här i Dalarna, men bönderna verkar ju inte vilja fortsätta med det heller nu framöver, efter det som hänt i somras runt v�ra fäbodvallar.

Vargen f�r gärna vara för mig, men inte inne p� min g�rd och den ska inte röra v�ra hundar heller. Det bästa de vet är att f� vara ute i skogen och springa. Ska v�ra hundar f� lov att g� i "pension" nu? De är fyra och sju �r gamla.

Sen undrar jag, st�r ni för det ni skriver i tidningen eftersom ni inte g�r ut med namn?

Orolig mamma och hundägare, Marie i Risa�

Ms Katarina Pettersson from Ölme in Värmland, Sweden wrote on 25^th October, 2002 about her close encounter in her front yard with what later turned out to have been a a wolf. She vividly describes how she instinctively sensed the threat of an attack by a large predator.

See http://www.jakt-fritid.nu/debatt.htm

�S� här skriver en förtvivlad mor

2002-10-25

Hej Malte! (Sandström of www.folkaktionen.com)

Jag bor i Ölme i Värmland där vi nu har den sk Väsevargen.

Den 4/8 var vi ute p� g�rden och m�lade, killen p� baksidan jag p� framsidan. barnen var med ute (2st p� 6 �r, killen är liten till växten och är som en 5 �ring)

Klockan var strax innan 17,00 och det var fullt dagsljus ute. Killen gick in i garaget och grejade sedan �kte han till stan jag var kvar p� framsidan av huset barnen lekte fortfarande p� baksidan, efter en stund gick jag bak för att kolla att allt var bra med dom.

Jag märker d� att det är ngt som smiter in i buskarna 4 meter bort fr�n barnen (som är precis vid sin egen husknut och leker). jag reagerade och tyckte att det var konstigt för att det hördes inget brak, allts� inget av r�djuren som brukar kunna vara nära.( även om det är dagsljus s� är det här en skuggig plats fr�n träden). jag st�r ca 3 meter fr�n buskaget och tar ett halvsteg fram kör in näsan för att titta vad det kunde vara för djur och f�r d� en v�g av vibrationer och hot emot mig (detta är ju en känsla som är sv�r att f� ner i ord, det m�ste upplevas för att först�s).

Jag ryggade tillbaka p� ren instinkt och kände en extremt intensiv blick som bedömde och mätte mig. Detta kom en liten bit till höger fr�n det ställe där djuret smet in. Jag svarade p� dom vibrationerna och signalerna jag fick och var beredd p� att det skulle komma ut över mig. Jag sökte inte ngn ögonkontakt vilket jag hade kunnat f�tt om jag hade vridit huvudet mera till höger men jag hade blicken fast där djuret smet in i buskaget och jag ville inte se vad det var, även det gick p� instinkt och jag uppfattar även nu att jag gjorde rätt för efter en stund drog den sig tillbaka. Allts� s� bedömde den läget att jag skulle försvara mina barn vilket jag ocks� skulle ha gjort med mina bara händer.

Detta är en upplevelse som det tar lite tid samt sv�rt att smälta. jag berättade ingenting för killen alls den kvällen utan nästa kväll berättade han för mig att en granne hade berättat för honom att dom hade sp�rat 2st vargar som dragit kött alldeles utanför oss. D� fattade jag att det var en varg som var i buskarna och berättade för honom vad som hade hänt och att barnen inte f�r vara ute själva längre.

(..) Vi som bor i dessa omr�den har ingen/ingenstans att vända oss allt tystas ner.

(..) Jag tror även att en del kan ha lite roligt �t mig och tycka att jag är nojig, men själv tycker jag att jag är skyldig mina och andras barn att försöka göra n�got men det är sv�rt som privat person. Jag tycker att det är hemskt att det ska vara s� här i dagens Sverige �r 2002. Jag röstade inte i �r - jag tyckte det var ett h�n.

Med Vänlig Hälsning

Katarina Pettersson�

ATTACKS ON HUMANS BY WOLVES

As explained below, there are different races of wolves. I here discuss the Northern/Siberian grey wolf. There is little experience of such wolves losing their fear of man in Russia where they are hunted all year and with all means except poison. In Finland, a significant and protected wolf population has only existed for a few years.

Long term experience of protected wolves is found in natural parks in Alaska and in Canada. �Nearly all the wolf attacks on record from the past 20 years have involved what rangers at Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario, Canada, have taken to calling "fearless wolves" -- those habituated to people. (..) park policy now is to kill any wolves that show signs of fearlessness.�

See http://www.natureswolves.com/human/fear.htm (site down at the time of sending this message).

Ms Raila Ahonen certainly told you personally about being surrounded and pursued by wolves while horse riding when you met on January, 13^th.

When Mr. Veikko Kokko of Tohmajärvi, +358-40-5352935, was out bird hunting last fall, a pack of eight wolves attacked his dog. When he approached to chase them away, seven approached him in a semi-circle with a friendly, doggy air. He then looked behind him and saw the eighth sneaking up behind him. He fired his shotgun and the wolves fled.

Read more about attacks and threatening behavior:

http://www.jakt-fritid.nu/rovdjursinc.htm

http://www.usa4id.com/Documents/Documented%20Human%20Wolf%20Attacks.htm

MAN-EATING WOLVES

Historically, wolves rarely resort to man-eating but it has occurred often enough to present a real danger, especially to children.

On October 19^th, 2005 the historian Dr. Antti Lappalainen (opetusneuvos.lappalainen@kolumbus.fi, +35895416946) published his research findings on lethal wolf attacks on humans in Finland under the title �Suden jäljet�, the Tracks of the Wolf, ISBN 952-5118-79-7 By going through old church records and newspapers, Dr. Lappalainen found a total of 193 lethal attacks from 1650 onwards, of which 110 children who fell victim to predatory attacks and 83 adults, all of whom probably fell victim to attacks by rabid wolves. Of the cases Mr. Lappalainen found, 139 occurred between 1802 and 1881 - 78 children and 61 adults. During the seven year period from 1844�1850 twenty five children and two adults were killed and during the four year period from 1877�1881 twenty nine children and three adults. From the beginning of the 19^th century, the tragedies were reported and described in newspapers. The church records only state the name, the age, the parents� names, the home village and the cause of death of the victims.

The population of Finland at the beginning of the 19^th century was 1 million and at its end 2 million. Roughly speaking, the victims 1802- 1881 were culled from an average population of 1,5 million. A corresponding culling from the population of the EU of 450 million would be: In the space of 80 years 23.400 children killed and eaten by healthy wolves and 18.300 adults killed, some of them eaten by healthy wolves, others killed by rabid wolves, i.e. not eaten but later dead from infection. During the worst periods, 7.500 children were killed in the space of seven years then 8.700 children were killed in the space of four years. Because of the public outcry fomented by the nascent press, the Agricultural Expedition of the Imperial Senate, the predecessor today�s Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, organized and financed the removal of the wolf from the Finnish living environment.

In parts of Finland, Dr. Lappalainen found no human victims of wolves while man-eating was a recurring phenomenon in others.

Finland is a minuscule part of the natural range of the Northern/Siberian grey wolf and only scant information is available on its human victims in Russia. Available sources indicate the obvious - the same wolves behave in a similar way on both sides of the human border. The renowned Swedish zoologist Kjell Kotlhoff, an authority in his field at the turn of the 19^th to 20^th century and the founder the Skansen museum in Stockholm, mentioned in his book V�rt Villebr�d, Our Wildlife, (1914) reports that the Russian government had doubled the premium for killing a wolf to ten rubles after 203 persons had been killed in the European part of Russia in 1889.

It is difficult to learn about human victims to wolves in Russia today as no statistics are kept and cases rarely are reported even in local newspapers. There are, however, indications that tragedies occur. In 2005, a gentleman from a town in Russian Carelia called Mr. Ismo Karppinen (+358-44-3742261, ismo.karppinen@kuhmo.fi) whom you met together with Ms Ahonen. The gentleman told him about a man recently having been killed and eaten by wolves in Russian Carelia when his tractor was bogged down on a forest road. Mr. Karppinen, having other things on his mind, did not write down the name or the phone number of the caller. Mr. Eirik Granqvist (+358-40-8466881, istid@gumbostrand.fi) was told about a nine-year old girl having been killed by wolves in the same area in 2002. He did not write down the source either.

Looking at history, the picture becomes fairly clear: Wolves may specialize on a large variety of prey but usually stick to one or a few familiar species. They try other prey when they need a new source of food � or when the see a risk-free opportunity. Man-eating often commences in late summer or in fall when the pups require a lot of food but still need care which impedes hunting over large areas. A wolf that successfully has killed a child quickly specializes on this prey and becomes extremely skilful both at killing children and at avoiding getting killed itself. This explains the series of human victims such as in the most famous cases: G�vaudan, France 1764 �1767, >100 victims, Gysingen, Sweden 1820-21, 31 victims, Turku, Finland 1880-81, 22 victims, and Kirov, Russia 1944-53, 26 victims.

Children are mostly killed in the immediate vicinity of their home by a single wolf in ambush that carries the victim away too fast for adults to intervene and then eat it, often alive and from the legs up. The average age of the 78 children killed and eaten by wolves in Finland 1802-81 was 5,9 years. Adults are sometimes killed by packs of wolves, mostly in winter. Most wolf-killed adults die from infection after being bitten by rabid wolves.

There appears to be a strong correlation between loss of fear of man and man-eating behavior. ( See Attacks on humans by wolves above), much stronger than with starvation. During the 18^th and 19^th centuries, large packs of wolves assembled in winter, desperate with hunger, but most never attacked a human (See for instance historical accounts from Sweden retold by Mr. Evert Pousette in his book �De människoätande vargarna�, 1989, ISBN 91 86742 34 5, procure from Carolina Böcker och Konst, +46-739-052370). Dr. Lappalainen found that most of the tragedies in Finland occurred in areas where wolf hunting was inefficient or lacking and Michail Pavlov reports the same in his book �Volk�, Wolf, (1990). He served in the Kirov area when wolves killed and eat 26 persons 1944�53 and made a number of unsuccessful attacks on humans. Soon after the hunters had left for the front, wolves became unafraid, killed dogs in the front yards and walked the streets as they do in Finland today and a couple of years later attacked the first child. See excerpt from the book book �Volk�, Wolf, by Michail Pavlov, excerpts in Swedish in �Vargens Näringssök och Människan� by Elis P�lsson (PB Brännhult 30 S-34390 Älmhult, +46-476-71210) download from www.locomail.com/vargen).

WOLF PROTECTION IDEOLOGY

An idea is systematically spread that only nature untouched by man is real nature and that the presence of man is destroying its precious balance. I henceforth call this idea ecotheology. Mr. Kari Heliövaara (+358-500-459617, kari.heliovaara@helsinki.fi), leader of the institution of applied biology of the university of Helsinki put it like this on the phone: �The wolf has the right to live and is part of nature, contrary to man who just multiplies and presses on�.

A similar conclusion from the US: �The deep ecology movement has decided that man's presence, participation in, and stewardship of nature is unnatural and all wild places must be off limits to human activity.� Copied from http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/wolves/yellowstone060102.htm.

The wolf is a totem animal to the rank and file of this movement, and for its leaders an efficient biological weapon to drive out man and create new areas of untouched nature. This view is rarely expressed frankly and openly but I have found the following two examples:

The environmental philosopher Leena Vilkka, member of the Finnish Academy in the magazine �Yliopisto�, University 10/2001: �The fear of wolves may, however, be well founded in areas where the ranges of wolf and man intersect. (..) Man and wolf are not intended to live together; an alternative that respects nature would be to give way to the wolf. The State could even guarantee housing in wolf-free areas to the persons who move out. In this way we could finally get human-free areas where the wolf can live in peace.�

�Mike Phillips, the movie star handsome, media savvy biologist who introduced the wolf into Yellowstone Park in 1995 spoke to a group of 600 people from 44 states and 24 countries in Duluth, MN. February 24, 2000. He said the goal of wolf introduction was to drive 30,000 ranchers from public lands. His power point presentation was video taped by the University of Minnesota and the International Wolf Center, Ely, Minnesota reported 2/25 /00 on Page A20 of the "Minnesota Star Tribune," and the May edition of "Wyoming Agricultural." Three of "Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd" paid $206 to attend. Bob Hanson a retired investment banker memorialized the remarks in affidavit form. Now, fully realizing the implication of making those remarks in a public forum Phillips vehemently denies he made them. �

Copied from http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/wolves/yellowstone060102.htm.

As I show with examples below, the Finnish environmental NGOs, the ministry of the envirornment and, to some extent, the ministry of agriculture and forestry and the Commission itself have fallen under the control of ecotheologists. In consequence, their impressive propaganda machine and other activites can be bankrolled with public funds.

In February, a large wolf happening will take place in Helsinki with a wolf opera, a nationwide wolf howling contest etc. See the web pages http://www.sudenaani.org. The announcement of a panel discussion is illustrated with the picture below, which shows that well-fed and well-cared-for wolves in captivity, especially females, can display dog-like affection to humans. Its propaganda message is obvious.

The main Finnish wolf homepage is www.tunturisusi.fi.

A French homologue is http://www.loup.org

The International Wolf Specialist group was founded in 1973 in Stockholm. Today it is a branch of the IUCN. The group is currently chaired by professor David Mech of USA. Professor Erkki Pulliainen of Finland is a founding member. Since its foundation, the group has worked for the reintroduction of wolves in the populated areas of the US and the EU. They and their followers adhere to the following postulates:

1) Wolves do not attack humans.

2) The wolf is an endangered species.

3) A wolf population must not be culled.

The following excerpt from http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/wolves/yellowstone060102.htm describes how the group works in the US.

�Aldo Leopold, conservationist and bio-ethicist was born in 1887, the dawn of Theodore Roosevelt's conservation movement. At that time game herds, predators and natural resources were decimated to the point of crisis. Leopold wrote "you cannot love the game but hate the predators. You can regulate them, but not abolish them." Wolf recovery advocates aspire to be apostles of Leopold. L. David Mech, the wolf biologist, for the past thirty years is his best-known disciple. Mech wrote in his book "The Wolf," that, "unfortunately, there still exists in certain elements of human society an attitude that any animal (except man) that kills another is a murderer ... To these people, the wolf is a most undesirable creature," fostering an attitude of us versus them, he went on to write "these people cannot be changed." If the wolf is to survive the wolf haters must be out numbered. They must be out financed, and out voted." You're either a wolf hater or you're in complete agreement with their science, values, press releases, tactics and philosophy. This leaves those of us who live in wolf country following the revolution in quite a dilemma. How do you clean up the mess made by zealots who overreached and exceeded the instructions of Congress and the parameters set by their own PH.D.s, known as the Delphi 15. What Mech forgot to mention is that since 1937, when the Pittman Robertson Act began collecting $6 billion from sportsmen, that Americas' game herds are in the best shape ever. Despite this fact, wolf advocates who want to feed our wildlife to their wolves are convinced that they and only they should have the exclusive say in Leopolds' version of regulation. When wolf advocates control the regulatory process, agendas and values that are anti-ranching, anti-property rights, and anti-hunting can be implemented.�

The parallells to the situation in Finland I describe below are obvious.

Human considerations are alien to the ecotheologist movement and it does not hesitate use lies, misleading half-truths, threats, pressure and other similar means to further its cause.

SECRECY, DOCTORED FIGURES, MISLEADING HALF-THRUTHS, PRESSURE AND LIES

With the examples below, I try to make obvious and irrefutable the unbelievable - that Finnish conservation authorities, scientists and publicly funded conservation organizations are producing slanted and outright false information to the Commission, presenting the wolf as an endangered species and one that the rural population can learn to live with.

MP, professor Erkki Pulliainen gave an interview to the newspaper Demari of the Finnish Social Democratic Party which was published on October 27^th, 2005, shortly after the suit of the Commission had hit the headlines: �Pulliainen recently attended an international wolf congress in the US, in which it turned out that no healthy, unhurt wolf has attacked a human anywhere in the world during the last century (..) Pulliainen smiles that the danger of wolves is a well tried method to get transport (paid by the municipality) for the kids from the front door, if the requirement of the law of a five kilometer way to school is not fulfilled.� (See �The management plan�� above). Mr. Ilpo Kojola, leader of predator research at The Game and Fishing Research Institute (RKTL), attended Mr. Pulliainen at the congress.

Even if the Wolf Specialist Group is ignorant or does not recognize even the documented man-eating in Russia during and after WWII, nor the non-lethal attacks documented in Canada, it cannot be ignorant of the fact that wolves killed 92 children in the Indian province of Hazaribaghissa in 1989-1995 � the president of the Wolf Specialist Group of the IUCN, professor David Mech, visited the location and reported that the tragedies had taken place.

I called attention to these facts in an article that Demari published shortly thereafter. Mr. Pulliainen maintained silence � both publicly and privately.

After Ms Raila Ahonen was surrounded and pursued by three wolves when horse riding close to her home in Jämsä in December, 2005, the leading daily newspaper Aaamulehti asked the director of The Game and Fisheries Research Institute of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Mr. Ilpo Kojola for his comments. He did not believe that the wolves would have attacked Raila if she had fallen from the horse. Ha was also reported saying that a horse is too hard a resistance for wolves. I commented on his statement in an article published in several newspapers under the headline Wolf lies of the predator researcher. I pointed out that wolves killed 2.865 horses in Finland 1858-62 and 2.563 in 1878�87. His threat to sue for public slander has not materialized so far. I also pointed out the obvious risk of attack when a human falls in front of a pack of wolves pursuing a prey.

The border guards observe and report the movements of large predators across the Russian border and some results are published on the pro-wolf site www.tunturisusi.fi . Mr. Kojola of RKTL did not have the resulting statistics but said that Mr. Pulliainen should know. After months of investigations captain Matti Shemeikka of the (+358-204103023, matti.shemeikka@raja.fi) provided the answer: The formulars are sent to the university of Helsinki, institution for applied biology. (Kari Heliövaara+358-500-459617, kari.heliovaara@helsinki.fi). - They should have the statistics.

A call to the institution revealed that they forward the envelopes unopened to MP Pulliainen personally to his address at Parliament. Nobody knew on whose instructions this was done. When asked about the reasons for this secrecy by the leading daily Aamulehti, professor Pulliainen replied: �Lest the information gets into the wrong hands�.

When captain Shemeikka received the formulas for 2005, he received the results for 2004. A total of 148 wolves had crossed the border a total of 1.951 times. The net immigration was 113 individuals.

There is some logic to the figures. The minimum factor for the 300 strong wolf population in Russian Carelia has practically always been food � moose, deer and reindeer are very scarce. In Finland, where wolves have been scarce until recently, there is an abundance of big game. Wolverines give birth to up to 8-12 pups so and an annual increase of the population of 30% is quite feasible.

As mentioned above, the Game and Fisheries Research Institute does not possess these figures and does not comment on border traffic or immigration by wolves.

During the last few years, the figures returned to the Game Tending Managers (see rural society above) have had little resemblance to the figures sent in by the Predator Contact Persons. Mr. Ismo Karppinen (+358-44-3742261, ismo.karppinen@kuhmo.fi) of the Kuhmo area reports as follows:

The Predator Contact Persons in the Kuhmo area went on strike in 2004 in protest against the Game and Fisheries Research Institute hiding facts and doctoring their figures. After its responsible Mr. Kojola promised improvement in a meeting with the ministry of agriculture and forestry, they resumed their unpaid work. At the time of writing, the promises given have been broken.

According to the Game and Fisheries Research Institute there were 7 wolves in the Kuhmo area in the winter 2003/04. At that time, the Predator Contact Persons had identified 25.

In late 2004, Mr. Kojola informed the ministry of agriculture and forestry that there are 20-25 wolves in the Kuhmo area. Mr. Ronkainen, an assistan of Mr Kojola said there will be no more as the territories are full, the packs will defend them and supplementary wolves will have to find new territories. That year, the Predator Contact Persons had identified 41 wolves.

In late 2005 Mr. Kojola reported 40-45 wolves in the Kuhmo area while the Predator Contact Persons had identified 77.

Not trusting Mr. Kojola, the Predator Contact Persons in the 7 Game Tending Areas of the Eastern Wolf Management area recently compared their figures of late 2005. They had identified a total of 299 wolves in the Kainuu area.

At the time of writing, Mr. Kojola has employed one person for two months to count the wolves in the whole Kainuu area, apparently not trusting the figures reported by the 160 Predator Contact Persons in the area. Private land owners refuse him the right to move on snowmobile on their lands and all the logging roads have been closed with booms � the Game Tending Societies are convinced that the task of this man is to provide an alibi for Mr. Kojola to doctor the population figures once more and they refuse all cooperation. Even with free access to logging roads and forest, finding and counting the wolves in the large Kainuu area in two months is a hopeless task for one man.

In 2004, a workgroup of the Ministry of the environment led by Mr. Pertti Rassi announced that the wolf population in Finland is to be classified as extremely endangered. Because of closeness to Russia, they downclassed it to endangered. They announced that they were applying the criteria of the IUNC.

After the Commission sued Finland on the basis of this assessment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry applied the same criteria to calculate the minimum level for a favorable conservation status of the wolf in Finland. The result was 1.000 multiplying wolves. With a normal proportion of sexually immature individuals, it added up to 3.000 wolves. That is roughly the number of wolves living in Russia north of the 60^th parallel (see map of the wolf population in the Soviet Union in 1980, published in Prof. Bibikovs book �Volk�, Wolf, on page 10/50 of �Vargens Näringssök och Människan� by Elis P�lsson (PB Brännhult 30 S-34390 Älmhult, +46-476-71210) download from www.locomail.com/vargen). The map shows that the bulk of the 77.000 wolves in the USSR live more to the south.

Note: Below is a number of excerpts from the recent correspondence between Mr. Tapani Veistola, Nature conservation secretary of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (+358-9-22808266) and Mr. Jan-Erik Ingvall (jan.ingvall@pom.inet.fi, +358-50-5583111) who, after 15 years of active participation in the Association, sent in his resignation from the Association in protest against its wolf policies. I have selected them, as the positions the Association expresses are fresh after the public debate of the last half year and are formulted in a concise way.

Veistola to Ingvall on January 20^th: �At present, the wolf population is too small even genetically. The danger (of extinction) of the wolf in Finland is not removed by the species existing elsewhere. In future, we cannot count on the species being preserved by individuals coming from Russia. On the contrary we should solidify the communication to the Swedish population.� (See more about Sweden below)

A Finnish delegation of wolf researchers some years ago visited Mr. Ernest Ivanter (ivanter@psu.karelia.ru , +79114001960, +7-911400), dean of the faculty of zoology and ecology of the university of Petrozavodsk. They tried to convince him to classify the wolf as endangered in Russian Carelia. He ironically replied that he can supply Finland with as many wolves as it ever wants if there a shortage of them in the country.

Veistola to Ingvall on January, 24^th: �The Commission has not proposed a thousand wolves in Finland, it was a misunderstanding of the ministry of agriculture and forestry that the commission rectified, inter alias in (the leading daily) Helsingin Sanomat. The population in Finland is now 200 individuals and the discussion is mainly if we should have at least 20 or 25 multiplying wolf couples.�

One can only wonder at the sudden disappearance of the IUNC criteria.

Veistola to Ingvall on January, 24^th: �But concerning the need to spread west is generally agreed, because it eases the pressure in the east.

Cars belonging to the Finnish wolf zoos of Ranua and Ähtäri have been observed on logging roads in Ostrobotnia in western Finland several times (see about rural society above) and shortly thereafter a wolf has appeared close by.

Some wolves in the area are manifestly domesticated - they run after plowing tractors up and down the field as they apparently have learned that a tractor means grub time. It is obvious that a clandestine �military wing� of the conservation movement helps the wolf to spread west by illegal means. I have asked local contact persons to collect affidavits of the persons who have made the observations.

Veistola to Ingvall on January 30^th: �That was something � I never heard about such curiosity! (..) I have no information on such movements. That would require authorization. The zoos cannot goof on authorizations, there whole acivity is dependent on authorizations.�

One would expect a leading official of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation to show some interest in testimony indicating such environmental criminality instead of reacting with total denial. The reaction is similar in Sweden and Norway � the conservation movement and the environmental authorities turn a blind eye to the numerous and credible testimony of wolves systematically being introduced into those countries clandestinely and illegally, obviously financed with substantial sums of unknown origin. See SWEDEN below.

When the famous and well documented man-eating Turku wolves 1880-81 were mentioned in the press, several conservationist, inter alia from the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation wrote articles claiming that they were hybrids.

Mr. Eirik Granqvist (for CV, see http://personal.inet.fi/luonto/mikael.broo/curriculum.htm) then wrote an article in the leading daily Helsingin Sanomat confirming that they had been positively identified as purebred wolves after having been killed and pointed out that two of them still remain, one in the Hunting Museum of Riihimäki, the other in a school in Turku. When the leading daily Turun Sanomat asked the conservator of the zoological museum of Turku, Mr. Ari Karhilahti to comment he said:�If a wolf has attacked a child, the reason might for instance be that a child born out of wedlock was such a big shame that it even was taken to the forest. It was easy to say that the wolf eat it.� The 22 tragedies caused by the Turku wolves are documented in great detail. The average age of the victims was 5,6 year and the name of the father was noted in the church records of the death of each child. Mr. Karhilahti is a disciple of Mr. Eirik Granqvist who did not believe that his sensible disciple would speak such nonsense without being under hard pressure. (See points 10 and 11 below)

The publishing of Dr Lappalainen�s book and the dangerousness of the wolf becoming publicly known has had little effect on the ecotheologists. Veistola to Ingvall on January, 20^th:

�A wolf has last attacked man in Finland in the 19th century.�

See the identical text of Ms Helfferich of the Commission below.

�Compared to those times there is, however, a plethora of moose and other natural game of the wolf.�

Wolves not attacking humans if there is game is a pure assumption which, furthermore, is contrary to historical evidence. The lack of concern for the safety of citizens and for human life is blatantly obvious.

�Rabies, which explained about half of the deaths of that time, has now been conquered.�

Rabies has been conquered locally in Finland by spreading inoculating bait that is avidly eaten by foxes, until now the main carriers. Wolves, however, do not eat any scrap they find and rabies exists in both Russia and Estonia. This risk factor has never been mentioned by any authority and no solution to this potential danger has ever been presented. When a rabid wolf bites a person in the neck, no inoculation can save the victim from an unimaginably horrible death.

�Furthermore, in today�s Finland, a wolf that is getting unafraid and attacks man would immediately be removed, and so it should be.�

The cases of both Mr. Veikko Kokko and Raija Ahonen are well known to the local police and to the ministry of agriculture and forestry that issues licenses. The police have done nothing and no licenses to kill the wolves have been forthcoming. Applications for licenses to kill wolves that kill dogs in front yards, sit on porches and also of the pack of 15 that hangs out in the village of Kuhmo have been turned down.

In 2004, the local police chief Bo-Erik Hanses (bo-erik.hanses@narpio.poliisi.fi, +358- 407719454 gave orders to kill a sheep-eating and people-disturbing wolf in Ostrobotnia in 2004. Complaints to the Justitieombudsman were made against this. Although he was found not to have broken the law, the general position of the Ombudsman was that the police should intervene only in acute cases and that the running management of problem wolves should be handled in the framework of licenses. See decision 612/4/04 of 25.10.2004.

Practically any license to fell a wolf has so far triggeed complaints to the Commission and its suit against Finland is pending.

�No more can predators specialized on man develop, which almost totally explain half of the human victims of the 19th century.�

For about two decades prior to Finland joining the EU, the wolf was protected. However, as soon as a wolf started causing trouble, license to hunt it was issued without delay. The system worked satisfactorily but, the behavior of the wolf being what it is, very few wolves filled the criteria.

�When licenses are issued for problem individuals coming into people�s yards, and are not squandered on harmless wilderness wolves, the population stays afraid of man.�

Of 180 applications to kill problem wolves, 155 were turned down and 25 were approved. These were the object of complaints to the Commission by ideological allies of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation and finally brought about a suit by the Commission against Finland.

The position of the Association is obvious: If the wrong wolf is killed or if the Association thinks so, the general population has to bear the consequences.

�One has to be careful with wolves, you must not make them domesticated�

Nobody has made a wolf domesticated. Being a kind of dog, they do it all by themselves unless shot at.