The Return of the Wolf in France

 « The Return of the Wolf in France » Journal of Indian Folkloristics special issue Islands and Narratives [2003] V, 1/2, 133-162 published 2004 Véronique Campion-Vincent The Return of the Wolf in France OLVES EXIST ALL OVER OUR PLANET AND HAVE FOR AGES BEEN IN interaction with humans. In Europe, they regularly attacked livestock, especially sheep, occasionally humans, and especially children acting as shepherds. In populous Ancien Régime France (25 million inhabitants in the 18th century) interaction with some 5,000 wolves roaming the territory were frequent as described by the naturalist Beaufort: W “Wolves saw and heard men daily: Peasants, shepherds, forest-dwellers, loggers, coachmen, peddlers and travelers, hunters, soldiers; also dogs and domestic animals; they utilized roads and byways, prowled around human dwellings. This real cohabitation of man and wolf is an essential characteristic of our West European countries; this situation radically differs from the contemporary one where wolves have remained numerous.” (Beaufort, 1992: 17). Wolves were the ultimate predator of European countries. Other predators did exist, for example bears in mountainous habitats, and some lynxes and wildcats (hardly noticed in folklore), but wolves carried the strongest image, not only in folktales and legends but also in naturalists’ descriptions since classical antiquity. That image was mainly that of a ferocious devourer. In folktales the image of wolves could also be that of a sexual initiator, and not only anthropological (Douglas, 1995, Verdier, 1980) but also psychoanalytic interpretations (Bettelheim, 1976) explain such famous folktales as “Little Red Riding Hood.” In France numerous legends, presented as personal experience stories, still keep alive the memory of wolves. The stories of encounters with wolves are common plots in which their own hunger and men’s cunningness overcome the stupid and avid animals. Feared, wolves are also revered and sometimes presented as protectors of abandoned children 1. Wolves are an important source of folk remedies and evil charms too. In France, numerous and recurrent episodes of rabies-infected wolves killing scores of humans and the dramatic case of the Gévaudan Beast in the 1760s help to turn wolves into a feared scourge of humans. From the 18th century onwards, authorities adopted strong and persistent measures, from bounties to all citizens having killed wolves since 1791 2 to systematic poisoning since 1882 that finally ensured their disappearance in the 1920s. (Beaufort, 1987: 26-7). As wolves were disappearing, sympathy for them increased. Already in the 1830s poets took the image of the lone wolf dying in proud silence as a model of the artist among the philistines of a bourgeois society 3. The animal held a major place in French popular culture, thus in the reference work 2 on the subject (Rolland, 1877) the entries on wolves are the most numerous for wild mammals, occupying 55 pages. 4 The policy of protection, rehabilitation and reintroduction of species formerly considered as pests or vermin (birds of prey, snakes, lynxes, bears, wolves and tigers) is universal and rests upon new conceptions of Nature. Wild animals become partners of humans, and are promoted to quasi humans by popular culture. They strangely resemble pets, objects of emotional links and of individuation. The friends of wild animals tend to polarize on a few attractive species, and the emergence of these fans, often organized in small clusters, is an important social fact of the last thirty years. The Web hosts personal pages praising the elected animal, carefully illustrated; these are authentic poems. A test search, led on March 6, 2003 on Google, shows the dominant place of wolves, here compared to another emblematic species, whales: Search in English Web Pages Search in French French Web Pages Wolf OR Wolves 2,110,000 Loup OU Loups 9,830 Whale OR Whales 879,000 Baleine OU Baleines 1,880 Passionate friends of the wolves have launched a major rehabilitation campaign in Europe, asserting that the wolves have never killed any human– except perhaps those wolves who suffered from rabies, and maybe they did not kill humans even in that condition. A complete rewriting of the story of the Gévaudan Beast has marked this campaign, and though historians still talk of several killer wolves operating in succession in the same region from 1765 till 1767 (Delort, 1984: 259-62, Delperrié, 1970), in most present-day books and articles, the story of the Gévaudan Beast is rewritten as fantasy so as to exonerate wolves. 5 Public opinion about wolves has thus hanged completely, which is not insignificant, for this change overhauls the whole system of our symbolic bestiary. However, the gratifying figure of the “border passer,” the werewolf or the wolf master both human and animal that was in past times delineated in fantasy tales pursues a brilliant contemporary career in fusional or fictional characters. 6 The Return of Wolf: (1993-2003) Wild populations of wolves have reappeared on the French territory in the early 1990s. They appeared first in the national park of Mercantour on the border of Italy, and later showed up in other districts of the French Alps. The observations conducted during the winter of 1992-1993 confirmed the presence of wolves, a pack and not just a pair. The Environment Department sponsored a special issue of the nature lovers’ magazine Terre Sauvage [Wild Land], which made the announcement, in May 1993, under the heading “Welcome to the wolf, now back in France.” 7 While the visibility was thus maximal, this official communication channeled through Nature Protectors´ Associations [hereafter designated as NPAs] certainly antagonized local political representatives and mountain sheep-farmers. Their presence (and the damage caused to flocks) soon raised strong protests from the mountain sheep-farmers and political representatives of mountain areas. This choice was, several years later, defended by Gilbert Simon, the then head of the Nature and Landscapes Agency at the Environment Department, the agency in charge of the management of wild fauna in France. He said: “I 3 perfectly assume this decision not to inform the political representatives and the sheep-farmers in this first stage, as an immediate announcement and media involvement might have entailed the elimination of wolves by those who are hostile to them. My aim was to protect the wolves, to make sure they settled. I never put any back, I had not planned their return, but once they were there, my duty was to protect them.” 8 Episodes : Conflicts * In 1995, while general public opinion judged that the return of wolves was good news, 9 the situation worsened between the mountain sheep-farmers, and the authorities of the national park of Mercantour, which showed great sympathy towards the newcomer. 10 * In 1996, the situation was tense in the Alpes-Maritimes departement [French basic administrative units, hereafter designated as Dept or Depts], owing to the growth of damage to flocks. Two reports were commissioned separately by the Environment and Agriculture Departments, respectively in charge of wild fauna and environmental protection; of mountain sheep-farmers and the agricultural production. However the proposals of these reports were not implemented, both because of the aloofness then separating the two Departments, and perhaps because of the changes of personnel having occurred when the French political majority changed in April 1997. * In 1997, a Wolf National Advisory Committee regrouping 37 designated members was established but could not function as, on its first session, June 15, 1998, the professional representatives of the mountain sheep-farmers and the political representatives of the mountain areas walked out. To untangle the situation, both Departments decided to commission one single report, which was published in February 1999 (Bracque, 1999). In the Environment Department, special ad hoc committees soon studied the application of the proposals of the Bracque report. * In December 1998, political representatives who relayed the hostile attitude of mountain sheepfarmers requested for an enquiry committee on the conditions of the arrival of wolves in France. Rejected, it was turned into a “Mission of Information on the Presence of Wolves in France” that published a report in October 1999 (Chevallier, 1999), whose conclusions totally rejected the presence of wolves in sheep-raising areas and suggested the animals might be tolerated in “wolves park” areas. * In March 2000, the Environment and Agriculture Departments implemented measures of control of the wolves, 11 and in July 2000, texts allowing measures of elimination for troublesome wolves were adopted. * On May 14, 2003 a parliamentary report [hereafter designated as the Spagnou report], whose title “Predators and Mountain Pastoralism: Priority to Man” showed both an extension of its mandate to other flock predators such as bears (in the Pyrenees) or fairly widespread lynxes, and also an acceptation of the necessity of compromise, was published. Wolves: Number, Damage and Cost Wolves present on French territory at the beginning of 2001 were officially estimated as 30 to 40, but more erratic wolves were admitted. These figures have barely evolved since 1999, and constitute minima. Ten areas of permanent presence of packs were then noticed [See Map 2000-2001, black and white]. In 2002, the figure was the same; wolves were less numerous in the Alpes Maritimes (which includes the national park of Mercantour) where the Environment Department suspected systematic poaching, but were present in more places 12 [See Map 2001- 2002,]. 4 Animals Killed by Wolves and Compensation Paid (in Euros) to Mountain Sheep Farmers (1993-2002) [Source: Spagnou, Vol.I. 2003.pp. 153-4] DEPS * Animals Killed 19932000 Compensation 1993-2000 06 05 04 83 38 26 73 Total 4,058 212 827 900,476 18,682 36,328 182 64 417 5,760 32,212 9,913 5,793 1,003,404 Animals Killed 2001 Compensation 2001 Animals Killed 2002** Compensation 2002 *** 1,152 85 97 20 474 206,802 15,838 19,356 3,217 56,351 1,828 301,595 1,091 262 168 55 551 156 21 2,304 217,472 38,589 31,842 9,215 88,861 27,803 3,403 417,184 Total Animals Killed 19932002 6,301 559 1,092 75 1,207 220 438 9,892 Total Compensation 1993-2002 1,324,750 73,109 87,526 12,432 177,424 37,716 9,196 1,722,153 * 06=Alpes Maritimes; 05=Alpes de Haute Provence; 04=Hautes Alpes; 83=Var; 38=Isère; 26=Drôme; 73=Savoie ** Provisional. By wolves and lynxes *** Provisional Wolves have caused significant damage to flocks. From 1993 to 2000, 1 million euros have compensated 5,760 sheep killed or maimed in the Alps. In 2001, 301,595 euros have compensated 1,828 animals. In 2002, 417,184 euros compensated 2,304 animals. 13 The figures [see above table: [Animals Killed by Wolves and Compensation Paid (in Euros) to Mountain Sheep Farmers (19932002)] show that the bulk of the damage is concentrated in the Alpes Maritimes Dept, where the national park of Mercantour is located: 71% of animals compensated from 1993 to 2000, 64% from 1993 to 2002. The more northern Dept of Isère, which had only 182 animals killed till 2000, has had heavy damage in 2001 (474) and 2002 (551). Compensation is only a small part of what the State has spent to welcome the return of the wolves. In 2000, 2001 and 2002 the total of state funds for wolves was 7,446 millions euros per year. If personnel costs of permanent agencies are included, the total rises to 9 million euros (Spagnou Vol.I. 2003. pp. 132-3). Opposing Parties These opposing parties are small groups that develop curiously symmetrical arguments. Mountain sheep-farmers and their representatives: Mountain sheep-farmers are a social group in economic crisis and their income, subsidies included, is amongst the lowest of French farming communities. In the French Alps, some 860,000 sheep graze 8,660.000 square kilometers. 14 Allowances and subsidies to the mountain sheep-farmers are twice the income they derive from the sales of the sheep, mostly raised for meat. More in proportion to the number of sheep, these subsidies have led mountain sheep-farmers to keep bigger flocks and to mind the animals far less closely, even not at all. Such extensive farming, encouraged by the administration delivering the subsidies, is of course incompatible with the return of a predator. 5 Mountain sheep-farmers have shown strong antipathy toward wolves. Organized reactions, within the frame of the National Ovine Federation, consisted mostly in big protest rallies in important provincial cities, such as Aix en Provence; that form of action culminated in Lyons on October 15, 1998: 2,500 sheep, 1,000 sheep-farmers. Since then, lobbying is preferred to protest rallies: and has inspired two parliamentary reports in 1999 (Chevallier) and 2003 (Spagnou). The profession is also reaching beyond its national frontiers. The Alpine Arc Group, a federation of sheep-farmers from 13 French Depts, organized a European conference in Nice on September 8, 2001. It included sheep-farmers from Norway, Italy and Spain whose testimonies of life with predators (wolves but also wolverines in Norway) painted a very different picture from the rosy official estimates. However, no administrations were represented at this Conference, and the sheep-farmers’ request for appointments with the European authorities have little chance of swaying the position of these powerful bodies. A more permanent Association has followed the September 2001 conference and maintains an online web site. 15 At the unorganized level of the rank and file sheep-farmers, the reactions are illegal: poaching with guns, traps and poisoning, noisily announced (but are all these advertised actions carried out?). NPAs and their components: Nature protectors’ associations are very diverse since they address various aspects of the environment. Furthermore, they regroup vastly different levels of knowledge, of conviction, of social position. These concerned with emblematic wild animals include a strong component of fans of these species. But it can be said that all NPAs consider themselves as auxiliaries of scientists, i.e. the “good” scientists of natural sciences and ecology, 16 and mean to help them to plan the management of natural areas and carry out the conservation of biodiversity through the protection of animals until very recently considered as vermin and the return of predators. For wolves, the two main associations are the Mission Loup, linked to the Museum, and the Grouped Loup France (now called FERUS). Their two quarterly newsletters, which the author has read thoroughly, regularly use almost half of their pages for the promotion of artists of all levels celebrating the wolf. Both these associations review and market books and also apparel (wolf T-Shirts, etc.). They equally promote “nature trips,” mostly in East European countries but also in Italy, Canada and the US. Otherwise, the newsletters present a press review, often indignant, and lengthy discussions of the episodes of the wolf saga. • In France the stronghold of natural sciences is the “Museum national d’histoire naturelle [National Museum of Natural History, hereafter designated as Museum],” an institution with a prestigious past, created by the great “naturalists” of yesterday. The Museum’s actions towards the general public use a network whose central structure is “France nature environnement” subtitled “French Federation of Associations Protecting Nature and the Environment” [hereafter designated as FNE] that includes some 3,200 associations, and is organized in poles (Water, Industry, Sustainable Management, Renewable Resources, Nature and Biodiversity), each of which includes missions and networks. Linked to the Nature and Biodiversity pole, the “Mission Loup,” created in 1996, publishes the quarterly La voie du loup [The Wolf’s Track] that refuses all compromises. The Mission also sets up petitions and publishes numerous press releases. In the hearings held by the Spagnou Commission, it is the Mission that made the most rigid deposition. • Friends of the species are dominant in the “Groupe Loup France [French Wolf Group],” created in 1992. Less rigid than the Mission, it declared from the start that compromises with mountain sheep-farmers would be necessary in the future, when enough wolf packs would 6 have settled in France. In 2001, the group established a partnership with ARTUS, the bears’ protection association and the quarterly Gazette de la meute [Pack Gazette] became the Gazette des grands prédateurs, subtitled Le magazine du loup, de l’ours et du lynx. In 2003, ARTUS and the Groupe Loup France united to become “FERUS,” the Latin term for predators, subtitled “ours-loup-lynx-conservation [Bear-Wolf-Lynx-Conservation].” • All these mergers do not indicate a plummeting in membership of the Groupe Loup France that announces 1,423 members at the end of 2002, a rise of almost 20% from the end of 2001 when the group had 1,207 members, but a desire for cooperation. Thus the Groupe Loup France has promoted a “Collective for defending the wolf” which regroups FERUS and 5 other associations: two associations of scientists, WWF France, but also the SPA, Société de protection des animaux [Animal Protection Society], an organization mostly active against animal experimentation which it designates as vivisection and for the protection of abandoned or ill-treated pets. The Mission Loup does not participate in the “Collective” and remains alone in its rigid position and strident denunciation of what it describes as a situation of extreme danger for wild wolves in France. • Another association, ASPAS, Association de protection des animaux sauvages [Wild Animals Protection Association], mostly hostile to hunters and which systematically deposits complaints against their violations of regulations, systematically associates itself with the press releases and petitions of these two main “wolf groups.” Passive administrations: Two government departments are in charge of the problems raised by the return of the wolves, but their approach is very different. The big Agriculture Department 17 (its website announces 30,000 agents) is in charge of mountain sheep-farmers, and distributes to them subsidies and compensation. Pragmatic and long an apostle of productivity, Agriculture Dept. does not try to be legitimated by public opinion and is strongly present in the field (from its 30,000 agents only 2,000 are in Paris). Within the Department, it is the Rural Affairs and Forest Agency, relayed at the local level of the Depts by the Agriculture Department and Forest Agencies [hereafter designated as DDAFs] that is in charge. Smaller and more recent, the Environment Department 18 is in charge of the protection of wildlife and of non-productive areas of the territory. It is the authority responsible for national parks 19 and for regional parks, co-managed with local authorities. This Department heavily relies on public opinion that it often solicits, subsidizes NPAs, gives them a strong role almost of co-management 20 and communicates through the media. From its creation, in the 1970s, the Environment Department was animated with a missionary fervor to implement changes and considered these changes had to be imposed on local populations if necessary; this was the rationale of the creation of national parks, whose aims were often at odds with those of the humans they hosted. Within the Department, it is the Nature and Landscapes Agency that is in charge and overlooks the Office national de la chasse et de la faune sauvage [ONCFS], i.e. National Hunting and Wild Fauna Agency. Autonomous but linked to the Environment Department and partially funded by hunters’ permits, which it delivers, this agency is in charge of the management of wildlife, and especially predators (bears, lynxes and wolves) in France. It applies the policy decided at the level of the Environment Department, thus its agents proceed to certification of damage to flocks and decide if compensation is due. It is the ONCFS, which is responsible for the agents of the Life Nature programs described earlier. The aloofness between these two administrations is increasingly being replaced by a more cooperative attitude. 21 7 The Arguments Wolves’ opponents: clandestine reintroduction legitimates removal: Launched by some mountain sheep-farmers 22 the idea that there had been a deliberate reintroduction of wolves legitimated for its promoters the removal of wolves from the French territory. While these accusations were picked up by the political representatives to open the inquiries that led to the Chevallier and Spagnou reports, they were dropped from the final documents. As explained by Spagnou, the author of the most recent report, it was impossible to conclude, as data was uncertain. However, except if the unrealistic thesis of a huge conspiracy was adopted, the hypothetical reintroductions could only have been effected by isolated wolf enthusiasts: “These releases have probably not been the object of a conspiracy implicating the national park of Mercantour and the Nature Protection Agency of the Environment Department. Irresponsible individuals passionate of nature have probably enacted these releases. If there had been a conspiracy, it would mean that more than half of the persons heard on the subject would deliberately have lied to the commission while they deposited under oath” (Spagnou, 2003.Vol. I: 25-26). But isn’t this controversy an empty quarrel? What is called the “natural” return of wolves in France and Switzerland is the outcome of measures of protection of the species adopted in Italy in the middle of the 1970s. Therefore this is the result of human effort and decision. Both France and Switzerland have conducted reintroductions of lynxes. 23 In the Pyrenees, bears from Slovenia have been publicly introduced. The protected status of bears and lynxes has not been modified because of these deliberate reintroductions, why should it be different for wolves? The author believes that only the specificity of the image of wolves can explain the difference in reactions. The mountain sheep-farmers’ arguments: At the Lyons protest rally, October 15,1998 Denis Grosjean general secretary of the National Ovine Federation, developed a discourse that presented sheep-farmers as the real defenders of Nature. • Setting of sheep-farmers as the real defenders of environment and landscapes, since their activities maintain these. • Insistence on the sustained damage, that come from all the predators existing in France: “An exorbitant tribute has already succumbed, sacrificed on the altar of the great ecology-utopian circus. Unbearable tribute, always paid by the same sheep-farmers, those who occupy the wildest and most fragile areas. There is the crime: to occupy areas, areas reserved for the wild animals? Whether it is the Alps for wolves, the Jura for lynxes, the Pyrenees for bears.” • Refusal of the assertions that most of the damage to flocks is caused by stray dogs: “Do not tell us that we accept from wandering dogs what we reject from protected predators. Whether pest or cholera, we fight relentlessly all that slaughters our flocks. […] Nothing is common between the sad toll of wandering dogs, that intervene on the whole territory […] and that of hyper protected beasts, slaughtering and stressing always the same flocks, with the encouragement of the public authorities.” • Assertion of the right of sheep-farmers to manage the areas in which they work. Though they receive subsidies, they are entitled to expression: “To protect nature, perfect! But not to the detriment of sheep-farmers, not to the detriment of their work, not against those that maintain the balance between pasture and forest. The protectionists, these few activists, are unable to admit that the sheep-farmers remain the managers of areas where they work. And do not let 8 them answer that the insufficient subsidies granted to ovine production only allow us to keep shut. It is still the discourse of contempt.” • Incompatibility of wolves and livestock farming areas. The city-dwellers who appreciate them so much should take over their burden: “If France wishes to experience beasts in the wild, let us start with the Bois de Boulogne and the Bois de Vincennes, with the forests of Fontainebleau and Rambouillet, where it will not be our sheep’s legs that will be at risk.” Wolves’ friends: damage to sheep mostly caused by stray dogs: The NPAs have been keen to put in context the damage to flocks, asserting that stray dogs attacks are far more numerous and damaging. They denounce stray dogs’ noxiousness, regularly presenting them as far more aggressive than wolves. 24 Extravagant figures are put forward as to the evils of stray dogs. In the 1980s Gérard Ménatory routinely mentioned the figure of 50,000 sheep killed each year, 25 without any justification of his assertions. The highest figure, 500,000 sheep killed each year (Moutou, 1999: 44), is quoted in reference to a study conducted in 1998 by a member of the NPA ARTUS, which played a major role in the bears’ rehabilitation and reintroduction in the Pyrenees (Wick, 1998). François Moutou, who kindly sent me a copy of his paper, explained in a manuscript marginal note “The figures that we 26 now use are 2% (200,000) accidental sheep deaths each year, all causes included without taking into account the losses of lambs.” (Moutou, personal communication, 1999). While stray dogs cannot be the cause of all accidental deaths, these estimates point to some 100,000 sheep killed by them each year. This figure is certainly considerably higher than the figure of sheep killed by wolves, which was 1,828 in 2001, 2,304 in 2002. François Moutou also notes that diseases entail numerous sheep slaughters27 without raising a social reaction comparable to that which follows damage to flocks caused by wolves. This argument is worth noting: it not only tends to put in context, but further tends to de-legitimize. 28 Stray dogs should rather be called domestic runaways, as there are probably no real feral dogs in France. Even protection dogs can attack flocks if improperly trained. Domestic rather than marooned, going on the run for a while, killing for fun and not hunger, eluding human control, stray dogs transgress our categories, which is probably why such haze surrounds their evil deeds (Bobbé, 1999). Symmetrical arguments on both sides: the closest to Nature: Mountain sheep-farmers and NPAs declare the same aim: to maintain and enrich natural territories and milieus. However, it is clear that the words “nature” and “territories” do not correspond to the same realities for each group. Work tool or ecosystem are two widely different approaches to nature. The mountain sheep-farmers present themselves as managers of areas which, but for their arduous labor and the flocks’ grazing, would only be impenetrable and monotonous bush: “Sheep-farmers do not maim the landscapes. Armed with our flocks, we stop the thick bramble, crush dead wood, and aerate the Underwood. […] Beneficial to nature, our activities, grazing, transhumance and mowing, maintain and develop a rich flora. As to fauna, scientists and hunters agree that the multiplicity of species and the abundance of animals are closely linked to sheep farming. Sheep, this ill-appreciated livestock, is the ultimate detail before loosing the fight to bush and firs. (Address of Denis Grosjean during the Lyons demonstration, October 15, 1998).” The ideal of the ecologist activist sometimes seems to be a virgin area, unpolluted by human presence, the lost paradise of an untouched and varied nature that can, however, be rebuilt: “We will never see again the virgin splendor of the forest before Vercingetorix. At least we can try to safeguard some shreds of it or to reinvent it. I would like fragments of France–let us say 1000 square kilometers per Dept–where the powerful National Forest Agency let trees grow as they please; where hunters allow deer, boars, martens and eagle owls to sort 9 out their business; where we reintroduce lammergeyers and great tetras, beavers and European buffaloes, aurochs ‘reconstituted’ through genetic engineering, 29 brown bears and lynxes. Not to forget wolves.” (Paccalet, 1993: 9). Reality, Rumors: Animal Release Amongst social reactions to the return of wild animals, some are judged uninteresting, not worth serious consideration and labeled rumors, i.e. assertions unrecognized by authorities. These rumors have a central theme: animal-release, accidental or deliberate but covert, mostly of negatively perceived species. The author’s hypothesis is that the rumors show that the reintroductions and protection of predators were not taken for granted and generated covertly hostile as well as officially approving reactions. Several articles and studies on these subjects have been published (Campion-Vincent 1990a, 1990b, 1992, 1996b; Campion-Vincent & Renard, 1992) their conclusions will be abstracted here. One of the most famous urban legends that appeared in the 1960s, the rumor of the alligators which are supposed to haunt the New York sewers, is an animal-release story. Brought back from Florida by careless tourists to entertain the kids, the baby alligators have been flushed down the toilets into the sewers when they grow up into cumbersome large alligators. Many authentic facts correspond to this story. 30 Its widespread 31 and long circulation is mostly explicable, however, by the tale’s symbolic value. This tale is a metaphor of the impossibility of taming wild nature completely, and a commentary upon the inhumanity of the great modern anonymous metropolis, the urban jungle encompassing all dangers. Viper Release Stories Appearing in 1976, viper-release stories remained very active in France until 1985. They then stabilized into a belief, still alluded to in some social groups, to the “fact” that numerous vipers are or have been intentionally released. Their appearance is linked to measures protecting animal species adopted in 1979, which included reptiles. 32 The expression “protected animal” shocked many when applied to species such as buzzards 33 and vipers. How should the irrational elements these stories contain, especially the popular assertions that vipers are released through helicopters, be accounted for? I consider that this fantasy element invalidates the conspiracy interpretations suggested in the 1980s by ecologists, asserting that these stories were made up by their enemies (hunters mostly) to denigrate them, for one does not imagine organized propagandists using such a fantasy element as helicopters in a concerted action of disinformation. The explanation linked to the frequency of the usage of helicopters in rural and mountainous areas is no more convincing, as “confusions” can only emerge if there are pre-existing “convictions.” This fantasy element of the helicopters is, however, central, for it unites opposed dimensions, one of the functions of symbolic thought. 34 This story is a collective symbolic production that permits the simultaneous expression of contradictory half-formulated thoughts that circulate about practices of protection and reintroduction that are considered simultaneously as positive and as dangerous. It is also an accusatory tale, which declares that nature–including animal species dangerous for humans–is given priority over humans by ecologists. Wolf Release Stories Metaphoric thought functions in several different contexts and assertions of animal-release (several other species than vipers are concerned, especially lynxes, bears and wolves) exist all over the world: 10 in Italy 35 as in the United States 36 wildlife managers are accused of releasing numerous species as illustrated by an Italian cartoon playfully describing The throw of the wolves, or the favorite sport of the true conservationist in which planes from the Abruzzes Park throw parachute-equipped “Siberian wolves”– shown dreaming of abundant sheep preys--over the Italian countryside. Wolf Sightings From 1945 till 1989 in France, there were 39 cases of sightings of wolves, of wild or captive origin: 29 ending with the animal’s capture or death, 10 remaining mysterious but where the presence of a wolf was affirmed. 37 Since 1989, there have been 10 cases of sightings of wolves, 8 ending with the capture or death of the animal, 38 and 2 remaining mysterious. These evaluations are certainly very inferior to reality, only counting the cases that have reached the media or the authorities. The Spagnou Report’s Hearings, taken verbatim (863 pages), are a real information mine of attitudes towards wolves. The layman and the biologist thus successively describe the incident of a wolf sighting that occurred early December 2002, and we can understand that the two approaches cannot be reconciled: the layman fears (and romanticizes) while the biologist stresses precision (and yet oddly seems disappointed that he has not seen the animal he tracks). The incident occurred in an isolated village of the regional park of Queyras, Ristolas (1,600 m, 100 inhabitants) situated by the Italian frontier at the end of the Guil valley, in the Hautes Alpes Dept. The local political representative, member of the investigative committee describes it: “A week ago, the inhabitants of Ristolas have seen six wolves cross the village in a single file [à la queue leu leu] by the day’s fall. A legitimate worry has been generated.” 39 However two weeks later, the biologist who investigated the incident stressed the wolves were not that close: “One must sort the data and the differences of interpretation of testimonies. […] I have been there a week later, and the Mayor certified that they had been on the village square, that the wolves had entered the village, that they would end eating children and little girls … In fact it had snowed and we checked the wolves’ passage. The tracks are really by the village, so people can have seen them from the village’s last house, where they were no farther than a hundred meters away, I admit but the wolf has not crossed the village square! […] Personally I’ve been studying the wolf for four years and I’ve only spotted it once, in the South-East of Poland. I’ve been out in the field for a whole year every day from 5 a.m. till 8 p.m. and I’ve only spotted it once.” 40 Cases of “erratic wolves” colonizing new Alpine valleys since 1993 often begin as mysterious “Beast” cases. Captive Wolves A generally ignored aspect of the situation is the existence of many captive wolves in France. Animal parks present wolves in fairly open areas. Captive wolves not exhibited can be wolves bought as guardians (it is hoped they will scare away burglars), detained as pets, or–the most frequent case–for breeding, the owners often trying to obtain hybrids wolves/dogs. This situation entails releases, mostly accidental when the wolves escape, but sometimes deliberate. Today, the only case of attested deliberate release happened 35 years ago, in 1968, when two wolves, a male and a female were killed at two months interval in the Landes Dept. 11 Beaufort (1987), who autopsied the animals, considered that this was the only case that pointed to an authentic project of clandestine reintroduction of wolves through a deliberate release, since the animal was not isolated. 41 At the end of the 1980s, scientists and friends of wildlife orally frequently alluded to this anonymous and hypothetical act. In 1994, interviewed by Le Monde (France’s reference newspaper) on the occasion of the new edition of his main historical study Histoire de la milice 1918-1945 (1994 [1969]), historian Jacques Delperrié de Bayac confessed to have proceeded to these releases of wolves: “Seduced in his youth by the extreme-right, next by revolutionary left […] Delperrié de Bayac also belongs to an original ecologist movement. He released in May 1968 a few wolves in the Landes and the Alps. 42 His trial met failure and a few beats suppressed the carnivorous mammals.” (Greisalmer, 1994). Author of numerous historical studies Jacques Delperrié de Bayac has also written a book on the celebrated Beast of Gévaudan in which, opposing the actual fashion, he concluded wolves were responsible (Delperrié, 1970). He seems to have acted alone. He had bought from Gérard Ménatory 43 the captive wolves that he released. Under the transparent pseudonym of Jacques Delpevié de Barjac, he had published in an animal-lovers’ magazine La vie des bêtes [Life of animals] (mars, 1966: 92) an article stating that wolves probably still survived in the Causses, Cévennes and Lozère. 44 Delperrié de Bayac had warned of his action Museum professor Pierre Pfeffer, who protected the secret of his identity, as his act was then a misdemeanor. One sees through this protective reaction the sympathy that Delperrié de Bayac’s act raised amongst scientists who embraced the idea that an enrichment of natural milieus impoverished by men was necessary. Several decrees for the branding and registration of captive wolves were adopted in MayDecember 2000. But their implementation by the Environment Department was slow. It is only at the end of 2002 that authorizations locally delivered by the prefects after advice of the local veterinary authorities were added-up at the central level. 45 The figures indicated to the Spagnou commission in March 2003 were of 524 captive wolves, most of them in 46 zoos. 46 These figures are most probably lower than the real number of captive wolves. Thus in the U.S. the Humane Society estimated in the early 1990s that more than 300,000 people owned wolf hybrids (Fischer, 1995:39). In Western France two horse-riding deer hunting teams utilize wolf-dog hybrids (1/4 or 1/8 wolf). Unofficial, the practice is only known in this restricted social group. 47 While these hybridizations are not a new phenomenon, since the practice was traditional in deer hunting, they have probably been reinforced by the contemporary fascination for wolves as emblems of the ecological ideology. Mystery Cats There are many other cases of animal-release accusations in which the appearance and damage caused by a “Beast” are interpreted as an index of the existence of a feline, of a big exotic cat: puma, panther or lion. Almost all these cases remain mysterious: the animal is seen, sought after, but fades away. When official experts are called, they invariably conclude that the anomaly can be explained by the presence of a stray domestic animal (usually a dog) and by over interpretation and fears of the public. But the concerned public energetically rejects these conclusions, maintains the thesis of a wild animal (haven’t lynxes been reintroduced in France and in Switzerland?), or often asserts that it is a captive animal, voluntarily released to harm. Mystery Cats cases are also in a way animal-release stories. 12 In France there have been 20 cases from 1978 till 1989, 48 20 from 1991 till 2000. 49 The media strongly participate in the elaboration of these “flaps” or cycles of agitation around anomalies, often treated as entertainment. 50 Mystery Cats cases correspond to a keen interest for the intrusions of the wild amongst us. These are minor cases, of opinion and interpretation rather than of material facts, but that persist since over twenty years in France (Brodu & Meurger, 1984). They reuse and reinterpret traditional elements (Meurger, 1990, 1994) and often voice accusations of animal-release. The Mystery Cats phenomenon exists all over the world, and has curiously started in Great Britain (country which possesses no big wild animals roaming free) in the sixties when the Surrey Puma became a national celebrity (Brodu, 1999, Goss, 1992). In Italy, recurrent panics concerning evanescent black panthers (Carbone, 1990:187-9) –dubbed “Bagheera” by the press– entail accusations of releases from the private zoos said to be kept by powerful Mafia bosses (Sergio Dalla Bernardina, personal communication 2002). The U.S. variants--that often talk of “lions”-- have not, to my knowledge, been studied in detail, though Eliott Oring (1990) presented an interpretation. It is to be stressed that they exist there in a very different context as wild protected cougars do exist in several regions of the U.S.. The acronym ABC (Alien Big Cats), used by Forteans 51 to designate these cases, underlines the strangeness of the cat, as alien designates the foreigner but also the extraterrestrial being. Chupacabras First located in the island of Puerto Rico, panic episodes (to which fun elements have been mixed) caused by “Chupacabras” [Goat Eaters] have reached the world media at the end of 1995. 52 Describing a fantasy monster, which may be sighted or be known through its damage to livestock, the Chupacabras script mixed nationalism and fantasy, asserting that it was the giant military telescope of Arecibo, located on the island that attracted extraterrestrials, which were the true cause of damage. It presents several links with the Mystery Cats narratives. The diffusion of the Chupacabras motif has followed the Spanish linguistic community: rapidly it has reached Mexico and all the Hispanics of the U.S. (Marhic, 1998). Chupacabras, relayed by ufologists who see in them extraterrestrial creatures, still travel and are spotted in South America, especially Chili and Argentina, in 2003 (Jean-Jacques Mandel, personal communication, 2003). Like for the Mystery Cats, the motif is not new, but the media do not know this. The nightjar bird is also known as goatsucker. This designation was already found in Pliny (X: 56,1 quoted by Rolland, 1877, Vol. II: 326 and 329). Analysis Wild animals have been the pretext for a metaphoric and analogous discourse on human society. Rejection of this comparative mode of thought by scientists and ecologists creates uneasiness in the general public. In this perspective the existence of negatively perceived and tabooed animal species is a logical necessity. If to talk about animals is to talk about humans, one must be able to express evil as well as good. Negative animals are “good to think.” 53 Through the genres of conversation and of oral narrative, and also through the productions of popular culture and of children’s literature, by the means of “ostension” 54 or performance and of the elaborations of official culture (major literature and scientific knowledge) we build around wild animals (and especially around the species that stir negative emotions) collective symbolic creations that, staging their irruption, delimitate human society (Gillepsie & Mechling, 1987, Oring, 1990). “Wild” in the sense of “outlawed” may have disappeared from the socially tolerated discourse, but in 13 the jungle of modern cities, metaphors of wildness and uncontrolled animality are always used to brand rebellious or delinquent youths. For local human populations that have to cope with the disturbances caused by wolves’ presence, the return of wolves corresponds to the intrusion of city dwellers in their narrowing universe. The resistances, expressed through rumors and contradictory reactions, to the return of wild animals highlight the limits of actions inspired by an ideology when these actions disrupt local ways of life. It is well known that local resistances to change have experienced an exponential growth over the past thirty years (Jobert, 1998). Local reactions to the return of wolves in France bring to mind those reactions that were observed in Norway, after the ban on whale hunting in 1987; these reactions posed the problem in local isolated communities as an imposed renouncing of an important resource in terms of identity and the opposition of “them”/ “us,” “center”/ “periphery” at the national level. In 1992, Norway reestablished controlled whale hunting for scientific reasons, then in 1994 the commercial whale hunting (limited to species judged not endangered). These identity-based reactions, centering on an area of negligible economic weight, have probably played a role in Norway’s refusal to join the European Union in 1994. Stein Mathisen (1996) analyzed these reactions with great finesse. 55 The stakes of the manipulations of wild fauna, which possess their legitimacy, would be clearer if there was less invocation of sacred principles, less conjuring up of the loaded term of “Nature.” Can we recognize that manipulations are necessary to modify “Nature,” can we dream of the recovery of paradise lost but also understand that the environment must be managed with care. Nature, yes, but nature shaped and organized by humans, whether to cultivate it or to re-establish animal species that had previously been removed. Conclusion It seems improbable that the controlled regulations measures adopted in 2000 might bring the disappearance of wild wolves in France or Switzerland. Such measures, adopted eleven years ago for lynxes, have not stopped the progression of that species. The desertification of the rural areas will probably free up areas for the predator. However, adding to the prevalence of their contrasted image, the pack organization of wolves renders their presence difficult to tolerate in sheep farming areas. Conflicts will probably continue, but in 2003, the necessity of compromise is admitted by most of the actors. The information policy of the Environment Department is more open in 2002. 56 The attitude of the local personnel hired by the Environment Department to manage the consequences of the reappearance of predators has been important in this compromise. It re-established an equilibrium as these local personnel listened to the dismayed mountain sheep-farmers more than to the noisy but sometimes irresponsible NPAs. This evolution was gradual, and it is still an ongoing process, but the mountain sheep-farmers have now a voice, which they won’t loose. Notes 1. Such as the she-wolf nurturing Rome’s founders, the twins Romulus and Remus. 14 2. The maintenance of specialized wolf hunters the “lieutenants de louveterie,” mostly noble men, existed since the 16th century. 3. Alfred de Vigny’s famous poem “La mort du loup” [The Wolf’s Death], has been used and remembered by generations of French children. However it was presented along with La Fontaine’s “Le loup et l’agneau” [Wolf and Lamb] which depicted an insensitive and cruel predator. 4. Versus 2 for lynxes and 5 for bears (Roland, 1877. Vol. I: 40-45 [Bears], 68-69 [Lynxes], 105-159 [Wolves]). 5. The Beast is alleged to have been a sadistic killer, a Protestant settling his scores with the Catholic inhabitants of Gévaudan, a ferocious animal manipulated by an evil feudal lord (Barloy, 1985, Dubois, 1991, Louis, 1992, Ménatory, 1976). The tendency is almost a hundred years old and Dr. Puech initiated it in a 1910 presentation to Montpellier’s Medical Academy. Designating a sadistic madman as the main culprit, whose action was reinforced by hoaxers and real wolves, Puech based his thesis on the 1889 book authored by a local clergyman, abbot Pourcher, for whom the Beast was a supernatural animal sent by God to chastise humans. (Delperrié, 1970: 243). The latest well-known version is to be found in a popular film that designated as culprit a Catholic priest motivated both by sadism and a desire to instill fear into his flock (Ganz, 2001). Legendary elements built-up in the Beast’ fame from the start of the events have been studied by historians and folklorists (Le Roy Ladurie, 1975, Velay-Vallantin, 1995, Carbone, 1991. See also Carbone, 2000, where the Beast is described as “an imaginary creature” and Carbone & Le Pape, 1996). 6. Such as the pretty “wolf pianist” Hélène Grimaud (often pictured frolicking with the tame wolves she keeps in her American New York State home), the fusional “wolf-man” Werner Freund (“one of the pack” in the Merzig wolf park in Saar, Germany, sharing his raw preys with the captive animals in front of visitors) or the werewolf imagined by Fred Vargas (1999). 7. The special issue included 14 pages, in which pictures of wolves were dominant, mixing as is usual close-ups of frolicking wolves taken in captivity and pictures shot in the wild, mostly traces of footprints in snow. The two authors were members of NPAs, and one of them, Geneviève Carbone was temporarily employed by the national park of Mercantour as enthnozoologist. A lyrical editorial commented the good news and advised its readers to see in these “pioneers of animal reconquest [...] fragments of Celtic soul howling their freedom in the mountain.” (Terre Sauvage, May 2003: 19) . 8. Quotation drawn from an interview conducted on December 29, 1999 in Paris. [The author’s notes have been revised by Gilbert Simon] 9. In May 1995, a public opinion poll sponsored by the Environment Department indicated that 79 % judged this return positive. 10. “Marie-Odile Guth is director of the national park of Mercantour. When she arrived to direct the agency, a year ago, her troops offered her as a welcome gift a poster showing a wolf sitting in snow, which now occupies the place of honor in her office. She explains, “The wolf enhances protected areas.” (Le Point 3 juin 1995: 88). 11. The interdepartmental memorandum presented in March suggested a three-year plan that designated areas where the wolves were totally protected (the national park of Mercantour and the natural regional park of Queyras, as well as “a traffic corridor linking the two parks”) and areas in which “the population of wolves is controlled” (the rest of the Alps). 12. Catherine Caro and Martine Bigan, DNP, interview with the author, April 10, 2002. 13. 575 more animals died from mass falls, caused according to mountain sheep-farmers by attacks from wolves. 14. There are also 94,000 cattle, 16,000 goats, 2,100 horses and ponies. Data drawn from Bracque (1999: 23-37) and confirmed by Spagnou (2003: 79). 15 15. « Association européenne de défense du pastoralisme contre les prédateurs », Website: http://www.pastoralisme-predateurs.org/entree.html 16. The term “ecologists,” and especially its diminutive “écolos” is loosely employed in France to designate activists. Thus the famous José Bové is routinely called an écolo when he is orally discussed, and an écologiste in the media. 17. Exact title Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Alimentation, de la Pêche et des Affaires Rurales. [Department of Agriculture, Food, Fishing and Rural Affairs]. 18. Exact title Ministère de l’Ecologie et du Développement Durable. [Department of Ecology and Sustainable Development]. 19. Most of these host permanent human populations. 20. The practice of communicating through the NPAs adopted for the announcement of the wolves’ return was traditional for the Department. Thus the Conference Réintroductions et renforcements de populations animales en France [Reintroductions and re-enforcement of animal populations] held in December 6-8, 1988, was published by one of the NPAs animated by the Museum (see Beaufort, 1990). 21. Thus, the two ministers co-signed a press release praising the Spagnou report, which was strongly critical of the past attitude of the Environment Department. 22. And developed in a report established by the Agricultural Chamber of the Alpes-Maritimes Dept and titled “A so-called natural return of wolves in France” (1998). 23. Each country remaining faithful to its style: administrative decisions, not always in step, at the level of prefects and government departments in France for the Vosges Dept in 1983, releases operated without central control by local enthusiasts in Switzerland in the mid 1970s 24. “Nowadays the animals’ [wolves] image is tarnished by dogs. More precisely stray dogs, more than 50,000 in France, who kill game, poultry and livestock while wolves are accused. In six months there have been in Mercantour 60 attacks of dogs against 33 of wolves.” (Télé-loisirs March 1995:8). “In the estate of Rochasson, where we care for wounded wildlife, roebucks arrive in a pitiful state after having been attacked by stray dogs. Stray dogs are murderers.” (Statement of Jean-François Noblet [activist and fervent defender of wolves] in Grenoble mensuel, February 1993: 20). Quota- tions drawn from Bobbé, 1998: 280-1. 25. Journalist and wolf advocate, living in the region of the Gévaudan Beast, author of several books on wolves since the mid 1970s. Gérard Ménatory raised captive wolves and routinely sold them in the 1960s. He bought or received the animals from Poland, Hungary, Siberia and Canada. When the animal park of Gévaudan opened in 1971, he owned 43 wolves that were transferred there. After 1988, he directed the park, now exclusively devoted to wolves that became the biggest tourist attraction of the region. He was regularly pictured frolicking amongst the wolves, which licked him in friendship. Sources: Carbone, 1991:46 and http://www.multimania.com/eien/parc_du_gevaudan/parc_du_gevaudan.html 26. Moutou belongs to the Agence française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments [AFSSA] French Security Agency for Food Safety and asserts that Institut national de la recherche agronomique [INRA] National Institute for Research in Agronomy supports his views. 27. “The figure corresponding to the slaughter of sheep recognized as contaminated with brucellosis is of 19, 556 for the sole year 1996 […] of which 7,187 for the 6 departments of the region Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur” (Moutou, 1999: 42). 28. More polemical than realistic, it is an argument frequently found in discussions concerning social problems. Thus those who worry about the rise in violence and quote figures of the growth of crime and violent deeds are called “security obsessed,” an unflattering expression, amongst French intellectuals and ritually the weak social concern surrounding road casualties, far more numerous in France than the victims of violence is recalled. As for those that denounce the evils of addictions to illegal drugs, they are answered (often by those who assert 16 confidently that a measure of legalization would instantly solve all problems caused by drugs) by quoting the high figures of deaths linked to addictions to legal drugs such as tobacco or alcohol, etc. 29. In the U.S., the movement « Bring Back the Buffalo », led by Paul Martin, develops similar ideas, indicates Adrienne Mayor. 30. Thus baby alligators were sold to tourists in Florida already in the 1930s (Campion-Vincent, 1996a). 31. Tales of alligators in the sewers are told in most big cities of the planet. 32. These measures applied the law of protection of nature from July 10, 1976 that declared “the preservation of animal and vegetal species and the maintenance of biological equilibrium in which they participate are of general interest.” Law banned buying, selling, exhibiting or transporting protected reptiles, and destruction was however authorized for the two remaining most venomous species Vipera Aspis and Vipera Berus. 33. Protective measures had already been adopted in 1962 for negatively perceived birds of prey, such as buzzards and vultures. 34. Although its anonymous creators and disseminators are not conscious of it, this story echoes ancient legendary themes: “Mysterious showers of lizards, snakes, salamanders, crabs, shrimps, prawns and snails, rains of frogs and fishes, of all types of slimy and negative creatures raining down from the sky, are attested as dire omens in the ancient chronicles and still sporadically mentioned today” (Mitchell & Rickard, 1982: 72-81 and 89-96). There are traditional tales about the death of the young nest robber, bit by a viper coiled in the nest he came to rob, tales in which the land locked snake appears as close to the aerial birds (Solange Pinton and Yvonne Verdier, anthropologists, personal communication, 1989). This tale has a naturalist basis, since some grass snakes, more common than vipers, also live in trees and rob the eggs (Gérard Naulleau, naturalist, personal communication, 1989). One can also think of a metonymic link of contiguity between the rotating propeller blades of the helicopter and the undulating coils of the snake (François Poplin, personal communication; 2000). 35. “Dove volano le vipere. Rettili paracadutati in Valsusa?” [Where vipers are flying. Reptiles parachuted in Valsusa?]. La Stampa 13 ottobre 1989. 36. Rumors asserting that the Kentucky Wildlife Service proceed to release rattlesnakes, sometimes from helicopters, so as to control the population of wild turkeys are reported in the Kentucky Herald of January 9, 1997, leading to the disabused commentary of a spokesman “these rumors surge periodically, we do not know how or why” (Jan Harold Brunvand, personal communication January 10, 1997). 37. A wild origin was asserted in 12 cases (indigenous or from abroad) in 2 cases, the origin was undecided; in 11 cases the captive origin was judged certain, in 4 cases it was proven that there was confusion with dogs. Data detailed in Campion-Vincent, 2002: 30. 38. In 4 cases, there was hesitation on the origin, wild from abroad or captive; in 4 cased the captive origin was deemed certain. Data detailed in Campion-Vincent, 2002: 31. 39. Joel Giraud, political representative, Hearing of December 18, 2002 (Spagnou, 2003, Vol. II, 1:90). The incident was also vividly described in the local press in early July “In Ristolas, very small village located at the end of Queyras, wolves do not only haunt the children in their sleep, but also the village street. Early December, a pack of six has been seen in the early evening, walking though the wooden cabins. ‘We were sitting on the couch when I saw them leaving the fir trees, all in a single file, under the street light’ relates Stephanie Girard, a young mother born in the valley. Her sister-in-law, Valerie Labonde, confirms ‘they seemed quiet, not at all scared. We all stared by the bay window to look at them, as they were so beautiful. In a few seconds they disappeared into the dark. Right then, I only had one fear, that my son Valentin, 10, would get out of the house’” La Provence, July 6, 2003. 40. Christopher Duchamp, Biologist at ONCFS, Hearing of January 21, 2003 (Spagnou, 2003, Vol. II, 1:154) 17 41. François de Beaufort, personal communication, January 1988. This specialist of wolves attached to the National Museum of Natural History died in 1995. 42. This release of a second couple, accomplished in October 1968, was rapidly terminated, as farmers shot the marauding animals. However, they were not identified as wolves. 43. See note 25 above. 44. Mentioned in La voie du loup, 5, 2000: 12-13. 45. While the Environment Department judged the situation as controlled, the author was told in June 2002 that no figures concerning captive wolves could be indicated to her. Michel Perret [Environment Department], personal communication, June 12, 2002, Paris. 46. The wolf park of Gévaudan in two locations detained 127 wolves. 5 of the 16 individuals detaining wolves organized shows or rented animals for films (Spagnou, 2003, Vol. II, 2: 31-3). 47. A TV documentary concerning this hunting team has been shown in the series “Histoires Naturelles” on the channel TF1. (François Poplin, personal communication, 2000). 48. Data detailed in Campion-Vincent, 2002. p. 44. 49. Ibid. p.45. 50. A few examples since 1993: In 1993, a black panther is seen in St Girons (Ariège Dept) in August and September (La Montagne, 25 août 1993 ; La Dépêche du Midi, 27 Septembre 1993), and an elusive puma or lion in Béarn (Pyrénées-Atlantiques Dept) in October and November (Le Parisien, 14 Octobre 1993; L'Evénement du Jeudi, 4-10 Novembre 1993). In September 1997, a micro-surge in three days and titles follows in Hérault “An elusive lion between Agde and Béziers,” “Bessan: still no trace of the lion,” “The lioness would only be a big dog” (Midi Libre 15, 16, 17 Septembre 1997. Thanks to Michel-Louis Rouquette for these references). A long “puma” beat in the Paris region during the summer 1994 starts with “The beast haunting the Chantilly forest” on July 30, and follows in August with three titles “Desperately looking for puma” on the 12th, followed by the hypothesis suggested by the specialist from the National Museum of Natural History “And if it were only a dog?” on the 13th, before the conclusion “The true false puma has been captured” on the 15th [It was a large fawncolored sheep dog.] (France-Soir, 30 juillet 1994 ; Le Parisien, 30-31 juillet 1994; Libération, 12 août 1994; France-Soir, 13 août 1994; Le Parisien, 15 août 1994). The forest of Chizé was closed to strollers and tourists for almost two years because in October 1995 someone had seen there a puma, which never reappeared (Dumerchat, 1998). However, in 1999, a mysterious puma having been seen in the Vienne Dept in September, and October the regional press wonders: could it be the Chizé puma, reappeared two years later? (9 articles in Centre-Presse and the Nouvelle République from September 1 till October 6, 1999. Thanks to Pierre Chevrier for these references). In June and July 1999, in the Alpes de Haute Provence Dept and the Upper Var, incidents are interpreted as evidence of the acts of aggressive lynxes. In June, the incidents do not reach the media, but a file will be sent by the gendarmes to the Office National de la Chasse [National Hunting Agency] which will answer, on September 23, that elements transmitted do not permit to identify the presence of a lynx (Thanks to Daniel Reboul for this file and the press cuttings quoted below). In July, sheep-farmers herding flocks in Esclapon, Upper Var, assert they have lost more than a hundred ewes since mid-April, because of a lynx, than one of the sheep-farmers says he watched the animal sleeping in the sun (Var Matin, 10 juillet 1999). In Méailles, Alpes de Haute Provence Dept, a young woman declares she was scratched on the forearms by a lynx when she was going down in her cave around 11:45 p.m., on July 7. One month later, the president of the local hunting society declares to the journalist “he is not surprised of the presence of the lynx. He judges it quite plausible, as there are more and more coincidences. A few days ago, his children heard a beast breathe heavily hardly 50 meters away” (La Provence, 13 août 1999; Le Figaro, 17 août 1999). On July 25, 2000, the press echoes testimonies asserting the presence of two big cats in the region of Picquigny (Somme Dept) with playful titles, full of puns. France-Soir does not hesitate to publish on its cover the picture of 18 two huge tigers, but the story collapses on August 2: the verdict of the expert from the National Museum of Natural History having been final: domestic cats (« Chasse aux fauves dans les marais de la Somme » [Beast hunting in the Somme swamps] Le Parisien, 25 juillet 2000. « Amiens: avec les brigades du tigre. Safari en baie de Somme. Les Tartarins du dimanche » [Amiens: with the tiger brigades. Safari in the Somme bay. Sunday hunters] France-Soir, 25 juillet 2000. « Dans la Somme, la chasse aux fauves est ouverte » [Beast hunt in the Somme] Libération, 25 juillet 2000. « Des pumas, en Somme » [Maybe pumas] (it was erroneously said that the expert had talked of young pumas or exotic cats) Libération, 27 juillet 2000. « Chat tigré » [Striped cat] AFP, 2 août 2000). 51. They refer to Charles Fort (1874-1932), an eccentric who collected anomalies and has disciples today. See http://www.forteana.org/ 52. “Goat Sucker in Porto Rico” “Chupacabras Mania Spreads” “First Goats, Now Drunks” “Chupacabra in California: A Warning in the Press” Foaftale News 38 December 1995: 14; 39 June 1996: 2-3; 4041 December 1996: 9, 20-1. 53. This remark does not defend cruel practices towards some animals. 54. “Behavior imitating the pattern of a rumor or of a legend, whether or not they are believed to be true” (Renard, 1999: 125). 55. His papers’ title “Real Barbarians Eat Whales” alludes to a surprising phenomenon: the consumption of whale meat (judged suitable only for fox farms in the 1930s) had become fashionable in Norway, including in the best restaurants of Oslo, during the years of debate on the subject (1992-1994). 56. The bulletin L’Infoloup [Wolves Info] and the online site of the Life Loup program http://www.loup.environnement.gouv.fr, publish a few articles emanating from sheep-farmers. References Barloy, Jean-Jacques 1985:Les survivants de l’ombre. Enquête sur les animaux mystérieux [Survivors of the Shadows. Inquiries on Mystery Animals]. Paris: Arthaud. Beaufort, François de. 1987: Le loup en France: éléments d'écologie historique [The Wolf in France. Elements of Historical Ecology]. Paris: Société française pour l'étude et la protection des mammifères. 1990: “La réintroduction du loup en France” [The Reintroduction of the Wolf in France] In Réintroductions et renforcements de populations animales en France. Compte-rendu du Colloque de Saint Jean du Gard 6-8 décembre 1988, dirs J. Lecomte, M. Bigan, V. Barre. pp. 189-195. Paris: [Supplément 5 à la Revue d’écologie]. 1992 : “Histoire et zoologie du loup en France. Le loup, le chien et l’homme” [History and Zoology of the Wolf in France: Wolf, Dog and Man] In Le loup. Exposition Musée 19 International de la Chasse 7 juin– 25 octobre 1992: 16-23. Gien: Musée International de la Chasse. Bettelheim, Bruno 1976: The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales. New York: Knopf. Bobbé, Sophie 1998: Du folklore à la science. Analyse anthropologique des représentations de l'ours et du loup dans l'imaginaire occidental [From Folklore to Science : An Anthropological Analysis of the Representations of the Bear and of the Wolf in Western Imaginary]. Paris: EHESS,Thèse de Doctorat. 1999: “Entre domestique et sauvage, le cas du chien errant. Une liminalité bien dérangeante” [Between Domestic and Wild: The Stray Dog. A Disturbing Liminal case], Ruralia. Vol. 5. pp. 119-133. Bracque, Pierre 1999: Rapport de mission interministérielle sur la cohabitation entre l’élevage et le loup [Interdepartmental Report on the Cohabitation Between Animal Farming and the Wolf]. Paris: ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche, Inspection Générale de l’Agriculture, Février. Brodu, Jean-Louis 1999 : “Fauves et usage de fauves [Beast and Uses of Beasts],” La Mandragore. Revue des littératures orales. Vol. 5. pp. 91-107. Brodu, Jean-Louis and Meurger, Michel 1984: Les félins-mystère. Sur les traces d'un mythe moderne [Mystery Cats: On the Tracks of a Modern Myth]. Paris: Pogonip. Campion-Vincent, Véronique 1990a: “Viper-Release Stories: a Contemporary French Legend” In A Nest of Vipers: Perspectives on Contemporary Legend. Vol. V. Eds. Gillian Bennett & Paul Smith. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. pp. 11-40. 1990b: “Contemporary Legends about Animal-Releases in Rural France,” Fabula. Vol. 31.pp. 242-253. 1992 : “Appearances of Beasts and Mystery Cats in France,” Folklore. Vol. 103:2. pp.160183. 1996a : “Caimanes en las Alcantarillas de Nueva York” [Alligators in the Sewers of New York], Enigmas. VI. II. pp. 78-86. 1996b : “Le retour du lynx ” [Return of the Lynx], Anthropozoologica. Vol. 23. pp. 3-12. 2002 : “Les réactions au retour du loup en France. Une analyse tentant de prendre ‘les rumeurs’ au sérieux ” [Reactions to the Return of the Wolf in France : An Analysis Trying to Take ‘Rrumors’ Seriously],” Le Monde Alpin et Rhodanien. Vol. 1-3. pp. 11-52. Campion-Vincent, Véronique and Renard, Jean-Bruno : 1992 : Légendes urbaines. Rumeurs d’aujourd’hui [Urban Legends. Rumors of Today]. Paris: Payot. [Sections: “Alligators” (1727), “Félins-mystères” [Mystery-Cats] (154-160), “Serpent de grand magasin” [Department Store Snakes] (280-287), “ Vipères” [Vipers] (315-322)]. Carbone, Maria Teresa 1990 : 99 leggende urbane. Milano: Mondadori. Carbone, Geneviève 1991 : La peur du loup [The Fear of Wolves]. Paris: Gallimard. 2000 : “La bête du Gévaudan” [The Gevaudan Beast], Sciences et Avenir. Vol. 123, juilletaoût. pp. 16-21. 20 Carbone, Geneviève and Le Pape, Gilles 1996: L’ABC daire du loup. [An ABC of the Wolf] Paris: Flammarion [L’ABC daire, série Sciences et Nature]. Chevallier, Daniel 1999: De l’incompatibilité du loup et du maintien d’un pastoralisme durable [On the Incompatibility of the Wolf and of the Maintenance of a Perennial Pastoralism]. Paris: Assemblée nationale. [Rapport n°1875], Octobre. Delort, Robert 1984: Les animaux ont une histoire. [Animals Have a History] Paris: Seuil. Delperrié de Bayac, Jacques 1970 : Du sang dans la montagne: vrais et faux mystères de la Bête du Gévaudan [Blood in the Mountain: True and False Mysteries of the Gevaudan Beast]. Paris: Fayard. Dobremez, Jean-François 1996: Rapport à Madame le ministre de l’Environnement sur une mission d’inspection et de médiation sur le loup [Report to the Minister of the Environment Concerning an Inquiry and Mediation Mission on Wolves]. Paris: Novembre. Douglas, Mary 1995: “Red Riding Hood: An Interpretation from Anthropology,” Folklore. Vol. 106. pp. 1-7. Dubois, R.F. 1991: Traité de biosociologie: abrégé. 1. Vivre avec l'homme 2. Vivre avec le loup. [Abridged Treaty of Biosociology. 1. Living with Man 2. Living with Wolf]. Dumerchat, Frédéric 1998: “Vois-tu ce que je vois ? Le puma de la forêt de Chizé ! [Do You See What I Se? The Puma of the Chizé Forest!].” La Mandragore. Revue des littératures orales. Vol. 2. pp. 83-94. Fischer Hank 1995: Wolf Wars. The Remarkable Inside Story of the Restoration of Wolves to Yellowstone. Helena, MT: Falcon Press. Ganz, Christophe 2001: Le pacte des loups [The Brotherhood of the Wolf].France: Movie (142 mins). Gillepsie Angus K. and Mechling Jay 1987: “Introduction” In American Wildlife in Symbol and Story. Eds. A.K. Gillepsie and J. Mechling. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press. pp. 1-14. Goss, Michael 1992: “Alien Big Cat Sighting in Britain,” Folklore. Vol. 103. pp. 184-202. Greisalmer, Laurent 1994: “Le retour d’un historien oublié [The Return of a Forgotten Historian],” Le Monde.12-13 juin 1994. Jobert, Arthur 1998 : “L’aménagement en politique ou ce que le syndrome NIMBY nous dit de l’intérêt général [Management in Politics, or what the NIMBY Syndrome Tells us About the General Interest],” Politix. Vol. 42. pp. 67-92. Kempf, Christian 1987: Le retour des seigneurs de nos forêts d’Europe [Return of the Lords of Our Europe Forests]. Paris: Sang de la Terre. Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel 1975: “De la crise ultime à la vraie croissance (1600-1789)” [From Ultimate Crisis to Real Growth] In Histoire de la France rurale. Tome 2 L'âge classique des paysans, dir. E. Le Roy Ladurie. pp. 359-590. Paris: Seuil. Louis, Michel 1992 : La bête du Gévaudan. L'innocence des loups. [The Gevaudan Beast: Wolves are Innocent]. Paris: Perrin. [Reprinted in 1997, 2000]. 21 Marhic Renaud 1998: “Chupacabras Park. Chupacabras: que valent les témoignages? [Chupacabras Park. Chupacabras : What is the Value of Testimonies?],” Phénomèna. La revue des phénomènes OVN. Vol.I38. pp. 24-31. Marsan, A.1994: “Indicatori di presenza del lupo sul territorio ed areale di diffusione della specie in Liguria [Indicators of Presence of the Wolf on the Territory and area of Diffusion of the Species in Liguria]” In Appunti dal corso regionale di aggiornamento per veterinari su lo riconoscimento dei danni da predazione da canidi provocati al patrimonio zootecnico Regione Liguria: Servizio veterinario. pp. 54-66. Mathisen, Stein 1996: “Real Barbarians Eat Whales: Norwegian Identity and the Whaling Issue” In Making Europe in Nordic Contexts.Ed. P.J. Antonen. Turku: Nordic Institute of Folklore. pp. 105-135. Ménatory, Gérard 1976: La bête du Gévaudan: histoire, légende, réalité [The Gevaudan Beast: History, Legend, Reality]. Mende: Chaptal. Meurger, Michel 1990 : “Les félins exotiques dans le légendaire français [Exotic felines in French legends],” Communications. Vol. 52. pp. 175-196. 1994. “The Leopards of the Great Turk” In Fortean Studies. Vol.1. Ed. S. Moore. London: John Brown Publishing. pp.198-209. Mitchell, John and Rickard, Bob 1982: Living Wonders. Mysteries and Curiosities of the Animal World. London: Thames and Hudson. Moutou, François 1999: “Le retour du loup en France: les enjeux [The Return of the Wolf in France : The Stakes]” In Animaux perdus, animaux retrouvés. Réapparition ou réintroduction en Europe occidentale d’espèces disparues de leur milieu d’origine. Journée d’étude Université de Liège, 21 mars 1998. Ed. Liliane Bodson. Liège: Université de Liège [Colloques d’histoire des connaissances zoologiques 10]. pp. 40-50. Oring, Elliott 1990: “Legend, Truth and News,” Southern Folklore. Vol. 47. pp. 163-177. Paccalet, Yves 1993 : “Au bonheur du gaulois [Hapiness of the Gaulois],” Terre Sauvage Vol.73. p. 19. Renard, Jean-Bruno 1999 : Rumeurs et légendes urbaines [Rumors and Urban Legends]. Paris: PUF. Rolland, Eugene 1877 : Faune populaire de la France. Noms vulgaires, dictons, proverbes, légendes, contes et superstitions [French Popular Fauna: Vernacular Names, Sayings, Proverbs, Legends, Tales and Superstitions]. Vols.I-XII.Paris: Maisonneuve and Larose. [Reprint 1967]. Spagnou, Daniel 2003: Prédateurs et pastoralisme de montagne: priorité à l’Homme. Tome I: Rapport, Tomes II, vols 1 & 2: Auditions [Predators and Mountain Pastoralism: Humans First. Vol. I: Report. Vol. II. 1 & 2 Hearings]. Paris: Assemblée Nationale [Rapport n°825], mai. Vargas, Fred 1999: L’homme à l’envers. [Inside Out Man] Paris: Viviane Hamy [Chemins nocturnes]. Verdier, Yvonne 1980: “Le Petit Chaperon rouge dans la tradition orale,” [Little Red Ridig Hood in Oral Tradition], Le Débat. Vol. 3. pp. 31-56. 22 Velay-Vallantin, Catherine 1995: “Entre fiction et réalité. Le Petit Chaperon rouge et la Bête du Gévaudan” [Between Fiction and Reality : Little Red Riding Hood and the Gevaudan Beast], Gradhiva. Vol. 17. pp. 111-126. Wick, Pascal 1998: Le chien de protection sur troupeau ovin [The Protection Dog in an Ovine Flock]. Blois: ARTUS Appendix: Wolf in Folklore Little Red Riding Hood: 1 “It was a woman who had made bread. She told her daughter `go and take a small loaf still warm and a milk bottle to Grand Ma.’ The little girl left. At the crossroad of two trails, she found the bzou [appellation close both to loup the wolf and brou werewolf] who told her: ` Where are you going?’ `I take a small loaf still warm and a milk bottle to Grand Ma.’ `Which way do you take,’ said the bzou, the way of Needles or the way of Pins?’ `The way of Needles, said the little girl.’ `Well, I’ll take the way of Pins.’ The little girl had fun picking up needles [pine needles], and the bzou arrived at the Grand Ma’s place, killed her, put meat in the arche [bread bin] and a bottle of blood on the bassie [sink]. The little girl arrived and knocked at the door. ` Push the door,’ said the bzou. `It is halted by some wet straw.’ `Hello Grand Ma, I am bringing to you a small loaf still warm and a milk bottle.’ `Put them in the arche, my child. Take some of the meat that’s there, and the bottle of blood that is on the bassie.’ While she was eating, there was a little cat that said: `Stink! Slut! … that eats the flesh and drinks the blood of her Grand Ma.’ `Undress,’ said the bzou, and come into bed with me.’ `Where will I put my apron?’ ` Throw it in the fire, child, you no longer need it.’ And for all her clothes, the corset, the dress, the petticoat, the shoes, she asked him where to put them. And the wolf answered `Throw it in the fire, child, you no longer need it.’ When she was in bed, the little girl said: `Oh Grand Ma, how hairy you are!’ `All the better to keep me warm, my child!’ ` Oh Grand Ma, what big nails you have!’ `All the better to scratch me with, my child!’ ` Oh Grand Ma, what big shoulders you have!’ `All the better to carry my firewood bundle with, my child!’ `Oh Grand Ma, those big ears you have!’ `All the better to hear you with, my child!’ `Oh Grand Ma, those big nostrils you have!’ ‘All the better to take snuff, my child!’ ` Oh Grand Ma, this big mouth you have!’ ‘All the better to eat you, my child!’ `Oh Grand Ma, how much I need to go out!’ ` You do it in bed, my child!’ `Oh no, Grand Ma, I want to go outside.’ `All right, but not for long.’ The bzou attached a woollen thread to her foot and let her go. When the little girl was outside, she attached the thread to a plumb-tree in the courtyard. The bzou was getting impatient and said: `are you shitting ropes? Are you shitting ropes?’ When he realized there was no answer, he threw himself down from the bed and discovered the little girl had run away. He pursued her, but when he arrived at her house she was just inside.” [”Tale of the Grand Ma” told around 1885 by Louis and François Riffaut, from Montigny aux Amognes. (Nièvre County). SeeYvonne Verdier 1980 “Le petit chaperon rouge dans la tradition orale” Le Débat. 3. pp. 31-56. See also Mary Douglas 1995 “Red Riding Hood: An Interpretation from Anthropology,” Folklore. Vol. 106. pp. 1-7. A peasant version collected in 1885. Paul Delarue 1957 “Conte type 333 Le petit chaperon rouge” in Le conte populaire français. Catalogue raisonné Tome 1. Paris: Editions Erasme. pp.373383]. Comment This oral version, very different from the Perrault’s version, which was based on Grimm’s source, is the most widespread version in France. It is mostly found in the Northern French Alps, and also in Northern Italy and Tyrol. Perrault’s version presents the little girl’s red hood, missing here, and has suppressed the shocking cannibalistic meal. The text presented above ends happily, but several texts of 23 this oral version end tragically after the reply “All the better to eat you, my child!” like in Perrault’s version. Late French Anthropologist Yvonne Verdier has presented an interesting interpretation of this tale, showing its link to the life cycle of women in the villages. Her analysis is presented and discussed by Mary Douglas. [See references above]. Musician in the Trap: 2 “Iwan Thomas was blower but that happened quite a while ago, there may be old ones still alive who remember this clarinet blower. It was when there were wolves. So one day, he was to go to a wedding and then you had first to go and get the bridegroom, then the bride, take them to the parish and arrive at the parish before noon, around eleven. So Iwan had left his home before daybreak and instead of going round the long way, he took the short cut through the Kloodevenn forest. And Iwan knew the trails well but because it was night he has arrived in front of two trails. So he chose one. But back then to catch wolves on made holes in the forest, on which one put a wooden plank covered with leaves or herbs, whatever was at hand. And Iwan was walking, unsuspecting anything, suddenly he arrived above the whole and fell to the bottom. And within the hole what was there? His mate, the wolf. Ah yes, a black wolf, as they say. Well, fallen into the hole, the wolf wanted to eat him up, and Iwan did not have time to think of what to do: he took his clarinet and started to play it, to play it. He blew so loud that it entered into the wolf’s ears and he [the wolf] started to jump, so high that it seemed he was dancing a Fisel or a Plinn and he was fully at it, and Iwan did not stop blowing, blowing …When he stopped, right away the wolf wanted to jump at him; he had to … He played on, all sorts of music, all sorts of dancing tunes, he also played other tunes, march tunes, all sorts. In the end, the time had come when people were going to get up in the Kloodevenn forest and they had heard a blower in the woods. So they had stared to say: Oh, Iwan is going to a wedding. All right. But then they always heard him playing in the same spot. What, did they say, wouldn’t he, by chance, have fallen into the wolf trap? Ah, said they to each other, it might be better to go and see, and take what is needed to pull him out of there. They took a ladder and other stuff to go fetch Iwan. And when they arrived in the trail, they found Iwan who was blowing like mad and he could not stop because then the wolf threatened to jump at him. So they set the ladder. And Iwan approached it. But the wolf was still ready to jump at him and he had to go backwards towards the ladder and go up backwards, still playing until he had arrived high enough. And once he was out, the ladder was pulled up and the wolf killed. It was the region’s last wolf. Since then no other was seen.” [‘The wolf and the Musician” [Le loup et le musicien]. Told in 2000 by M. Marcel Le Guilloux in Lannrivain, Brittany]. See Daniel Bernard 2002, “Charmeurs et meneurs de loup, d’hier à aujourd’hui [Charmers and Masters of Wolves from Yesterday to Today]” in Le Monde Alpin et Rhodanien: Le fait du loup. Vol. 1.3. pp. 163-178. [Special Issue]. Round Bread Loaf: 3 “There’s one who told once that he came one day to a wedding, to a dance in Aveyron County. He had no vehicle, he walked with his bagpipe and to pay him when he was returning, they had given him a round bread loaf. And he was happy to carry that round bread loaf. And, when he was in the mountains, suddenly a wolf was following him and so what! He didn’t want to let himself be eaten up by the wolf! And, each time he threw at the wolf a little piece of bread, and he was getting closer to the village of course, but still far from it. Finally he was still quite far when there was no more round bread loaf left, it was finished. And he tells to himself: ‘Before you eat me, I’ll make you dance’ and he catches his bagpipe, it was a little full of air and started the bagpipe to play. And when the wolf heard the tune, off he ran. Then the man says: ‘Ah, had I but known this trick, you wouldn’t have eaten my round bread loaf!’ Yes! He was carrying the round bread loaf to give it to eat to his children, as times were harsh then-- not as it is today. There it is! Poor man, he didn’t get his round bread loaf, well his life was saved. 24 And by God, the wolf ate the round bread loaf and did not eat the man. But him [the man], he greatly regretted his round bread loaf, greatly regretted it, yes!” [“The Musician Followed By the Wolf“ [Le musicien suivi par le loup]. Told in 1964 by Ms Noémie Aygalenc at La Trinitat, Cantal County, in Occitan dialect. Tape-recorded and translated into French by MLT. See Marie-Louise Tenèze 1968, “Quatre récits du loup [Four Wolf Tales]” in Sonderdruck aus Volksüberlieferung: Festschrift für Kurt Ranke. Göttingen: Verlag Otto Schwartz & Co. pp.351-367]. Comment This tale was collected as part of a multidisciplinary research program on rural life in Aubrac, a mountainous region of Central France, at the borders of the three counties of Aveyron, Cantal and Lozère and close to Gévaudan, famous for harsh winters. MLT decided to include in her research– her main subject was folktales-- the memories concerning wolves, which, she found out with surprisingly, were numerous. MLT explains “Having started on the trail of ‘real wolf’’ stories, it was amongst these memories, always presented as true and authentic, that I found a small ensemble of ‘wolf tales’ which I would have missed if I had only searched for ‘folktales’”(pp. 352). The tales (of) at texts (2) 3 and (3) 4 belong to the subcategory ‘Man and Wild Animals’ of the Aarne & Thompson classification (150 to 182), and are especially close to 160A “The Travellers and the Animals in the Wolf’s Hole” and 168 “The Musician in the Wolf Trap.” MLT collected a variant of text 2 in which it’s a tailor who is thrown into the wolf trap and saves himself by frenetically clacking his tailoring scissors, which scares the wolf. [See references above]. Wolf in Asia 4 “Back on the field. This time alone and on foot. Binoculars in hand, I walk towards the setting sun, my watch indicates 16:08. After an hour’s wandering in the volcanic depressions of Banni, I am lucky a second time in the day. Wolves! The arid and hilly environment becomes a theatre of the wild. My mood changes and I become a sleuth, fever rises! A pack of five wolves has appeared, trotting hardly a hundred meters away before they slide downwards in a bushy green gorge. I’ll try to walk past them; they don’t seem to have spotted me, not yet… My dream is becoming fact. Wild wolves in their habitat! No artifice, no vehicle, no guide, not the shadow of an obstacle between the animal and me. I follow the top, and hid behind rocks and bushes. I climbed till the bushy pass where I stopped for a while. Pleasure and instinct of the track, hunting for visions without gun, without the aim punishment, and mostly without disturbing the animals that do not suspect my presence. My aim: the encounter! They are very close. I feel the presence of these intelligent animals a few meters away. Tense atmosphere, utmost excitation. Again I reach unprotected land, climbing the rocky slopes of a new hill. Out of breath, I arrive at the top, dominating the desert in the soft twilight. Nothing! Or rather… nobody. I have lost them, they have won again … Discouraged, I start on the way back before nightfall, but where is the way? Suddenly, I feel a strange sensation: the impression of being watched. I turn back and there, on the top of the facing hill, about thirty meters away, a majestic wolf sits in state. Our looks cross, magic moment. The world dissolves. I am like a salt statue but take the risk to make the beast run away by setting my binoculars in front of my eyes. The wolf is still there, immobile, his look steady. Total ecstasy! The animal’s piercing look hypnotizes me. No fear, no feeling of alarm, on the contrary, I send him a message of hope through the binoculars’ magnifiers: `I would like to be one of yours, Canis lupus, adopt me within your pack.’ Proud amongst the great predators, this wolf of some twenty kilograms challenges me, and seems to say `This is my home and realm, leave my territory, foreigner!’ Strong presence of a wild, free, powerful and cunning mind. I get tired. This time again, at the game of crossing looks, it’s the wolf that wins. To regain breath, I lower my arms. One tenth of a second to check the binoculars’ aging leather strap. Look lowered in a flash, one gesture too many. The wolf has disappeared! It reappears a little further, on the point of descending the slope, but marks a stop. I set the binoculars. The big dog raises a paw and starts pissing while staring at me. Last goodbye sign of Mister Lupus, lord of the Rann of Kutchh and the 25 curtain falls shining with stars. Night, divine, has swallowed the wolf in a silence that leaves me amazed. I gather conscience, and lost on the shell of an unknown world and get swallowed too, trying hopefully to hear in the moonlight dawn a howling.” [Location: village of Fulaï Tchari, in Banni at the limit of Sindh (Pakistan) and Kutchh (India). After an unsuccessful pursuit of a pack of six wolves on his bike with an assistant, BD tries again]. See Bruno Delaroche 2001, “Carnet de route. Quelque part en Inde: les loups! [Road Log: Somewhere in India: Wolves!]” La Gazette des grands prédateurs. Le magazine du loup, de l’ours et du lynx. 1, Septembre. pp. 17-19. * --------------------------*The translations are by the author. I am grateful to Alice Joisten, who sent the texts 1, 2 and 3 and helped in the translation of the dialect terms in text 2; to Jacques Baillon who authorized the reproduction of text 4. 