The Ukrainian media stirs up anti-wolf hysteria. To who’s benefit? | Киевский эколого-культурный центр

The Ukrainian media stirs up anti-wolf hysteria. To who’s benefit?

The Ukrainian media stirs up anti-wolf hysteria. To who’s benefit?
V. Boreiko and I. Parnikoza of the Kiev Ecological-Cultural Centre, A. Burkovsky of the Donets branch of the All-Ukrainian Ecological League
Translated by Hannah Clifford

At the end of December 2012, the authors of this article carried out a systematic content analysis of Ukrainian articles available online which spread ignorant, anti-ecological information about wolves. We found 383 explicitly anti-wolf documents across Ukraine (newspapers, online publications, television) in 2012.

The Donetsk Oblast occupied first place with 120 articles, the Crimea was second place with 100 articles, and Zakarpattia Oblast ranked third with 40 articles. 30 articles were published in Zaporizhia Oblast, 20 in Odessa, 15 in Kiev, and 10 in the Zhytomyr, Mikolaev and Volyn Oblasts. 5 articles were published in the Lviv, Chernihiv and Kharkiv Oblasts. 2-3 articles were published in the Ivano-Frankivsk, Ternopil, Luhansk, Cherkasy, Kirovohrad, Chernivtsi, Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv Oblasts. We did not find any online anti-wolf articles by journalists in the Rivne, Vinnytsia, Khmelnytskyi, Sumy or Poltava Oblasts. The situation was the same in the other Oblasts. In the Donetsk Oblast in 2012, for example, the Novoazovsk Raion took first place. And the information source was just one hunter.
In the majority of cases, the authors or sources of anti-wolf articles were hunters and foresters. Journalists did not publish the opinions of wolf defenders, such as scientists, zoologists, environmentalists and animal rights activists. This breeches the most important principle in the ethics of journalism: presenting both sides of an argument.
The wolves which feature in the articles we studied are represented as evil demons who terrorise everything around them, cause enormous damage to wild, farm and domestic animals, attack people and trapping them and their dogs in villages, bite off car bumpers and terrorise people in the centres of Yalta and Mariupol. These evil beasts swept across Ukraine from Chechnya, Poland and Chernobyl, every one of them a bloodthirsty, rabid mutant. Heroic hunters wage irreconcilable war on wolves, though clearly they cannot do enough. They need helicopters to fight wolves and permits to kill them in nature reserves and national parks.
The media often acts as provocateur by not only publishing unverified and frankly delusional information about wolves, but planting terror, biological xenophobia and cruelty and violence against animals in people’s minds.
We discovered similar hysteria, though on a smaller scale, against other animals: stray dogs, moles, snakes, beavers, bats, wild boar, foxes, jackals, spiders, grey crows, rooks and cormorants.
Hysteria is either a policy or a disease. Disease must be cured, and politicians reprimanded.

The mechanism behind anti-wolf hysteria in the media
Any article can be moulded into anti-wolf scoop. An event which has nothing to do with wolves can become a news opportunity for one or even a series of anti-wolf publications. For example, a rabid stray dog attack on a man or the plainly false report of a wolf-werewolf that goes around biting bumpers off cars. These facts are nearly never verified, and yet media immediately snatches them up. Sometimes hunters or foresters are the provocateurs, telling colourful tales about an incident with wolves with no mention of fact. Sometimes there are real cases of wolf attacks on farm animals. But even then, journalists limit themselves to sensationalism and completely fail to raise further questions. Why is there no real practice of compensation for the damage caused by wolves in Ukraine, like in Poland? Why are no steps taken to protect farm animals from wolves in Ukraine, like in Poland? And why are wild animals not vaccinated against rabies in Ukraine, like the rest of Europe?
Instead, journalists relish the bloodthirsty details of wolf attacks, be them real or imaginary, in any way they can.
The lack of feedback from the defenders of wolves (environmentalists, zoologists, ecologists and animal rights advocates) is all that is needed to stir anti-wolf hysteria in the media. Of the 383 online Ukrainian anti-wolf articles we examined, only 5 publications featured the opposite point of view. Moreover, the Ukrainian media does not write entirely factually about the wolf’s presence in Ukraine, although this is to be expected. No one writes about the fact that wolves actually contribute to the fight against rabies, improve the condition of wild hoofed mammals, act as ‘caretakers’ of the forest, or that they are indicators of the health of an ecosystem.
When the repopulation of wolves in the region becomes a newsworthy event, like in the Crimea, hunters and foresters naturally experience the mass of negative emotions stirred by the media. Some journalists specifically use ‘sales training’ (like in Mikolaev or Mariupol) to exploit the anti-wolf theme. They basically rewrite each other’s online anti-wolf articles by changing the titles, adding new hot facts and adding their own names. As a result, the number of online anti-wolf publications snowballs.
Anti-wolf hysteria then filters through to specialised websites. For example, the websites of the Green Party of Ukraine, Ukrainian Forestry and the Russian hunting organisation the Fund of St Tryphon, which even created the heading ‘Wolves: slaughter and war have only just begun’.
Internet news generates a new wave of anti-wolf hysteria: television ‘news tribes’, such as the channels 1+, STB, ICTV, Channel 24 and many regional television channels, all play a part in the defamation of wolves. False newspaper reports, which are multiplied and repeated many times by various forms of media, gain an air of proven fact which is believed not only illiterate housewives, but even those working for state conservation bodies, reserves and national parks, and some zoologists. The country is shocked by recurrent hysteria, such as reports on the world ending in December 2012 or the dreaded chupacabra. At the same time, there is a complete lack of emphasis on the use of zinc phosphide as a pesticide in Ukraine, which kills many more domestic and farm animals (30 proven cases per year) than wolves every year.

Who plays the ‘wolf card’?
There is a folk saying which says ‘all lay loads on the willing horse’. In the context of wolves, they are being used as scapegoats by specific professional groups:
1. Most of all by hunters and foresters. Using a torrent of outright lies and empty rhetoric about wolves, they aim to justify their destruction of wolves (their competitors) and organise legal hunting in places where hunting in prohibited (reserves, national parks and reservations). They also want to hunt outside the hunting season. To this end, they encourage a situation of fear, despondency and tension.
2. Journalists, especially members of the gutter press, are also interested in ‘sensational’ publications based on fear. Such publications are immediately ‘top rated’, meaning financial reward for journalists. And, of course, journalists realise that wolves provide a safer topic than the corruption of the authorities or gangs.
3. Poachers. Poachers want to make out that wolves are the main culprits behind the lack of game in the forests. Anti-wolf stories in the media mean that Ukraine’s fight against poaching has shifted to a fight against wolves.
4. Local authorities. Anti-wolf hysteria means that local officials can either justify hunting wolves and other animals from helicopters, like in Donetsk Oblast, or blame reserves and national parks they don’t like for wolf attacks (which are allegedly ‘wolf reserves’).
5. Farmers wanting to claim insurance for alleged wolf attacks on the farm animals whose meat goes to market and to make a double sale for this meat.

Adding fuel to the fire in Mikolaev Oblast
The city of Mikolaev has an information portal called Crime. NO. It’s possible that the journalists behind this publication have completely exhausted local crime in Mikolaev, have nothing else to write about and therefore decided to include wolves among their list of villains.
We discovered that on 9 November 2012 an email was sent from the residents of Pokrovka, which is located in Kinburn Foreland, reporting that earlier that day wolves had allegedly attacked a dog, leaving only the skeleton. Journalists did not visit the site, nor verify the information, nor find out if it was in fact a dog, nor consult specialists. Without hesitation, they published the information under the heading ‘Pack of wolves tear dog to pieces in Kinburn: people fear the beasts will turn on them next’. Wolves do not consume entire prey, and they never leave just a skeleton. This information can immediately, therefore, be called into question. Moreover, we discovered that the source worked in the Soviet village of Pokrovka, which resents the national park recently opened there. We can therefore assume that this was pure provocation. The next day, the 10 November, Crime. NO continued the anti-wolf theme by publishing the report ‘In the Beloberezhe Svyatoslav National Park, decision made as to what to do with wolves hounding the inhabitants of Kinburn’. The director of the national park Yu. Kozlovsky, spooked by this common journalistic ploy, declared that the park was considering the possibility of shooting wolves within its territory. Crime. NO, however, wouldn’t give up that easily. On 5 December 2012 they published an interview with head forester in Mikolaev P. Palamaryuk about the fact that the ‘these grey predators’ frequent (?) attacks on domestic animals has forced the authorities to take drastic measures’. That is, they have already formed brigades to shoot wolves in the national park, and that the park has already agreed. Furthermore, Palamaryuk stated that wolves in Kinburn Foreland do not live there all the time, but visit from Kherson Oblast.
Yet again, this information does not reflect the facts. Aсcording to the director of the Kinburn Foreland regional park A. I. Petrovich, who has worked in the Foreland for over 30 years, between 4-9 wolves have been living here each year since 1989. Very few were living there in December 2012, as foresters have confirmed – just one family consisting of two adults and four young. Yu. I. Kozlovsky, director of the national park, reported that he did not agree for foresters to shoot wolves in the park. Nevertheless, the Crime. NO journalists went ahead and published it without having verified the information.
In addition to the website mentioned above, journalist E. Goryacheva and the television channel ICTV caught onto the Kinburn wolf terror, basically reproducing unverified facts from the Crime. NO publications in their broadcasts.
When we contacted the Public Administration of Ecology in Mikolaev Oblast, which permits the shooting of wolves in the territories under the nature reserve fund, the question of shooting wolves in Kinburn had already been considered (solely on the basis of the unverified information published by Crime. NO and other journalists about the alleged wolf attack on the dog in the village of Pokrovka). And only after intervention from animal rights activists in Mikolaev and the Kiev Ecological-Cultural Centre was the question of shooting wolves in Kinburn finally put to rest.

A survey of Ukrainian anti-wolf articles from 2007-2012
The stupidity and ignorance of anti-wolf publications in the media never ceases to amaze. On 4 August 2012 in a reference to Interfax, Lenta.ru published the article ‘Wolves bite off cow’s tails in Ukrainian countryside’. ‘In a village of Ukraine’s Ivankovo Chernihiv Oblast, a wolf hunt has begun… the beasts entered Ivankovo not far from the village soon after a nature park was opened … These intruders have not actually killed a member of the herd, but they attack their snouts and bite their tails off. Veterinary surgeons are working on the front line’, reported an Ivankovo resident. A source at the agency also reported that wolves once drove two young local herdsmen up a tree. The villager stressed that ‘two of the herdsmen’s dogs followed them up the tree’.
Similar rubbish was published on 24 August 2012 by journalist Dmitry Deriy by Komsomolskaya Pravda Ukraine in the report ‘Casualties result from wild wolf attack in capital’. The author writes of how wolves have started attacking cars near the town of Slavutich in Kiev Oblast, and that ‘one beast bit off part of the bumper and license plate right in the middle of the road’. The following day, this information appeared on a website under the heading ‘Werewolf attacks people in Kiev Oblast. Four in intensive care’. The situation had already acquired some new ‘facts’. It turned out this wolf was a werewolf; hunters arranged a roundup and it was shot when crossing in front of their car.
The television channel ICTV, a leader among the main Ukrainian channels for stirring up anti-wolf hysteria, made reference to Interfax-Ukraine in its report on 5 March 2012 ‘Polish wolves invade Volyn’. It is curious indeed that this anti-wolf information was published by the press office of Ukraine’s Ministry of Ecology. It would interesting to know how ministerial officials distinguish between Polish from Ukrainian wolves – the Polish wolves must have had ‘Made in Poland’ written on them?
On 19 April 2012, the respected website Ukrainian Forester published Bogdan Figol’s article ‘The wolves are coming’ from the on-line newspaper Zakhоd-Post. The article is, of course, dedicated to the fight against the ‘wolf threat’. The author refers to a certain Vasily Dutchenko, who has been trapping wolves for over 20 years, to give an example of success. He has trapped and killed 50 wolves. The use of a snare to capture wild animals is forbidden by Article 20 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On hunting economy and shooting’. Ukrainian Forester, which considers itself environmentalist, therefore not only contributes to anti-wolf hysteria but actually advocates poaching.
On 4 October 2012, World Animal Day, various news agencies in Ukraine published the sensational story that the number of wolves in Ukraine has quadrupled during the last 10 years. This was subsequently printed in a number of newspapers. The author behind this ‘sensation’ was Chief Specialist for the Ministry of Hunting Industry at the State Forest Management Agency of Ukraine, and renowned ‘wolf-phoebe’, Nikolai Mironenko. This ‘specialist’ clearly has a problem with maths, however. According to official statistics (Ukraine’s Annual Statistics for 2011, p. 185, K., 2012), the number of wolves in Ukraine has not increased since 2000; it varies from between 2.4 and 2.7 thousand wolves. Over the last 15 years, the number of wolves has increased all in all by 300-600 wolves – it has not quadrupled!
On 6 March 2011, the Odessa city information portal published the report by Natalia Lesnikova ‘Grey terror in Odessa Oblast’. Apparently, wolves have been attacking livestock in Betsilovo village in the Razdelyansk Raion of Odessa Oblast. They supposedly come from a neighbouring village on the reserve; they cannot be shot, however, as the penalty for killing wolves without a permit is 10,000 hryvnia. The report not only lacks documented evidence of the wolf attacks, but includes many other inaccuracies. For example, there are currently unconfirmed claims of the illegal shooting of wolves in Ukraine and the nearest reserve in Odessa Oblast is nowhere near the village of Betsilovo, but hundreds of kilometres away in Kiliya Raion. Incidentally, a similar article published on 30 May 30 2011 on the portal Odessa.comments.ua, ‘Wolves terrorise residents of Odessa Oblast’, quotes the chairman of the Betsilovo village counsel. He believes feral dogs are the culprits behind the attacks on domestic animals.
The greatest number of anti-wolf articles published in 2012 (120 in total), however, were published by Donetsk journalists. This raises several questions. Firstly, if wolves really do run riot in Donetsk Oblast, then surely neighbouring Luhansk Oblast faces the same problems. The two Oblasts have similar surroundings (steppe and waste dumps), wolves, and even public outlook is similar (both actively vote for Yanukovich). And yet in 2012 only 3 publications were published on the anti-wolf theme in Luhansk Oblast! That is 40 times less than the number of articles published in Donetsk Oblast. If we analyse the anti-wolf publications in Donetsk Oblast itself we discover they are not evenly distributed between the Raions in Donetsk Oblast, appearing mostly in Novoazovsk Raion. The sole writer of anti-wolf articles is Nikolai Grek, the chairman of the Novoazovsk Raion branch of the Ukrainian Hunting and Fishing Association. This points to the second question: why him and not zoologists or ecologists from the Ukrainian Steppe Reserve or the Meotid National Natural Park, which are administered from Novoazovsk Raion?
Does the leader of the regional hunting association N. Grek really know more about wolves and another animals than the qualified zoologist, well-known specialist in the sphere of animal protection, and director of the Meotid National Natural Park Gennady Molodan, who has studied nature in Donbass for over 40 years? Let us examine this further. The article ‘Wolves and snowy owls invade the Pryazovia steppe’ by Darya Umrikhirnaya was published on 5 November 2012 on the Donetsk News portal with reference to Mariupol News. This report features the ‘expert’ of Donetsk nature, hunter Nikolai Grek; he provides sensational information about snowy owls flying down to Pryazovia from the north, which has practically exterminated the gophers. Unbeknown to Grek and this journalist, gophers sleep in burrows during winter and snowy owls therefore have no way of reaching them. In another article published on 1 September 2012 by the agency, ‘Wolves terrorise sheep in Novoazovsk Raion’, Grek in all his wisdom discusses the fact that ‘wolves can present a threat in any season, even in summer when food is supposedly plentiful’.
Grek wholeheartedly supports other Donetsk hunters. For example, L. Kolomoets and Yu. Ozersky, hunters with 50 years’ experience, published ‘Wolves threaten other animals in Donetsk Oblast’ in Donetsk News.
‘In our opinion,’ write the hunters, ‘one of the main reasons for the decline in game in Ukraine is an increased number of predators, primarily wolves and foxes. And if foxes do damage to small animals and birds, then wolves are a threat to the entire animal population’. Valeriy Lamyanskiy, director of UHFA in Artemovsk Raion, echoes them: ‘Every wolf needs around eight kilograms of meat per day. These packs leave a ‘wasteland’ behind them, causing young hares and hoofed mammals perish. In such numbers the caretaker of the forest become the bane of the forest’.
Really? Do the Donetsk wolves really destroy nature in the forests and steppes of Donbass?
Evgeny Borovik, zoologist at the Luhansk Nature Preserve, recently conducted research (E. N. Borovik, 2002, ‘The status of the wolf (Canis Lupus) population’) in the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblast’s neighbouring eastern regions of Ukraine, published in the News Bulletin of the Luhansk State Pedagogical University, 1, pp. 150-153. According to the zoologist, ‘Analysis of the wolf’s winter food source showed that it mostly comprises the East European vole (Microtus rossiaemeridionalis). Every sample of wolf excrement contained between 12 and 31 vole skulls (:) We also repeatedly found cases of wolves eating sunflower seeds’. No remains of other animals were found. It speaks for itself. Hunters are simply scaremongers, sowing a circle of fear and hatred of wolves without any scientific argument. And that’s not all. Kolomiets and Ozersky, the hunters with 50 years’ experience, demand that hunters be allowed to use helicopters, snowmobiles and cars against wolves and claim that if not, the chaos in Ukraine will only get stronger.
There is an additional observation. It is curious that the articles mentioned above fail to discuss poaching, which is the main cause of the destruction of game. Poaching in Ukraine has reached catastrophic levels: 1-2 million people poach each year. Poachers are responsible for the sharp decline in the number of bears, bison and lynx, which, by the way, wolves don not touch. Based on the Donetsk example of anti-wolf hysteria, we are convinced that the fight against poaching has deliberately been turned into a fight against wolves.
There is a further question regarding the anti-wolf hysteria in the Novoazovsk Raion of Donetsk Oblast. Why are there no anti-wolf publications in the neighbouring Starobeshevsk and Telmanovsk Raions, where there are also wolves, sheep and steppe? Well, there is no hunter Grek there.
But this does not mean that journalists are incapable of devising this sort of stupidity by themselves. On 5 March 2007, the Mariupol Information Portal published the small report ‘Wolves in the centre of Mariupol’. The report mentions six month-old wolf cubs running around near meat traders on Zelinskaya Street. A dispute arose between passers-by as to whether they really were wolves. ‘The dispute was over when one of the young beasts howled like a wolf’, reported a journalist. And when has a puppy ever howled like a human? Would that make it human?
Crimean journalists occupy second place in the anti-wolf hysteria in Ukraine for that year. Stupidity and lack of proof reign their publications, as always. On 15 January 2012, the portal mig.news.com.ua published an article with the sensational title ‘Mass wolf attack in Crimea’.
And yet the publication itself does not feature a single word on wolf attacks.
A similar publication by journalist Aleksey Gaydukov, ‘Wolf pack prowls the centre of Crimea attacking cattle’, published on 31 January 2012 on the information site Crimea. Vgorode, yet again lacks evidence and fails to provide a single concrete fact about wolf attacks on cattle. The journalist may as well have called it ‘Hungry deputies prowl the centre of Crimea attacking cattle’. That should have been published as well in principle, since nobody thought it necessary to consider the plausibility of the report about wolves and its lack of evidence.
On 16 March 2012, Crimea. Vgorode published ‘Wolves tear dog to pieces in Crimea and owner drowns several days later’. The journalist reported that Roman Zimnukhov, a worker at the Karalarsky Landscape Park, described the story: his friend used to go walking with the dog, and two wolves attacked and crippled it. We spoke to Zimnukhov over the phone and discovered that he had not spoken to any journalists. In fact, he is not completely certain that two wolves attacked his friend’s dog. His friend has never seen a living wolf nor knew much about them.
On 9 January 2013 several Ukrainian and Polish ecological organisations held a press conference in Simferopol’ in defence of wolves, which touched upon anti-wolf hysteria. Crimean television journalist T. Shamonaeva supported ecologists about the impermissibility of publishing fabricated facts about wolves. She described a case which appeared in the Crimean media about an evil wolf that attacked a woman in a village. T. Shamonaeva took her film crew to the place of the incident, and the following story came to light. In the evening, the woman was drunk and sleeping in the sheep pen. Someone was burning grass close by and, to escape from the fire, an old wolf entered the sheep pen. It only wanted to get away from the fire and did not intend to attack the woman. The drunk woman woke up and started hitting the wolf. The wolf then bit her once, to protect itself. However, the story was completely distorted by the Crimean media, which has transformed the wolf into an evil demon who attacks people.
This outright lie and manipulation do not, however, concern the Ukrainian journalists who exploit anti-wolf theme. Unfortunately, wolves cannot take them to court for slander. The principal of innocent until proven guilty should apply to wolves and other animals. There can be no accusation without evidence.

Rabies and wolves: truth and lies
Another theme which is constantly under speculation is rabies and wolves. Some journalists make out that rabid wolves have bitten half the country. On 1 March 2012, the agency Today published ‘Rabid wolves are on the rise in Ukraine’. The source of this information is that same Chief Specialist for the Ministry of Hunting Industry at the State Forest Resources Agency of Ukraine, N. Mironenko. He stated that ‘the rabies which is transmitted by wolves (sylvatic rabies) is the most dangerous kind’. Yet more stupidity from the so-called hunting ‘specialist’; ‘sylvatic’ is synonymous with ‘natural’. This type of rabies can also spread among foxes, racoon dogs and even sparrows. And that’s not all. Sylvatic carriers of rabies (wolves, foxes) and the domestic (dogs, cows, cats) pathogen are one and the same – the Rabies virus. And it affects humans just the same.
On 6 January 2012 a legal newspaper published the report ‘Rabid wolf terrorizes inhabitants of Kiev Oblast’. And yet at no point in the report is the wolf actually called rabid. The report states that a carcass was taken ‘for examination’. On 9 August 2008 the agency published ‘Zaporizhia Oblast: wolves no longer fear’. The report speaks of the rabid wolves that attacked inhabitants of the villages Voznesenovka and Yasnoe. There is no proof in the article, however, that they were wolves. The article also contains a number of questionable details, such as the fact that wolves can migrate 300-400 km in twenty-four hours. Immediately after the attack on people, hunters organised a round-up and shot 20 stray dogs, but didn’t find any wolves. So where were the wolves?
Unfortunately, several careless journalists lay all the blame on wolves for the spread of rabies in their pursuit of cheap sensationalism. Foresters and poachers aid them, given that they want to shoot wolves outside the hunting season (in Ukraine it is possible to shoot all year round practically without permission). According to the scientific monograph ‘Rabies in wild animals’, G. Bozhko et al., Kiev, 1981, and the survey ‘Rabies in animals of the Russian Federation’, 2005, around 37% of cases of the transfer of rabies is attributed to foxes, 17% to stray dogs, 10% to cats, 28% to large livestock, 3% to small livestock, 1.3% to horses, 1% to racoon dogs, and 0.5% to wolves. At the same time, wolves are the main natural enemies of foxes and stray dogs, the very animals that are the principal transmitters of rabies (they occupy 54% of the total number – over half of all the animals which transmit rabies).
In addition, wolves eat great quantities of carrion and meat waste from poultry processing facilities, acting as the unique ‘caretakers’ of not only forests but also agriculture. However, instead of protecting wolves, they continue to be destroyed en masse, which is detrimental and propagandises cruelty and biological xenophobia. There is a further observation: not a single journalist has seriously investigated the issue of rabies. Why is money not put aside to vaccinate wild animals (like in Europe), why does Ukraine not participate in international programs to fight rabies? Well, because hunting wolves is just easier and safer.

How to battle anti-wolf hysteria in the media
The following steps are recommended for dealing with anti-wolf hysteria in the media:
1. Check the authenticity of anti-wolf articles to expose false information. Report this to the article’s author/employer via telephone, email or letter, and at specially organised press conferences.
2. Publish critical reviews of anti-wolf publications.
3. Hold special press conferences for the media to defend wolves in areas noted for anti-wolf hysteria.
4. Run competitions for the media’s best anti-wolf publications and name a ‘winner’.
5. Saturate the internet (using children’s competitions to defend wolves, for example) with materials in defence of wolves.

Conclusions
1. Anti-wolf hysteria has epicentres and neutral territories from region to region. The authors behind it are hunters and foresters.
2. Anti-wolf hysteria is advantageous to hunters, foresters, farmers, poachers, journalists and local authorities.
3. Anti-wolf hysteria stirs up a specific kind of terror, teaches biological xenophobia and cruelty to animals, and turns the fight against poachers and rabies into a fight against wolves.
4. Society has a very strong punitive mentality.
5. Wolf are indicators of the social, political and moral condition of society.
6. Active steps against anti-wolf hysteria could be analysis of false reports on wolves, saturating the internet with articles that defend wolves, and holding special press conferences in the epicentres of anti-wolf hysteria.
7. The principal of innocent until proven guilty should be applied not only to people, but also to wolves.

04.01.2015   Рубрики: Новости, Охрана волков