The wolf hunt that begins this week in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana is as grim as the Grimm's fairy tale. Ever since the bloody wolf-delisting rider was slipped into a recent budget bill, this myth is driving wildlife politics. And it's still the same ending: The wolf must die. The heroic hunter rescues the grandmother and little girl. Everyone lives happily ever after, except, of course, the wild wolf.
In the medieval mindset of Little Red Riding Hood, the fairy tale forest was a looming wilderness -- a villain overshadowing the little village. Walking through the woods was dangerous. You never knew who might follow you home, devour and pretend to be your grandmother, and eat you alive.
This fairy tale was a time before humans domesticated nature, made tree farms out of forests and drove entire species, like the wolf, to extinction. This was before Alaskan wolf hunters in airplanes gunned down entire packs of radio-collared wolves. Before we poisoned, trapped, and shot wolves for sport. This was before we understood the science of wolves and their predator-prey balance that actually restores healthy ecosystems.
When the Brothers Grimm built their fairy tale of wolves on the original Perrault 17th century French folklore, they added a 19th century twist. The huntsman who saved Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother was not so much on a rescue mission as he was bent on earning the trophy of the wolf's skin.
The huntsman is not a hero. It's only the wolf skin he's after. This modern evolution of the fairy tale is evident on any of the online wolf licensing sites as the 2011 hunt now begins. One outfitter advertises, "maximize your predator experience... add a fall black bear to your wolf hunt." It offers a "proven predator calling technique" to lure the wolf, bear, mountain lion, coyote, foxes "and more" into your crosshairs. Blam! You got yourself a nice trophy, man. Something to brag about to your friends, to tell your kids the story of how you gunned down the big, bad wolf.
But who's really big and bad here? Who are the real villains and heroes in this new century?
When our forests and wildlife are shrinking as humans develop mega-villages; when Idaho ranchers in 2010 are losing only 148 cattle out of the state's 2.2 million head; when tourists are flocking Yellowstone to delightedly watch wild wolf packs restored to their natural habitat; when wolf biologists like Cristina Eisenberg document wolves as a "keystone species" that restore ecosystems and increases biodiversity -- shouldn't we update the old, medieval story?
Friends of Animals president, Priscilla Feral says, "What's about to happen to gray wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming -- who are a vital part of the ecosystem -- is vile. Governors of those states are subjecting wolves to pogroms from the Middle Ages." She urges Americans to boycott all travel to these three trigger-happy states. And call our congressional representations to protest. Already there are "Howl-ins" and "Phone-ins for Wolves," -- people demonstrating from Idaho to Central Park. Consider this a call to community from the wolves to the humans. Now, they need our saving.
Many of us are doing just that. We are the majority, but we must speak up and tell the governors of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming that we deplore this wrongheaded wolf hunt. The Natural Resource Defense Council estimates that in Idaho alone, 600 wolves or 50 percent of the population will be destroyed. There are only 1,500 wolves in all three states. There used to be millions of wolves in our wild lands. NRDC warns that "This could be the first time in American history that an animal will be removed from the Endangered Species and hunted down to unsustainable population levels."
This country should stop letting ranchers and hunters dominate the story and fate of wild wolves. And this administration should stand up for its environmental ideals, once exemplified when a post-Inauguration Obama, suspended Bush-era wolf hunts. Now the Department of the Interior is playing politics with predators. The Obama administration -- to gain political capital with Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming in Congress -- is cynically arguing that it has the authority to "carve out an exception" to the Endangered Species Act for the gray wolf. Politicians do not make good scientists or wildlife managers. Their short sights are set on re-election, not restoration.
"Wolves nurture the entire ecosystem," biologist Eisenberg explains in her book The Wolf's Tooth. "If we eradicate wolves or lower their numbers, the whole system will grow impoverished and collapse."
I once heard a wise wildlife manager tell the 1993 Alaska Wolf Summit bent on yet another aerial wolf hunt, "It's not the science or the government that will change the way we see wolves. It's public opinion."
And it's our stories. Isn't it time for we the people to update Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf for the 21st century and beyond? Who now is rescuing the grandmother and little girl and keeping the village safe for future generations? It's not the hunters. It may well be the wild wolves.
And it may be the whole village. Join the pack and protests. Howl out. Change the story.
Brenda Peterson is a National Geographic author. Her many books include: "Build Me an Ark: A Life with Animals," in which she profiled the first wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone and wolf control in Alaska. Her new memoir, "I Want to Be Left Behind: Finding Rapture Here on Earth" was named a Best Top Ten Non-fiction Book of 2010 by "The Christian Science Monitor."
Read more on the issue by Peterson: "Wolves Endangered by Political Predators" in "The Seattle Times."
Howl-in/phone-in for wolves at Friends of Animals.
Follow Brenda Peterson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BrendaSPeterson
Gray Wolf Facts - Defenders of Wildlife - Defenders of Wildlife
Gray Wolves' Endangered Species Protections Lifted By Obama ...
U.S. Congress Removes Wolves from Endangered Species List -- A ...
International Wolf Center Intermediate Info - Are Wolves Endangered
Gray Wolf Removed From Endangered Species List : Discovery News
Budget bill cuts federal wolf protection. Environmentalists howling ...
The article also points out that ranchers are trying to find ways to effectively coexist and points out that if these same ranchers, who are often demonized by those at Friends of Animals (whom you have used as a source) hold together large tracts of land that create habitat for wolves and lots of other animals.
Mr. Chadwick's article also points to the disingenuous nature of your comment that only 148 of Idaho's 2.2 million cattle have been killed by wolves. As he points out, those losses are not spread across the whole state and many wolf kills aren't documented because of activity by scavengers prior to discovery. Using your logic, New Orleans doesn't have a murder problem because even though they had 179 murders for a population of 330,000, the population of Louisiana as a whole had a population of of over 4 million.
My main point in this commentary is that it was not wildlife managers or scientists who delisted the wolves that led to these state's hunts -- it was a purely political decision. It had more to do with votes in Congress than it did with recovery statistics and research. It was a very bloody and thus "Little Red Rider" attached by politicians to a budget bill. When politicians are deciding the fate of species, the health of our ecosystems is really in jeopardy.
As I said in the article, "Politicians do not make good scientists or wildlife managers. Their short sights are set on re-election, not restoration."
You've stated that the delisting is purely political. Do you deny that the FWS (the agency that administers the ESA) determined that wolves were fully recovered in Montana, Idaho & Wyoming in 2009, long before Congress became involved?
In the wildlife study at this link, it's poignant to see the wolves' territories then and now. A fraction of their former range. Surely we can learn what we teach our children: to share.
http://wwwÂ.wcirm.colÂostate.eduÂ/pub_outreÂach/TechniÂcalSeries2Â0101Wolf.pÂdf
Also some interesting new science from Mongabay.com about how wolves help bring back Canadian lynx by keeping coyote populations in check, so the snowshoe hare, upon which the lynx prey, rebounds. Here's the link:http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0831-hance_wolf_lynx.html
As Chief Sealth said, "All things are connected."
Managing wildlife should not be based on politics, especially a rider attached to a budget bill that has no public comment or scientific peer-review. First, the wolves, next the Endangered Species Act. It's not just a simple hunt or no hunt. It's about some kind of environmental ethic that includes the needs of our next generations of people and wildlife. And that is a discussion that must be open to all Americans, not just hunters or ranchers, whose licensing fees fund many of our federal programs. So their voices are louder. Money talks. Wolves howl. We need to listen to all of the voices.
Many wildlife scientists do not believe the wolf populations in these states has recovered enough to be hunted down or culled so severely.
What about Wyoming? Huge blooper of a mistake, no retraction? Not so hard to say, "oh sorry, made one mistake among many".
You'll find out from Wiki that the Yellowstone elk herd went from 19,000 to 4,000 (80% decline) after the wolves were introduced in 1995. Here's how it happens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wolves_and_elk.jpg
Moose numbers are way down as well.
Elk calves are eaten alive by wolves, sometimes before the calf is even born. Google images "wolf elk calf" (graphic!) Wolves kill coyotes, black bears, and grizzly cubs, as competitors (and vice verse). A hungry wolf pack, esp in the winter, would attack and eat a human as well (admittedly, more common in Siberia and in Europe, than in North America -- hence the Little Red Riding Hood story from Germany).
We all live off the land in one way or another, whether you buy broccoli at Whole Foods and harvest an elk in Montana. A human's right to get his food by hunting is not subordinate to that of any other predator. Human beings are hunters, always have been. So, while we tolerate other predators (wolves, bears), we control their numbers, as necessary. It's the only rational outcome.
2. Read about the wolf in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_wolf#Enemies_and_competitors
3. Watch "Wolves in Paradise."
Then you'll have an objective view of wolves. Their presence makes the West truly wild again, which is great! At the same time, they do have a negative impact on both domestic animals (cows, sheep, dogs) and wild ungulates (elk, moose). A hunt to control their number is now necessary to keep the ecosystem in balance. (Btw, wolves are very intelligent and elusive, thus difficult to hunt.)
A lot of locals in Idaho and Montana rely on hunting elk for food. If they bought meat (or veggies) in the supermarket instead, for those that can afford it, even more wildlife habitat would need to be taken up by ranching and farming. Much of potential elk and moose habitat is already taken up by our farms, towns, and subdivisions. So there's less elk and moose than there used to be 200 years ago for feeding both people and wolves.
http://www.serconline.org/wolfpreservation/legislation.html
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/questionAnswer1.pdf
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110218/full/news.2011.106.html
http://www.wcirm.colostate.edu/pub_outreach/TechnicalSeries20101Wolf.pdf
i've found and saved a few more links. i hope that each poster will look for, and read all the links that i've posted elsewhere.
"Wolves have been shown to have a positive influence on their environment, but they have the potential to cause an imbalance in the ecosystem."
AND
"This issue is not just about wolves, it is about balance."
Thanks for citing a report from my Alma Mater and thanks for citing a report that holds the same position I do.
http://wwwÂ.wcirm.colÂostate.eduÂ/pub_outreÂach/TechniÂcalSeries2Â0101Wolf.pÂdf
here's a question concerning Public Land that i haven't seen approached in this thread: wether or not i live in a state with Public Land or not; my taxes are paying for it, do you agree ???...since that's the case, i don't want my wolves hunted unless, i can hunt your livestock !!!!!...is it a deal ???
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2011/09/01/wolf-hunts-morally-corrupt/
“...for many pro wolf-hunt supporters’ predators represent all that is wrong with the world. Declining job prospects, declining economic vitality of their rural communities, changes in social structures and challenges to long-held beliefs are exemplified by the wolf. Killing wolves is symbolic of destroying all those other things that are bad in the world for which they have no control. They vent this misdirected anger on wolves– that gives them the illusion that they can control something...â€
The wolves have become the disposable pawns in a much bigger game. They have been on the receiving end of a vilification campaign from interest groups, getting the blame for everything under the sun in the public eye, so that a few people can profit from it politically and financially.The wolf debate is no longer about science, reason or justice as it should be. These have long been forgotten.This is all about delisting the wolves and promoting their killing in order to get votes/donations in the upcoming elections or to profit from the use of cheap federal land (where most of the wolves live).
------------------------------------
Ms. Eisenberg is supposed to be a biologist, yet her comments show a deep emotionalism over this subject that has no place in wildlife biology, which is supposed to be based on facts and not feelings. Seriously, using a loaded word like "pogroms" to describe hunting wolves? That absurd comparison doesn't serve to bolster her argument; it actually only feeds the equally hardcore ideologues on the anti-wolf side. I'm a wildlife management professional as well as a hunter. I'm of the view that as it currently stands, the wolf population is too small to hunt. Professionally, I would be against a wolf hunting policy at this time. The damage they are presently causing is minimal. If, in the future, their numbers increase to near or certainly over carrying capacity, I would advocate culling. Those of us in the wildlife management profession continuously lament the fact that too often politics, and public emotionalism, rather than scientific data, have too much power to influence the nature of the management decisions we make. This is a perfect example. Here have two groups of hardcore ideologues, neither of which will want to compromise on their position at all, even in the face of changing data. One side sees wolves as an evil to be obliterated, the other side is generally vehemently anti-hunting whether the subject be wolves or anything else. Neither of these two positions is enlightened.
Scientists and botanists were overjoyed after the wolf was reintroduced into the Yellowstone ecosystem as plant biological diversity at the bottom of the ecological pyramid re-appeared after being extirpated over a hundred years because the ungulates had devoured the ecosystem. It was science, and not emotionalism that listed the wolf under the ESA for protection, and it was scientific illiterates that decided to delist them for all the same reasons they did over a century ago.
Yup, little miz ridin hood is still, very much alive and so is the unsatiable desire for a few pieces of silver. Over a century ago.
You have to understand that the sources quoted are from two of the major anti hunting organisations in America, Friends of Animals, and Natural Resources Defense Council. These orgs can't condone any hunting anywhere for any reason ever.
Also I hear an anti wildlife management view at odds with our current system of managing our public lands. Often confused with wildlife conservation, wildlife management by definition attempts to balance the needs of wildlife with the needs of people using the best available science.
Currently all wildlife that is not endangered or migratory birds is managed by the states. States can manage the wildlife however they see fit, In the Rocky Mountains this all means big game.
This does not, and I'll repeat, this does not mean as many predators as can be supported to carrying capacity. As fun as it might be to shoot a wolf and put it's head on the wall most hunters have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. The vast majority of hunters are meat hunters. I understand that hunting and hunters seem scary to many urban people. A throw back to a time and place only experienced on your TV. But until we change the way we manage our public space hunting will continue as it has for eons uncounted.
---------------------------
Actually, a conservation ethic is what is at the heart of modern natural resource sciences like wildlife management and forestry. Conservation means "wise use" and "good stewardship" and is based on the ideas of people like Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold. It is a hands on rather than hands off, approach that seeks to manage natural resources for both the good of people and nature. Vehement anti-hunting groups like Friends of Animals are what we call preservationist in nature. They think that humankind should just leave nature completely alone and not try to manage it all. This type of mentality is highly ideological, narrow-minded and often emotionally driven.
Unlike Mars and Venus, Earth got it right, when she placed wolves in northern California, the Pacific Northwest, the Southwest, the South and most of this nation. It was science that deemed the wolf should receive protection under federal law. And, ecosystems, quite naturally manage all species, precisely why predator populations in veritable nature are low.
Earth got it right, and quite naturally man/ ages all life gloriously except man and his frequently, faulty and unscientific perceptions of the Earth. She got it right! What happened to all the wolves in California and Arizona and on the east coast? Wolves were managed into extinction in the entire USA over a century ago when Leopold wrote his seminal treatise.
In North Ameerica, the vast majority of recreational hunters is urbanites, which includes trophy and meat hunters. The numbers of both groups are declining and public anitipathy toward hunting is increasing dramatically. The anti hunting movement is being fueled by the self-indulgent behavior of a group of vociferous hunters who consistently alienate the public by spouting outrageous comments about the pleasure they take in killing wolves and other wild animals. It seems that Tea Party politics have infilitrated the hunting community, much to its detriment .
an example: Sweden is conducting a wolf kill to keep the wolf DNA in check...wolves have an Alpha pair in each pack. this pair are the only ones who breed. the others have the same urges, but Natural Law and pack hierachy do not allow the rest of the pack to breed.
Here's another article on wolves that you may enjoy. I believe this is the most studied population of wolves in the USA.
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/wolves.html
Could care less what the wolves or you want.
http://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/
please spread it around, if you would please !!!!...thank you my friend !!!!!
Play by the rules, or Congress will again step in and make things worse for species. Some wolf advocates that will never be satisfied are the whole reason Congress had to step in and delist the species.
How could anyone contend we could house the same number of wolves we did centuries ago?
Niko...answer statement 1...turn it around...the ESA, FWS, BLM, and DOI is a dishonor to wolves !!!!...statement 2...government has violated Nature's rule, not us, it is called, The Law of Nature !!!!...statement 3...in1930 there were 3,000,000 wolves exterminated !!!!!...the above mentioned govt divisions put bounties on, and encouraged the mass murder of wolves and puppies they were/will be murdered in traps, starve, and many other horrendous ways !!!!!!...the hunter with a sick mind will see to this !!!
the game herds are NOT being decimated !!!!...but rather...enhanced...wolves "take" ONLY the sick, weak, old, and infirm. as i've mentioned before...wolves kill for survival not for the lust of the kill !!!!
Jim...AAA...Linus...IE...Jenny...Grrr...Brenda...and Janice !!!!!...each of you are very correct in your information !!!!!...you are the one's who KNOW your facts, and you will be fanned, if not already !!!!!...the rest are not interested in facts OR opening their knowledge base !!!!!...i have posted many links elsewhere, study them !!!!!
The government operates under laws. All I ask is we keep the integrity of these laws instead of bending them to fit our opinions.
Hyperbolic statements like "mass murder" "murder in traps" etc are simply not true, impossible. Murder is of a human, it's impossible to murder a wolf. Hunters have no more sick minds than say, firebaggers, probably less as a proportion.
Before reintroduction there were over 1,000 moose in Wyoming, now less than 100, maybe soon extinct. Wolves haven't been good for moose. Likewise many elk herds are down fifty and eighty percent. Fact based.
Of course wolves kill for lust, and don't only take the sick and infirm. They take whatever is easiest, if that means what is at hand is a moose in it's prime so be it.
Instead of posting links why not read them. Maybe start with Wikipedia and then read the links from there.
i've studied the ratios of game animals vs wolves, and wolf kill rates of livestock. you name it...i've studoed it, all my life for that matter !!!!!!
i will not argue with you or anyone else; i know my facts too well !!!!
How could anyone contend we could house the same number of wolves we did centuries ago? We CANNOT turn back the clock. Today's wild lands are entirely different from those in 1900. We have only a fraction of the habitat we did back then. The predator/pray relationships aren't even the same. Elk and deer numbers will not "balance" the way they did two hundred years ago. Humans have altered and destroyed too much big game habitat; they are much more vulnerable than they were before.
Those who think the natural world should be managed as a game farm, or who dislike a symbol of environmental values are naturally anti-wolf period.
It is propaganda to claim that environmentalists seek a verbatim return to the past or that management decisions are not driven by ranching and hunting interests over all others. This is the subtext of charges that wolf advocates are merely identifying with a symbol; as though it is presumed to be any more than a critical part of a functioning ecology.
If the management of habitats is driven by tree harvest, forage value and quantity of large game animals then we are in fact managing them as a game and tree farm. How would you characterize it?
You raised the issue of Ice Age and I responded. I'm not accusing all environmentalists of wanting to return to the past. I'm saying humans have upset the natural "balance" forever. Ironically, for better or worse, any attempt to put things back in "balance" requires more human tinkering.
The "nature as a game/tree farm" axiom did dominate resource management for many years, and I oppose it. However, things are changing for the better. I will continue to advocate for more change away from that philosophy.
----------------------
And facts can also be misrepresented by anit-hunting/animal rights groups and preservationist ( as opposed to conservationist ) environmental groups. Misrepresentation of facts is very much a two-way street.