Bringing Wolves Back Violated The Public Trust

An opinion piece reared an ugly head in the environment section of New West on September 16, 2007 by George Wuerthner. From the article, this is what it says about Wuerthner.

George Wuerthner is a former Montana hunting guide, a founding member of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and ecologist who worked on wolf recovery in Montana and Wyoming. He lives part of the year in Montana and travels extensively in the West. He can be reached at 541-255-6039.

You now know at least as much as I do about him. But this article isn’t about Mr. Wuerthner. It’s about the information he has put forth in this article, his ideals.

I have read the article several times and as a matter of fact, I spent a good 45 minutes talking about the title of this article in a recent Skinny Moose Radio broadcast of “Open Air with Tom Remington”. Listen to that broadcast here.

The title of the opinion piece is, “Killing Wolves Violates Public Trust”. For anyone who believes that having uncontrolled growth of wolves is a good thing, I can understand why they might think that killing them would be in violation of public trust.

When the debate of wolves is focused in the Yellowstone National Park area, before one can believe that killing wolves violates public trust, they should go back to the day when wolves where let go in the park and under what guise that event took place. That my friends was the real violation of public trust. America was lied to. Not only that, for Americans to knowingly dump wolves into the woods so that in future years they would prey upon hard working people’s property and livestock, that was a violation of the public trust.

These people didn’t want them. Why would they? They built their ranches and worked hard trying to fulfill the American dream just so that some wolf lovers could destroy those dreams for the sake of an ideal? Many argue that the wolves were there first. True, and history shows us that settlers took care of the wolf and grizzly problems to the point of near extinction. Thousands of people moved into these areas and built homes, ranches, farms knowing and believing they wouldn’t have to deal with wolves decimating their livestock. Two wrongs don’t make this right.

But now wolves are here and will be here to stay. Back when we all were lied to, we were told that when wolves reached a total of 350, it would be considered a full recovery, able to self sustain. In the area around Yellowstone, which for the purpose of this discussion will include Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, there are now an estimated 1,300 wolves. By some accounts that is low but I believe that to be the “official” count. Ed Bangs, head of the wolf programs in this area for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, recently was quoted saying that there are more wolves now in areas where it was never dream they would be. What does this tell us?

Wolf advocates will be suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to stop the delisting of the wolf, which the USFWS is intending to do perhaps as early as next year. These wolf people, many of whom were involved in the reintroduction process, are now saying 1,300-plus wolves aren’t enough. They say that is too few to sustain a population - kind of a bait and switch tactic.

I know of only a small handful of outspoken people who would just as soon eradicate the planet of wolves but the majority now understand wolves will be a part of our landscape whether we like it or not. The differences in wolf philosophies general come from those who want wolves to go unchecked and unregulated, believing they will “self-manage”, a “let nature take its course” sort of thing.

I believe the majority of people want the animal classified as a game animal so that it can be controlled and regulated much the same way as all our other game animals are.

The other huge factor is that ranchers and landowners have to be given the flexibility to rightfully protect their property, including livestock, without the fear of legal action.

Getting back to the article in discussion, I’m only going to pick out a few of the obvious problems I see. Wuerthner begins getting into ethics and legalities of shooting wolves.

However, the issue for me and many other wolf supporters isn’t about slaughtering wolves in retaliation for killing livestock or elk, but a matter of ethics and perhaps even legal concerns. Fortunately for all of us, wildlife in the United States is considered a public resource—like clean air or clean water. It is not something that can be privatized. Yet I would argue killing wolves merely to enhance deer, elk, and other ungulate populations is essentially a privatization of public wildlife for the benefit of a chosen few (hunters) at the expense of the majority of Americans who favor protection of wolves.

Isn’t this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? I can just as easily turn this statement around and show the hypocrisy. Wildlife is a public resource but not one to be managed and created for wolf lover’s whims. There are many millions of people living in this country and not everyone sees things as do wolf advocates. I would also challenge the statement that the majority of Americans favor protection. Without knowing the writer’s idea in “protection”, I think it quite safe to say that protection under the Endangered Species Act is untrue, in my opinion.

One cannot accuse and criticize fish and game departments or others for “privatizing” our wildlife, when in fact the pot that’s calling the kettle black, has done just that back when it decided to stock the countryside with wolves. Wolf advocates took it upon themselves to privatize the wolf population by artificially stocking the woods with their own animals. Is this somehow not privatizing because they aren’t hunted?

The other issue here is the accusation that we hunters and/or fish and game departments want to kill wolves “merely to enhance deer, elk, and other ungulate populations”. This is absurd. I am assuming that the writer is drawing this conclusion from the announcement made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service back in July, when he puts “quotes” around “unacceptable”. I also wrote an article about that announcement calling it ridiculous.

One focuses on the effects of wolves on ungulates, such as elk.

A 2005 proposal said states could kill wolves if they were causing “unacceptable impacts” on wild herds. But the rule said the decline had to be “primarily caused by wolf predation.” Inevitably, declines are tied to other factors, including severe weather, loss of habitat, hunting and other predators, Bangs said.

The proposed rule said wolves can be taken out if they can be shown as “one of the major causes” of herds declining. If that’s the case and state officials want to reduce the wolf population, the idea would have to go through peer review among wildlife officials and would be subject to public comment.

If it passes muster and doesn’t reduce the wolf population below 200 in any given state, wildlife agencies could use public hunts to reduce the wolf population, Bangs said.

Other than the fact that the powers to make those decisions will more than likely have difficulty reaching consensus, how can anyone take from this statement that the intention of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to kill wolves “merely to enhance deer, elk, and other ungulate populations”? The key word here is control.

We control our game populations for more reasons than to provide hunting opportunities. We manage them with a goal of creating a healthy ecosystem.

I don’t deny that some things done in the name of promoting huntable populations of species like elk or deer such as creating wildlife refuges and wildlife management areas protects wildlife habitat for many non-target species as well. Nevertheless, I could list many practices that state agencies promote that are detrimental to native wildlife and plant communities, including the stocking and introduction of exotic species, killing of predators, habitat management designed to enhance game species that might hurt non-game species, even many hunting practices themselves. In fact, I could make a pretty good case that if we looked at the majority wildlife species, most might be better off if state fish and wildlife agencies ceased to exist. (emboldening is mine)

This really cuts right to the heart of the matter. Consider this statement for a minute if you will. Wuerthner alludes to many practices of state agencies that harm native wildlife, etc. Once again he indicates that the only thing they are trying to do is promote hunting. I just don’t see this but when he says that he believes most species would be better off without state fish and wildlife agencies, it really indicates a lack of trust and anger directed at the people who run our fish and game departments. These are educated, professional people who do a great job. Is it perfect? Of course not. No science is perfect nor are human beings.

It was determined a long time ago that states needed trained scientists to assist in the management of game and other wildlife species. For man and beast to share living space on this earth requires skilled planning. Many billions of dollars over the years has gone into providing all Americans with more game and wildlife than we have ever had at any time in our history.

It is voodoo science and idealistic day dreaming to honestly believe that many of our wildlife species would be better off without a state agency run by professionals. Imagine, if you can, what it would really be like if we opted to end this now and revert to “natural” wildlife management.

At present state agencies spend the majority of their funding on promoting a handful of species that hunters and anglers desire to kill or capture. Through the sale of hunting and fishing licenses wildlife is essentially privatized, particularly if there is a limited drawing as with some hunting tags. When a hunter shoots an elk or deer, that animal is no longer available to anyone else, including the majority of Americans who just like to watch wildlife. It has essentially been privatized.

I really don’t know why the hang up on privatization of wildlife. I guess we could say that Noah privatized wildlife many centuries ago when he gathered two of every kind of animal and saved them from extinction. As I said before, when the wolf advocacy groups fought to capture and release wolves into the wild, they also became victims of the dreaded privatization.

Trying to convince the public that when a hunter or an angler takes their catch home, it takes away from and reduces the species so others are not able to enjoy is one of the biggest shams in the environmental database of lame excuses. “When a hunter shoots an elk or deer, that animal is no longer available to anyone else, including the majority of Americans who just like to watch wildlife.”

The good news I have is that if it wasn’t for that hunter, those Americans wouldn’t have any wildlife to look at from the front seat of their gas-guzzling SUVs. That’s the truth. Hunters make up the largest conservation group in America today and I’m proud of the things my license fees have accomplished.

Taking an animal by means of hunting, under the control of fish and game departments all across America, is a good and healthy thing. It keeps species populations in check, which is good for not only the herd but the plants and the rest of the ecosystem. It’s just plain healthy. Without this kind of management, those Americans might be seeing these animals coming through the front windshields of their cars. Or, they may be on a family outing and be witness to starving and/or diseased animals. Is this the alternative we are looking for? This is how nature does it.

The majority of Americans, including most westerners, favors protection of wolves and wants more wolves than exist even at presence.

I’m laughing. I would like to see some statistics on this. I believe that the majority of Americans have been deceived into believing we need to protect the wolf but I doubt seriously if they want more wolves. Wolves belong in the wild not in some ranchers backyard killing his livestock. Nature will allow the growth of the wolf to a point where disease and starvation will bring it back into check. This takes many years. It’s not an overnight event. Natural means of controlling the wolf is disturbed by the presence of man and his ranches and this sought after balance is never achieved. This is why we have to manage our wildlife. Are we to allow the decimation of ranches while infringing on their right to prosper and protect property so that “others” can have some wolves to view?

Wuerthner accuses fish and game departments for catering only to the hunter and fisherman. While that may be his perception, I would like to direct you to the website of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The website clearly states its vision, mission and goals. Their vision states:

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks will provide the leadership necessary to create a commitment in the hearts and minds of people to ensure that, in our second century, and in partnership with many others, we will sustain our diverse fish, wildlife and parks resources and the quality recreational opportunities that are essential to a high quality of life for Montanans and our guests.

And the mission statement:

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, through its employees and citizen commission, provides for the stewardship of the fish, wildlife, parks and recreational resources of Montana, while contributing to the quality of life for present and future generations.

If you visit their site and read the entire list of goals and objectives, I find no reference that MFWP is catering to only a handful of hunters and fishermen. The fish and game departments may not be doing it the way the writer of this article wants it done, but clearly it is catering to the majority.

The article is full of idealistic mumbo, jumbo. I believe that people are intelligent and will make the right decisions when those are based on truth. Much of what has been written in this article is one man’s opinion but what’s disturbing is that all too often that same idealistic mantra is what our media sources present to its readers as fact. This same kind of misinformation was crammed down the throats of Americans back in 1995 and 1996. This has to change. It has gone on long enough.

Tom Remington