Does Agency Cynicism Serve Wolves, Science, or the Public Interest?

A recent meeting of the Montana Chapter of the Society of Conservation Biology showcased talks by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, Ed Bangs, and the Montana Wolf Project Manager, Carolyn Sime. What struck me most about their presentations was their cynicism.

While the purpose of the conference was to discuss the application of science in conservation, Sime and Bangs chose to speak mostly about symbolism. Both talks implied that it is impossible to pursue useful scientific inquiry or to improve wolf-management practices because of the symbolism surrounding wolves.

Bangs introduced his talk by saying, "Wolves and wolf management have nothing to do with each other — it all has to do with symbolism."

Really? Can't science be used to help inform ranchers and others about how to reduce conflicts?

Then, someone asked Bangs a question about what the most effective ways to deal with wolf/livestock conflicts are. His response? "Divine intervention."

Huh? Have we really learned nothing about deterring wolf/livestock conflicts in the 14 years since wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone and central Idaho — and in the many hundreds of years of humans living in close proximity to these animals across Canada and Europe? Can FWS's head wolf manager, with decades of scientific experience, provide no insights on how to avoid conflicts?

One puzzling aspect of the wolf arena is that FWS has not tried to systematically or comprehensively analyze the complex nature of wolf/livestock interactions in an effort to reduce conflicts. Both Bangs and Sime suggested that the existing research being done on wolves was adequate — when, in fact, it is absent in the context of perhaps the most important question facing wolf recovery today: how can we use scientific and other information to avoid conflicts and reduce livestock losses?

This is in contrast to Yellowstone grizzly bear management, where data on conflict and mortalities are collected, evaluated and released to the public annually. The benefit of such a system is that the public — ranchers, sportsmen, landowners, recreationists and others — can see the patterns of the problems. Knowledge of these patterns, combined with mountains of readily available information about how to avoid bear conflicts (sanitation, bear spray, proper handling of food in the backcountry), helps focus efforts to avoid problems proactively. (Grizzly bear management is far from perfect, but these data-gathering efforts have helped reduce conflicts in what had formerly been black holes for bear mortality.)

For example, the Yellowstone grizzly bear conflict data show that the number one human/grizzly bear conflict area over the last few years has been around Gardiner, Montana. Conflicts there primarily involve human food attractants and a lack of bear-resistant garbage containers. Right now, we at NRDC are working with Bear Awareness Gardiner, the U.S. Forest Service, and others to increase the number of bear-resistant garbage containers for residents. It's a collaborative effort using techniques that have worked elsewhere, and we are optimistic that, together, we will make progress here.

If there is no systematic collection and assessment of data on conflicts and mortalities, it is impossible to learn from experience and improve the day-to-day practice of living with large carnivores. Wildlife managers, ranchers and others involved in the wolf arena are therefore collectively groping in the dark. In this context, calling upon "divine intervention" makes sense.

This is not to say that there is a lack of individuals inside and outside the agencies working 24/7 to reduce wolf/livestock conflicts; indeed, there are many working — quietly and without fanfare — to avoid problems by understanding what wolves are doing on the landscapes where they make their living. One classic success story involves management of sheep around Idaho's Phantom Wolf Pack, which resulted in a major reduction of depredations thanks to a collaborative effort by federal and state agencies and non-governmental organizations.

In the case of wolf/livestock interactions, there is no silver bullet to avoid conflicts everywhere. Wolves are smart and curious, and there are big differences within this region — geographically, ecologically, and in terms of prey dynamics and grazing practices. Thus, a wide array of tools, including electric fences, guard dogs, and penning livestock at night, can be helpful in various contexts. And there may be other techniques, like placing wolf urine on scent posts (communicating to wolves that the area is already occupied by other wolves), which might work in some circumstances, but have yet to be tested.

The good work that many people around the region are pursuing to coexist with wolves would be greatly strengthened if the lead agencies — Wildlife Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state fish and game agencies — abandoned their cynicism and, instead, collaborated with each other and those affected by wolves, shared existing conflicts data, and systematically analyzed the data to better understand the underlying drivers of the conflicts.

All stakeholders, particularly landowners and livestock operators, should be able to obtain maps of wolf conflicts with information on the timing and nature of the conflicts. There are many livestock operators and grazing associations that would certainly put this information to good use in their own management practices; who wouldn't try to avoid conflicts if they had more knowledge and a better set of tools to do so?

Finally, in her slide presentation, "Cascades of Symbolism: Where Does the Science Fit into Montana Wolf Conservation?," Carolyn Sime hardly talked about science (but rather symbolism and values) and thus failed to address her own question. At one point, she displayed a picture of a judge throwing a spitball down on the head of a pleader with the subtitle, "And you wonder why people hate activist judges." This was an obvious dig at U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, who ruled last year that FWS's original delisting proposal was inadequate, and, in a September 8, 2009 ruling, indicated that NRDC and other conservation groups are likely to prevail on the merits of our current challenge of FWS's decision to delist Northern Rockies wolves.

Not only was Sime's remark fundamentally disrespectful of the judiciary, it undermined the principles of democracy, which rely on checks and balances among different branches of government. And it is hard to imagine how such statements serve the broader public interest regarding the management of wolves in the state. Such unnecessary remarks only serve to further inflame an already too controversial subject.

Both Sime's and Bangs' presentations relied on rhetoric about values, symbolism, and collaboration, without defining what they currently mean, or should mean, in the context of wolf recovery. They also failed to present their views or any relevant science on alternative ways to improve wolf management. Their rhetoric was ultimately unrelated to the real-world challenges of coexisting with wolves. Could it be that its purpose was to preserve the current management system and the status quo at the expense of serious scientific inquiry aimed at solving problems on the ground with wolves and moving recovery forward?

We at NRDC believe we can achieve full wolf recovery in the region, but public displays of cynicism by key leaders are counterproductive — and will only delay recovery while contributing to further polarization in the debate. We need the leaders in wolf management to sow the seeds of compassion and respect for the public they serve, to support and strengthen the creative work already being done by many to address wolf-livestock conflicts, and to become constructive participants in a truly democratic process to reach durable wolf recovery.

 

Comments