Louisa Willcox's Blog
Howling Mad
January 29, 2008
Posted by Louisa Willcox in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
Federal wolf recovery coordinator Ed Bangs knows how to disarm an audience. Last Thursday, on a conference call with members of the media announcing the Bush administration’s new rule for managing Northern Rockies wolves, Bangs started out with: “I’ve had three lattes this morning, I’m going to warn you”. Laughs on the other end of the line. For the next 20 minutes, Ed’s performance was a tour de force of euphemisms and double-speak, that confused the real meaning of the federal government’s decision to revise 10(j) rule for managing the central Idaho and Yellowstone wolf populations. He went so far as to say: “overall wolf numbers won’t change.” Really?
The decision, published yesterday in the Federal Register, allows the states to kill all but 600 of the approximately 1500 wolves in the region. The rule applies to wolves descended from the roughly 60 wolves that were reintroduced in the Northern Rockies in 1995 and 1996. The new rule lowers the bar for wolf killing when a state determines that wolves may be having an impact on big-game populations. The Bush administration says that the rule change is necessary because the previous standard required states to show that wolves were the primary cause of a decline in big-game numbers. That threshold proved impossible to meet, because nearly all herds in the region are above state objectives and wolves have never been found to be the primary cause of a population decline.
The decision responds to major pressure from officials in Idaho and Wyoming, who have repeatedly stated that they want to manage wolves down to minimum numbers allowable by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In the case of Idaho, this means killing 500 or more wolves from approximately 700-800 individuals, to about 200 under the new rule. And the state already has developed plans to kill 60 + wolves in the Clearwater area. In Wyoming, it means killing potentially as many as 100 wolves near Yellowstone Park.
Wolf numbers won’t change? What kind of math are you using, Ed? While it may be true that the states won’t use this rule to kill wolves right away, if the decision to remove wolves from the endangered species list, expected next month, is delayed by litigation, the states have made it clear that they intend to use this rule to kill hundreds of wolves.
The pressure for this move comes from a minority of hunters who resent what wolves need to do to make a living: kill big game. With elk numbers at an all-time high throughout the region, wolves are hardly making a dent in the big-game population. In fact, by killing the weak and sick, wolves actually improve the strength and vitality of big-game herds. And, since reintroduction, scientists have found that wolves are restoring overall balance to the ecosystem, allowing recovery of riparian willows, aspen and other vegetation which have been over-browsed by elk.
But this debate has never been about the facts. On one side, it has been about an unreasonable hatred of an animal that some call “Satan’s dog,” an animal that represents lust, aggression and violence—traits that, perhaps subconsciously, we fear in ourselves. (Why else would we have gone to such extraordinary lengths historically to kill wolves—poisoning and trapping them, shooting pups in dens with revolvers, pulling wolves apart with ropes from horses, burning whole forests down to kill a few wolves?) It has been about hunters fear of losing hunting opportunities—no matter how many elk there are. It has been about raw political power too, the states bullying the federal government—bullying that seems to have been rewarded here.
The other side of the debate, which has far more public support, has gotten far less attention: the side that recognizes wolf recovery in the Northern Rockies as one of the most significant endangered species success stories in recent decades. The side that espouses a more charitable view of wolves, which work together as model families, taking care of the young and the old and the sick, and bringing home dinner to share with those unable to hunt. On last week’s call and in yesterday’s documents, FWS never mentioned that this side of the debate was supported by an overwhelming majority of the comments submitted by the public, including hundreds of scientists, on the draft rule.
Today, the countdown started for massive wolf killing—from land and air—in the Northern Rockies. And so, without other recourse, yesterday, we filed a lawsuit to overturn the rule.
What’s as outrageous as the decision itself is the agency’s callousness toward the wishes of the public, as well as the euphemisms and distortions used by the federal government to describe its action. In case you feel compelled to read the rule, you might appreciate the following translations and clarifications.
FWS: “We need to provide more wolf management flexibility.” Read: “We need to make it easier for the states to kill wolves.”
FWS: “Don’t worry, the decision won’t hurt wolves, because we will rigorously oversee any wolf killing proposal, which will be scientifically justified and evaluated by outside peer reviewers.” Reality: the states will pick peer reviewers who will do what the states want: justify the killing proposals. And the peer reviewers will be limited to using the states’ definitions for measuring adverse impacts on big game—definitions that do not need to be science-based. The states could simply say they don’t want wolves in a particular area—as Idaho has done with the Clearwater. Despite the veneer of federal oversight, the state’s essentially have a blank check to do what they want.
FWS: “killing wolves is good, because it improves local tolerance for wolves.” Using that analysis, the killing of over 500 wolves in the Northern Rockies since their reintroduction should mean that the locals love wolves.
Like many others who have been engaged in the wolf debate, I am tired of the double speak and the double standards when it comes to wolves. I long for a government that says what it means in plain English, and delivers what the public overwhelmingly asks for: the protection and recovery of a magnificent predator that has been vilified for far too long.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
- Louisa Willcox
- Senior Wildlife Advocate
- Livingston, Montana
- NRDC's Senior Wildlife Advocate Louisa Willcox is based in Livingston, Montana. From 1997-2002 she served...
- more→
Comments
Michael L. Kendall — Jan 31 2008 01:47 PM
I lived for several years in the Clearwater region of northern Idaho, from 1978 and throughout the 1980's. I backpacked and fished as often as possible in wilderness backcountry and near towns. I was never fortunate enough to see any of these wonderful canines in their natural habitat. I live in the midwest now and return west as often as possible to visit the areas I love as much now as when I called them home. Surely the hard work and dedication of so many to bring wolves back to their original territory will be continued, the packs maintained. Hopefully soon I can witness their playfulness and family structure with my own eyes.