Dear ESPN (and Disney),

I am baffled and troubled by your publishing of “The myth of the harmless wolf” by James Swan on the Outdoors section of your popular ESPN.com website.  The article is so misleading, one-sided, over-the-top, and, at times, bizarre, it is difficult to understand how you decided to publish it.

I’d like to know why ESPN would baselessly demonize the wolf, an iconic wildlife species revered by many across the country, on its website.  Why are you trying to needlessly scare people?  What’s your goal here? 

If a mainstream monster network like ESPN wants a legitimate outdoors section on its website, it should celebrate wolves and the amazing American conservation success story of wolf reintroduction in the Northern Rockies, not reach into the Fox News toolbox of fear tactics.

The majority owner of ESPN is The Walt Disney Company.  Disney is quite proud of its conservation and environmental-protection efforts.  (Full disclosure: Disney is supporting an NRDC conservation effort in Costa Rica.)  Just last week, Disney announced:

The Walt Disney Company's rich legacy of respect for the planet and all its inhabitants began with Walt himself and continues on today.  A new Disney Conservation Report provides an overview of The Walt Disney Company's efforts to save wildlife and wild places and engage people of all ages in conservation, as well as snapshots of some of Disney's most important initiatives.

ESPN also touts its own corporate-sustainability efforts on its website (and links to Disney’s corporate responsibility page):

It’s our fishing sanctuary, our local soccer pitch, our makeshift dirt bike track – but in the end, the Earth needs just as much attention as the things we enjoy in life.  ESPN is proud to do its part to promote and resurrect a greener world.

Really?  Swan’s article is a not-so-subtle call to kill wolves, which only occupy a tiny portion of their historic range -- about 5% -- in the lower 48.  Please explain how trying to scare the soccer balls out of your viewership with a sensationalized, misleading vilification of wolves jibes with your and Disney’s statements. 

Throughout Swan’s article, he misrepresents facts, spouts half-truths, makes astounding leaps for his “support,” and plays fast and loose with the truth.

It’s a dreadfully dismal piece of journalism.

Here are some of the many problems in the article:

Swan begins his article with a discussion of three recent fatal attacks by “wild wolves” in North America: the death of a teacher in Alaska in 2010; the killing of a folk singer in Nova Scotia in 2009, and the loss of a student in Saskatchewan in 2005.  It’s a striking opening, but it’s not the whole story.

Regarding the attack of the folk singer in Nova Scotia, Swan initially explains that she was killed by coyotes, not wolves.  He then says the coyotes were subsequently identified by park rangers as a wolf-coyote hybrid.  That’s correct; the coyotes in Novia Scotia have some wolf genes from past interbreeding.  But they’re still largely coyotes (or hybrids at best) and classified as coyotes by the Novia Scotia government. 

And thus it’s shocking to see Swan a mere two paragraphs later write, “The attacking wolves in these three incidents . . . .”  Where did the coyotes go?  How did it change from a coyote attack to a wolf attack in Novia Scotia?  Research it; see how it has been reported.  To call that event a “wolf attack” is boldly dishonest. 

Regarding the 2005 attack in Saskatchewan, Swan points out that whether that was even a wolf attack is disputed, but he neglects to mention that the wolves seen in that area had been feeding at a garbage dump and people were concerned they’d lost their fear of humans.  Therefore, even if it was a wolf attack, these were not typical wild wolves (and this was the first recorded fatal wolf attack in North America, a pretty big fact Swan conveniently omits).

So, Swan opens his piece with three fatal attacks, of which one was simply not a wolf attack and another was a disputed wolf attack by garbage-feeding wolves that had likely lost their fear of humans.  This means we’re left with a single recorded fatal attack in North America by truly wild wolves.

And let me be very clear: that one freakish attack is a horribly sad, tragic loss (as were, of course, the other two).  There’s no question about that.  I discuss the attacks to shed some light at how Swan twisted the truth and left out some key facts to make his opening sexier and scarier. 

Moving along, what about the various quotes Swan provides from Dr. David Mech?  Strangely missing from the article are other statements made by Mech.  For example, the following is from a 2006 High Country News article on the 2005 Saskatchewan killing: “[T]he odds [of a wolf attack in North America are extraordinarily low, points out L. David Mech, a leading wolf biologist: ‘Wolves are still not any more dangerous than they ever were.’”  Whoa, that’s an inconvenient statement for Swan’s wolves-are-coming-for-you article.

Swan writes, “Wolf biologist David Mech advises people to never feed wolves and/or allow them to become habituated.  He says that if you meet a wolf, do not run away — yell, look as big as you can, throw rocks.  Pepper spray helps.  The sound of a gun will let them know you mean business.”  Sounds pretty ominous, right? 

Well, the following is from the same article Swan likely found some of the above statements: “Mech, a senior research scientist for the U.S. Geological Survey who has studied wolves full-time for more than five decades, said there have been about two dozen nonfatal attacks in North America in the past century or so.  Most involve wolves that had become habituated to people who have been feeding them at campgrounds, dumps and other sites near wolf habitat, he said.”

About two dozen nonfatal attacks in 100 years?  And most from habituated wolves?  How is that support for the picture Swan paints of bloodthirsty wild wolves stalking your children at this very minute? Any reasonable person reading that would find it reassuring, not terrifying. 

To support his argument that wolf attacks and aggressive wolf encounters are either increasing or receiving better reporting, Swan writes, “One recent incident involved a pack of wolves killing a mountain lion within sight of downtown Sun Valley, Idaho. Presumably these are the same wolves that have been seen prowling the streets of Sun Valley at night.” 

First, how does a pack of wolves killing another wild animal in the foothills of an Idaho town translate into “wolves are going to kill you”?  Wolves are carnivores.  They eat other wild animals.  I don’t understand the hysteria here.

And “prowling the streets of Sun Valley at night”?  Yes, wolves were often seen in residential neighborhoods in the Wood River valley last year.  But this is the Northern Rockies, not Cleveland.  In Bozeman, Montana, where I live, black bears come into town in the fall.  Many people move here for the wildness and wildlife of the Northern Rockies.  And wolves are (thankfully) part of what make the Northern Rockies so special.  (Swan also fails to mention that, due to Idaho’s wolf hunt that recently ended, these wolves are now rarely seen around Sun Valley.)

Swan then takes quite a swan dive with this one: “If you are out hunting and you're using a predator call, be careful.  Recently, one Idaho hunter was wailing on a dying rabbit call to draw in coyotes while his son was about 100 yards away.  A pack of wolves came in and surrounded his son.  The father and son had a very tough time driving away the wolves.”

Is this for real?  The father and son were out HUNTING PREDATORS!  They were making the sounds of a dying rabbit to lure in predators, and a pack of wolves showed up.  Wasn’t that what they were trying to do?  Did they expect Santa Claus to respond to the dying rabbit call?  I’m sorry, but this is just downright deceptive. 

Swan also advises us not to trust wolves.  To get to his don’t-trust-wolves admonition, Swan discusses old traditions and teachings of the Blackfoot Indians: “[T]he elders teach to respect the wolf, for he is a good hunter.  However, the elders also teach to never trust the wolf (or the coyote), for he can turn on his own kind, as well as anything else, and kill it.”

He then writes, “Co-existence between man and wolf is new to both species in the lower 48.  We should enter into this relationship following Blackfoot wisdom for relating to wolves — respect, admire them, but do not trust them to be like to [sic] warm, cuddly, animals you see on TV.”  Swan wants us to follow old Blackfoot wisdom in our relationship with wolves, but he also tells us that coexistence between humans and wolves is new to both species in the lower 48.  So, did the thousands of years of coexistence between Native Americans (e.g., Blackfoot) and wolves not occur?  Does it not count?  How can we follow the Blackfoot coexistence wisdom if Swan doesn’t acknowledge that it ever happened?  I am seriously confused.

Though there’s much more to say about Swan’s article (e.g., his maverick position on wolf movies and fairy tales), I’ll stop here.  Reread it.  Slowly.  Use Google.  Try to figure out how Swan arrives at his insane ending: “So, if you meet a wolf in the woods, cry ‘wolf!’ and protect yourself.  And don't stop reading ‘Little Red Riding Hood,’ ‘Three Little Pigs,’ and ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf’ to your kids.  Someday, it might just save their lives.” 

Swan’s piece is an illusory house of cards that should never have been published on ESPN.com. 

And this is only the most recent snafu on the Outdoors section of your website.

Last month, in response to your problematic reporting on the false Obama fishing ban, ESPNOutdoors.com’s Executive Editor, Steve Bowman, wrote, “We take seriously the tenets of journalism that require we take an unbiased approach, and when we make mistakes in the presentation of a story or a column, it is our responsibility to admit them.”

I look forward to another mea culpa, ESPN (and Disney).

(The Alpha Male photo by SigmaEye on Flickr)

What does the future hold for wild bison in Montana?  That is a question Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) seeks to answer over the next year. 

And the timing couldn’t be better.

Shockingly, Montana is essentially devoid of wild, free-roaming bison.  A recently released Environmental Assessment states that “[i]n Montana, wild bison only exist within the designated bison-tolerant zones near Yellowstone National Park.”

Montana is an enormous state with significant public land and a rich history of public wildlife and wildlife restoration.  As such, it is inconceivably insane that wild bison are found nowhere in the Treasure State except for a few tiny seasonal “designated tolerance zones” near Yellowstone National Park. 

Fortunately, Montana appears to be taking its dearth of wild bison seriously, and it put the right guy in charge of this significant undertaking, 33-year FWP veteran Arnie Dood.

Dood’s job is to travel across the state, meet with as many interested people as possible, and determine where wild, free-roaming bison populations can be reestablished. 

And Dood’s not talking about fenced, neutered, culled populations of “wild” bison.  No, the goal here is to learn where bison as a wildlife species -- no different than deer, elk, or antelope -- can be restored to the Montana landscape.

Bison restoration is critically important both specifically to Montana and generally to wild bison in North America.  The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) just released “American Bison: Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010,” and the news is not good.

While tens of millions of wild bison roamed the North American plains a few centuries ago, ranging from Alaska to northern Mexico, the American bison is now listed as Near Threatened on IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species.  Particularly concerning is that wild bison make up a miniscule percentage of the bison alive today; over 90% of the continental population is found in commercial herds (and of the relatively few wild herds that exist, most are small, intensively managed, and contain cattle genes).

Restoring wild bison populations in Montana will help protect the species over the long term, benefit Montana’s grassland ecosystems, and rejuvenate rural communities struggling in a changing economy.

With the paucity of wild bison in Montana, Dood is addressing a blank canvas -- an incomplete landscape yearning for the return of the thundering hooves of North America’s largest land mammal.

And, in a wise first step, FWP is seeking public input via an online survey.  The survey is open to anyone, so please take a few minutes and let Montana know what you think about the future of wild bison in Big Sky Country.

The history of bison in America is a horribly dark story.  In the name of commerce and conquest, we came frighteningly close to eradicating bison from the face of the earth.  Montana now has a chance to improve itself and conciliate some of our past wrongdoings to this awe-inspiring creature.

I hope it seizes this precious opportunity.

(Bison photo by xoque on Flickr)

Gray wolves continue to grace many headlines in the West these days.  And, unfortunately, the news is more often than not bad for the wolves.

Here are some recent wolf news stories:

• In February, a joint resolution drafted by the Idaho Legislature, HCR043, claims that Idaho’s current wolf population constitutes an emergency and calls for a drastic reduction of Idaho’s wolf population (i.e., killing several hundred wolves).   
• Also in February, the Utah Senate passed a bill making wolves an enemy of the state.  (No, I’m not kidding).  “The proposed legislation would make it state policy to ‘manage’ wolves to prevent any packs from forming in areas where wolves are no longer listed as an endangered species.  In areas where wolves are still protected, the bill would require state officials to request that federal agencies remove wolves from the state.”
• An anomalously uplifting article in High Country News relates how Colorado might just have its first wolf pack in decades.  (And then a couple of weeks later came the requisite polarizing, over-the-top, run-for-your-lives article on the potential return of wolves to Colorado.)
• Northern Rockies wolves are the subject of a NOW on PBS episode that recently aired, and they’re also on the cover of the current issue of National Geographic.
• In a Yellowstone National Park press release issued a few weeks ago came news that Yellowstone’s wolf population declined for the second year in row.
• A man pleaded guilty this week to illegally killing a wolf in Montana in 2008.  He said he killed the wolf because it was approaching him while he was hunting deer, but a forensics investigation later determined that the wolf was shot in its back left side. 
• Finally, an article in yesterday’s Billings Gazette delivered the sad news that Yellowstone’s legendary, historic, beloved Druid wolf pack will likely be gone soon. 

Reading about state governments drafting “let’s kill wolves” legislation and a coward illegally shooting a wolf in the back and then lying about it makes me think about the great environmental writer and thinker Aldo Leopold. 

Leopold has been dead for more than sixty years, but his eloquent wisdom about ecology and conservation still rings true today.  His A Sand County Almanac is one of my all-time favorite books, and I reread it regularly.  (My more-than-a-little-crazy black lab is also named Aldo.)

But the thing about Leopold is that he once advocated for the killing of wolves to benefit game populations.  He later regretted it, and in “Thinking Like a Mountain” he powerfully and poetically described the evolution of his perspective on wolves.

Since trying to follow Leopold with a pen is pointless, I’ll close with his words from “Thinking Like a Mountain”:

A deep chesty bawl echoes from rimrock to rimrock, rolls down the mountain, and fades into the far blackness of the night. It is an outburst of wild defiant sorrow, and of contempt for all the adversities of the world.

Every living thing (and perhaps many a dead one as well) pays heed to that call. To the deer it is a reminder of the way of all flesh, to the pine a forecast of midnight scuffles and of blood upon the snow, to the coyote a promise of gleanings to come, to the cowman a threat of red ink at the bank, to the hunter a challenge of fang against bullet. Yet behind these obvious and immediate hopes and fears there lies a deeper meaning, known only to the mountain itself. Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf.

Those unable to decipher the hidden meaning know nevertheless that it is there, for it is felt in all wolf country, and distinguishes that country from all other land. It tingles in the spine of all who hear wolves by night, or who scan their tracks by day. Even without sight or sound of wolf, it is implicit in a hundred small events: the midnight whinny of a pack horse, the rattle of rolling rocks, the bound of a fleeing deer, the way shadows lie under the spruces. Only the ineducable tyro can fail to sense the presence or absence of wolves, or the fact that mountains have a secret opinion about them.

My own conviction on this score dates from the day I saw a wolf die. We were eating lunch on a high rimrock, at the foot of which a turbulent river elbowed its way. We saw what we thought was a doe fording the torrent, her breast awash in white water. When she climbed the bank toward us and shook out her tail, we realized our error: it was a wolf. A half-dozen others, evidently grown pups, sprang from the willows and all joined in a welcoming melee of wagging tails and playful maulings. What was literally a pile of wolves writhed and tumbled in the center of an open flat at the foot of our rimrock.

In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second we were pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy: how to aim a steep downhill shot is always confusing. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and a pup was dragging a leg into impassable slide-rocks.

We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.

Since then I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death. I have seen every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn. Such a mountain looks as if someone had given God a new pruning shears, and forbidden Him all other exercise. In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage, or molder under the high-lined junipers.

I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades.

So also with cows. The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf's job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea.

We all strive for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and dullness. The deer strives with his supple legs, the cowman with trap and poison, the statesman with pen, the most of us with machines, votes, and dollars, but it all comes to the same thing: peace in our time. A measure of success in this is all well enough, and perhaps is a requisite to objective thinking, but too much safety seems to yield only danger in the long run. Perhaps this is behind Thoreau's dictum: In wildness is the salvation of the world. Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men.

 (Wolf tracks photo by m d d on Flickr)

(And here is a great op-ed by James William Gibson in the Los Angeles Times on Leopold and wolf-hunting from last December.)

An Associated Press article reports that, according to court documents filed by Montana wildlife officials yesterday in the federal lawsuit over the removal of Endangered Species Act protections from wolves in Idaho and Montana (to which NRDC is a party), the preliminary estimate for the current size of the Northern Rockies wolf population is approximately 1,650 wolves.

If the preliminary estimate turns out to be correct, 2009 will mark the first year since wolves were reintroduced in the mid-1990s that the population has not grown, as the official 2008 population size estimate was also approximately 1,650 wolves.

And that’s a big problem. 

For a sustainably recovered population of wolves in the Northern Rockies, the latest science points to the need for a population of at least 2,000 wolves. 

We’re close to full recovery, but we’re not quite there yet.  And, unfortunately, it looks like last year’s premature wolf hunts and aggressive government control actions, which contributed to a record of more than 500 wolves killed, have further delayed full recovery.  (And the numbers do not include illegal kills, which were likely significant.) 

The Northern Rockies wolf population has been steadily growing at a rate of about 20% per year since reintroduction.  Such impressive growth can be attributed to the success of the reintroduction and the compatibility of wolves with their native landscape (i.e., wolves belong here, and the landscape needs them).  

Without the hunts (and without a significant increase in control actions), the population would have been expected to grow another 20% or so last year, putting it within spitting distance of 2,000 wolves.  Instead, the population has been stopped in its tracks.  (And Montana is already exploring more aggressive kill quotas for its 2010 hunt, and we expect Idaho to do the same.)

Of course, state wildlife officials will cite this preliminary estimate as proof that the inaugural wolf hunts were successful, even though such claims are specious.

Besides halting population growth and further delaying recovery, the premature hunts were harmful in other ways. 

Many backcountry wolves were needlessly killed, as neither the hunt in Montana nor the hunt in Idaho was the least bit designed to target front-country wolves or wolves that reside in high-depredation areas.  While the state agencies claimed the wolf hunts would be a panacea for livestock conflicts, there is absolutely no evidence that this was an actual strategy or that it worked (e.g., Montana’s quota system was based on only three hunting areas -- not exactly targeted).  Quite to the contrary, Montana had to scramble in October and shut down the wolf hunt north of Yellowstone National Park after several wilderness wolves and multiple Yellowstone wolves had already been killed, including radio-collared wolves from the Yellowstone Wolf Project.

We also have no idea what effect the hunts will have on livestock depredations.  Notwithstanding assurances from state wildlife officials that the hunts will help reduce conflicts, the reality is that the hunts could easily exacerbate conflicts by disrupting pack structures (i.e., more juvenile wolves now looking for an easy meal without hunting guidance from experienced wolves) or killing the wrong wolves (i.e., wolves that avoided livestock ranches (and taught their young to avoid them) might have been killed, thus removing “good” wolves from the population). 

We want to see wolves fully recovered in the Northern Rockies.  When that happens, we will not oppose a sustainable wolf hunt. 

Sadly, we are not there yet.  And, no matter how you spin them, last year’s wolf hunts were premature and poorly planned, which is why we challenged them in federal court.

Now, with the Montana hunt over and Idaho’s ending on March 31st, the lawsuit brought by NRDC and other conservation groups, represented by Earthjustice, seeking to restore Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in Idaho and Montana will take center stage in the world of Northern Rockies wolves.

Oh, how I wish a fully recovered Northern Rockies wolf population was center stage.

(Wolf photo by SigmaEye on Flickr)

A recent Associated Press article makes the case that Montana is on the right track with its management of wolves.   The article opens by stating, “An examination of Montana’s first public gray-wolf hunt showed at least nine of the animals were killed in an area prone to livestock attacks — a finding that could blunt criticism that the hunt was ineffective.”

The article also notes that “[c]onfident state wildlife officials said they could increase the quota on the predators next year.”  Montana’s wolf coordinator is then quoted as saying, “We’re on the right track.”

Really?  A total of 72 wolves were killed in the hunt, and Montana justified its wolf “hunt, in part, as a way to remove the predators from the front country where they’re more likely to interact with or kill livestock.”  It looks like Montana went 9 for 72 on that score.

If a ballplayer on the Cubs went 9 for 72, he’d find himself playing for the Peoria Chiefs in short order.  (Well, on second thought, the Cubs might not be the best example here.  A 9 for 72 hitter for the Cubs would, in all likelihood, probably find himself batting cleanup, on the cover of the club’s annual program, and the recipient of a long-term contract extension worth tens of millions of dollars.  I digress.)

Say you went 9 for 72 in your job, would your boss say you’re effective and on the right track?  (If you play for the Cubs and are reading this, please don’t answer.) 

Furthermore, multiple Yellowstone National Park wolves were tragically killed because Montana failed to implement a buffer zone around the Park and it structured its wolf-hunting season so that only wilderness wolves (the “good” guys the state wants to keep around) could be killed for the first month and a half of the hunting season.

Need more?  Three illegally poached wolves were not added to the total kill quota, and Montana slapped the wrist of the offender of two of the poached wolves with a chickadee’s feather for a punishment.  Eight radio-collared wolves were also killed; their contributions to science perishing with them.  

The wolf hunt in Montana was premature (same with Idaho’s) and should not have taken place at all.  But it did, and, to be fair, plenty of uncertainty existed heading into the hunt, Montana’s first-ever fair-chase public wolf hunt.

But many big mistakes were made -- both in the planning of the hunt and in its management once it was underway.  And it’s discouraging to see the state so aggressively spinning the results.

It’s also concerning.

Approximately 40% of Montana’s wolf population has already been killed this year.  While 72 wolves were killed in the hunt, another 127 wolves have been killed by “wildlife control” agents, ranchers, and other causes.  With the last official estimate putting Montana’s wolf population at 497 wolves, the loss of 199 wolves amounts to a 40% hit to the population.  (And that does not include the wolves that have been killed via the “shoot, shovel, and shut up” method.) 

The Northern Rockies wolf population has yet to fully recover, and not a lot of room for error exists. 

Montana’s poorly planned hunt, its subsequent spinning of the results, and this year’s heavy death toll are three damn good reasons, among many, why NRDC and other conservation groups, represented by Earthjustice, are suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to restore Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in Montana and Idaho.

Spinning wolves into trouble cannot be tolerated. 

Grab your distressed prey call and serve yourself an extra helping of manliness at your Thanksgiving feast, it's Idaho Predatory Derby time, baby!

Yeah, that's right, the 5th Annual Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife Idaho Predator Derby is set to kick off in two days.  

So forget about football, leftovers, and full-contact shopping, it's time to slaughter some wolves, coyotes, foxes, and bobcats. 

This event so greatly exceeds the bounds of ridiculousness, it's tough to write about it with a straight face (my face, which you can't see, is filled with both fury and hilarity).

I love to hunt, and I can't wait to spend my Thanksgiving morning on an island in Montana's Madison River hunting ducks.  But as a hunter, this Predator Derby is unrecognizable to me. 

The Predator Derby is about organized competitive killing, not hunting.  And the sponsors, organizers and participants will do a great job of trashing the name of hunting along the way.  

The rules are quite simple:  each team tries to kill as many predators as possible in one day.  Points are awarded as follows:  2 points for each coyote, 2 points for each fox, 2 points for each bobcat, and 3 points for each evil, Satan-loving wolf.  The team with the most points wins (with heaviest weight breaking any ties).

The entire impetus for the Derby stems from a hatred of predators (even though, ironically, predators such as wolves greatly benefit the ecosystems they inhabit). 

And, speaking of the Predator Derby's sponsors, please check them out here. 

Are you as shocked as I am to learn that Cabela's is a sponsor?  Cabela's is the "largest mail-order, retail and Internet outdoor outfitter in the world."  It should know better than to sponsor a wretched event like the Predator Derby.  On the Conservation Partners section of its website, Cabela's states:

Like Cabela's, these organizations are dedicated to conserving the fish, game and wild places that are our heritage.

Really?  Does a dedication to conserving fish, game and wild places translate to sponsoring a full-fledged predator slaughter? 

As a national leader in outdoor sports, Cabela's should be ashamed of itself, and it should revoke its sponsorship. 

An event like the Idaho Predator Derby is a jarring reminder of why NRDC's work on behalf of Northern Rockies wolves is so vitally important. 

Tomorrow, somewhere between my morning duck hunt and my third slice of pumpkin pie, I'll give thanks for the return of wolves to the Northern Rockies in the past fifteen years. 

And then, thinking about the Predator Derby, I'll give thanks for America's legal system and our lawsuit that seeks to restore Endangered Species Act protections for Northern Rockies wolves. 

Have a wonderful Thanksgiving, enjoy the cranberry sauce, and let loose a little howl for Northern Rockies wolves tomorrow.