Ambivalent on animal management
I tend to think of myself as a supporter of land conservation, wildlife refuges and the animals that depend on such wild places. And I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to capture their images with my Nikon telephoto lens.
Having been blessed to live where wildlife is abundant, I consider myself an advocate for their wellbeing.
Does this mean I agree with all causes supported by organizations that welcome my donations? Actually, not. When politicians are involved (and usually they are), things can get a bit murky.
Consider the plight of wolves in the Rocky Mountains. Reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, the wild canids have overcome a few setbacks to have fully recovered in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Wildlife biologists who have tracked their progress agreed with removing these wolves from the Endangered Species List. Delisting was contingent on state wildlife agencies writing management plans. Montana and Idaho plans were accepted. Wyoming’s was not.
Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Malloy ruled that the entire gray wolf population must either be listed as an endangered species or removed from the list, but that protections could not vary by state. Montana and Idaho culled their wolf populations with licensed hunts last year. Montana Department of Fish, wildlife & Parks were planning its first state-sanctioned bow-hunting season for wolves, which is now on hold.
Biologists say wolves keep elk populations at manageable levels. Hunting groups say wolves are decimating ungulate populations. And now the politicos have joined the fray.
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer wrote to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in favor of delisting and state management as “resident wildlife.” Ravalli County commissioners have voted to ask state and federal agencies to reinstate regional wolf management to protect the region’s ungulate population (and thereby the county’s hunting economy).
Rep. Denny Rehberg has circulated polls seeking public opinion on the matter. Most city residents have no opinion unless they are hunters. Ranchers are more inclined to want the wolves gone.
Meanwhile, Defenders of Wildlife is using the issue to solicit donations (presumably to fund lawsuits to block delisting, overturn the judge’s ruling, whatever). Defenders also sponsored a day of instruction in how to be an activist for wildlife. On its face, this sounds okay. But in the fine print, it says we will learn how to wield influence by writing letters to the editor, organizing demonstrations and such. Too late.
My family has always adhered to certain principles concerning when it’s okay to shoot a wild animal. On our ranch, hunting was permitted but only with licenses and tags, and included the taking of deer (in season, forked-horn bucks only) dove, quail and the occasional pheasant.
The rules were: you have to eat whatever you shoot unless it’s a varmint (ground squirrels mostly) or in the process of menacing domestic animals or children (rattlesnakes or an unusually brazen coyote).
If predators are left in place, nature seems to take over population management. Coyotes and bobcats keep rabbits and feral cats in check; hunters (yes, we’re predators, too) and itinerate cougars manage the deer population; snakes protect the vegetable garden from gophers; and ravens keep the whole landscape picked up.
Individual hunters who live among wildlife often have a better sense of what’s needed than organizations protecting narrow interests. Recently a hunter, after enjoying five days of elk hunting with bow and arrow, wrote that conservationists and hunters can agree on several points concerning wolves and elk and the important role of hunters in this dynamic. “Generations of hunters are responsible for policies that have protected millions of acres of wildlife habitat and nurtured numerous species back from the brink of extinction,” he wrote. “The collective result is the North American Wildlife Conservation Model: a system that keeps wildlife as a public and sustainable resource, scientifically managed by professionals.” He went on to say, “State management of wolf populations as wildlife is the only viable option for maintaining a sustainable balance between the keystone predator, its prey and the habitats within which they exist.”
I don’t always agree with the hunting viewpoint, but this time I do; Well, with a caveat. At what point do we destroy the balance of nature with our “management” of wildlife? Might we be better served by wildlife organizations that focus on habitat conservation rather than lawsuits and public demonstrations? Perhaps they could encourage politicians to consider the ramifications of climate change on all of us and to pass meaningful legislation to mitigate that.