Wolf
Rhetoric Heats Up
For the past few months, I've been watching the battle between wolf-protection groups and wildlife groups move from frosty indifference to semi-nasty rhetoric.
Today, it's safe to say things are -finally some would say- coming to a rolling boil.
After trying to respectfully and factually disagree with the Defenders of Wildlife, the Western Wildlife Conservancy and others, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation's President and CEO M. David Allen, has pulled off the gloves and fired a broadside at what he calls "cherry picked" data designed to allow the wolf population of the West to continue to ravage the other wildlife.
In fact, Allen's declaration of war is the Top Story in today's edition.
In a letter to Mike Leahy Director of the Rocky Mountain Region of Defenders of Wildlife and Kirk Robinson, Executive Director of the Western Wildlife Conservancy, Allen blasts the groups as being party to what may become "one of the worst wildlife management disasters since the destruction of bison herds in the 19th Century."
In his letter, Allen writes, "These animal rights groups seem to think that every individual wolf is worth filing another lawsuit to protect, but the decimation of local elk herds is unimportant. What is truly ironic is these folks claim protection of the Canadian gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). However these wolves are not endangered. There are thousands of them throughout North America. The ESA is being manipulated far beyond its intended purpose."
He then cites example after example where the facts of the matter seem to be irrefutable: wolves are doing what wolves do - hunting and killing - elk and other animals at prodigious rates. Left unchecked, the highly-skilled killing machines have the potential to eliminate herds they have already decimated.
At the heart of the matter is a fundamental difference: pro-wolf groups do not believe the wolves should be harmed; wildlife management groups believe the wolves, as prime predators and wildlife, should be managed with the same scientific methods that are used to control other wildlife populations.
Scientific wildlife management, admittedly a sometimes inexact science, is still a science.
It takes many factors into account, including the fact that the encroachment of man squeezes habitat - meaning animal populations must be "managed" for the good of all the animals.
That's not the goal of the pro-wolf groups.
As Allen wrote of his counterparts at Defenders of Wildlife and Western Wildlife Conservancy:
"They like to say that elk and wolves evolved together and would coexist now if man would just leave them alone, which completely ignores the fact that this is no longer the Old West and millions of us live here now. Habitat is shrinking at a rapid pace and the wildlife that lives here must be carefully managed."
"Man must manage wildlife and we have done so very successfully for over a century. We're long past the day when wolf populations can be left unchecked. Right now this is simply a wolf amnesty program and the results are becoming alarming."
In February, Allen tried to extend an olive branch to the pro-wolf groups, inviting them to meet face to face in order to come to some sort of agreement.
Instead, the pro-wolf groups stepped up their rhetoric.
Now, it seems, Allen has simply had enough of the application of emotion where facts are pretty simple: wolves are wiping out other wildlife.
Unless wolves are managed; there won't be many other species to manage- unless you're monitoring the eating habits of the wolves.
The idea of science-based wildlife management is one that sends many, including PETA, HSUS, and others, into conniption fits.
Their sometimes illogical battles "for the animals" are great vehicles for fundraising, but really do precious little to benefit any animals.
Now, it seems as if one of the "mainstream" groups in the outdoors has had enough of the pro-wolf antics.
Consequently, RMEF has taken on the task of seeing sound practices and not practiced soundbites decide the wolf question.
To accomplish that, they're employing what I consider the nuclear option: facts.
In the court of public opinion, emotion plays well.
In the court of science and wildlife management, not so much.
The facts of the matter will speak plainly for themselves. Everything else is just noise. And those howling the loudest are not the wolves. They're just doing what wolves do.
Looks like a fight worth watching.
--Jim Shepherd
Editor's Note: You can read the text of the entire letter on the RMEF's website (www.RMEF.org)











