By George Wuerthner;thewildlifenews
State Fish and Game agencies are in the midst of a funding and mission crisis. They appear unable to adapt to shifting political and demographic changes much as the Republican Party is failing to adjust to new voter realities. The crisis is nowhere more evident than in their attitudes towards predators like wolves.
FUNDING CRISIS
The financial dilemma is created by their reliance upon the sale of hunting and fishing licenses to fund their bureaucracy, as well as federal funding that comes from a tax on the sale of hunting and fishing equipment. That outside funding source had given these agencies a certain amount of independence from the political meddling of state legislatures. However, what was once a source of independence is now a liability.
Unfortunately for these agencies, the number of hunters and anglers is rapidly waning and with that decline in participation, comes a major shortfall in operational funds. In the 1950s, 25% of Americans hunted, but by 2006 only 10% hunted, and the number of people participating continues to drop. Rising costs due to inflation, combined with declining license sales, is creating a financial predicament with no end in sight.
Though there are fewer and fewer hunters, there are more and more wildlife lovers and that is the conundrum for these agencies. Even though many of them have changed their name from "fish and game" to more inclusive names such as "Department of Natural Resources "or "Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks", their values and attitudes, particularly towards predators, have remained largely unchanged from a 1950s Ozzie and Harriet view of America.
.jpg)
Like the Republican Party, these state agencies are slow to change their mission and values to reflect the new face of America which is more ethnically diverse, younger and urban than those who remain as hunters. Similar to the Republican Party these state agencies are betting their political (and financial future) on a dwindling number of conservative, aging, white males that makes up the lion's share of all hunters.
MANAGEMENT OF PREDATORS
The contrast between widespread public values and the behavior of state wildlife agencies is nowhere more evident than in how they choose to manage predators. Despite a growing and strong public support wolves and other predators—state agencies have all adopted policies that seek to reduce wolf numbers, not only reducing the wildlife viewing opportunities for non-hunters, but significantly reducing the ecological effects of top predators on ecosystems. On top of that, these agencies permit the use what many consider to be barbaric and inhumane measures such as snaring, trapping, and hunting with dogs.
I am not aware of any state wildlife agency that has not initiated drastic and often punitive persecution of wolves once they were delisted by the federal government. Even states that are often seen as "progressive politically" like Wisconsin and Minnesota have jumped on the bandwagon to kill wolves. The only exception are states like California, Oregon and Washington where wolves are just colonizing and wolf numbers are still very low. It remains to be seen whether they will follow the examples found in other states and adopt a largely vendetta-like approach to wolf management.
.jpg)
A good example of the contrast between public values and agency management policies is evident in Montana's decision to open the state to wolf killing. It is also evident in the words used to describe these actions. I might note that MDFWP, like all wildlife agencies, euphemistically refers to this persecution of predators like wolves as "harvesting" these animals in an effort to mask what is really occurring—animals are wantonly being killed for all the wrong reasons.
FAILURE TO COUNTER MISINFORMATION
In its Environmental Assessment (EA) document "Gray Wolf Damage Management in Montana for the Protection of Livestock, Other Domestic Animals, Human Safety, and other Resources", Montana officials state that "the current population level (of wolves) is a concern to sportsmen who rely on surplus mule deer, white-tailed deer and elk for hunting, and livestock producers who use public and adjacent private lands for livestock grazing."
While there is no doubt that hunters and ranchers are concerned about what they perceive to be "too many" wolves, is it the state wildlife agencies job to promote false allegations? Or should MDFWP demonstrate professionalism and refute misleading and inaccurate assumptions? (I do know of one courageous attempt by MDFWP Commissioner Bob Ream who gave a few public talks pointing out that other predators like mountain lion might be more responsible for declines in elk in a few locations of concern than wolves—but Ream's efforts are the exception).
Let's examine these claims. In 2012, only 12 elk management units out of a total of 127 state-wide were under "objectives", meaning the number of elk in those hunting areas were below the goals set by the agency. In contrast, some 47 elk management units were meeting goal objectives, and even more telling, another 83 management units were above objectives—basically meaning there is an over abundance of elk in the eyes of the agency.
Keep in mind there are a variety of reasons why some elk management units are not meeting objectives that have nothing to do with predators. High road density which limits elk security habitat from hunters, changes in habitat quality such as a decline in summer nutrition levels, harsh winter weather or drought, and even excessive kills of elk by hunters has caused elk herd declines.
So this begs the question as to whether a major campaign to kill wolves for their alleged impact on hunting opportunity is really valid except perhaps for a few very small and specific areas.
We find the same lack of context for allegations of livestock impacts. In 2012, there were only 74 confirmed cattle deaths attributed to wolves out of a total population of more than 2.5 million cattle. A study on Montana livestock losses done in 2005 found that there were 66,000 animal deaths attributed to everything from consumption of poison plants to attacks by domestic dogs. Obviously wolf depredation is an insignificant and minor cause of livestock losses.
Finally, wolf numbers will not grow indefinitely. Wolves, like all predators are social animals. They have socially enforced limits on their population, including defended territories, limited breeding opportunities by dominant animals, and other mechanisms that work to maintain social carrying capacity well below biological capacity.
In reaction to these non-existence and imaginary threats, Montana Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks endorsed expanded hunting season, adopted trapping of wolves and failed to counter the misinformation that created a non-existence menace. And in doing so, they may have won some grudging support from hunters, but they have alienated much of the non-hunting population and destroyed their credibility as objective and professional wildlife managers.
SIMILARITIES TO REPUBLICAN PARTY
In a sense state agencies are acting much like the Republican Party in refusing to acknowledge changing demographics and values. The Republican Party instead of adopting the changing values and demographics of America, such as gay rights, women rights, immigration reform, gun control and so on, the party is becoming more extreme and conservative. The reason Republicans lost the last presidential election is a failure to properly appreciate the changing demographics and values of Americans.
In a similar manner, state wildlife agencies instead of recognizing that America citizenry is changing, are thumbing its nose at the wildlife concerns of a growing numbers of non-consumptive wildlife lovers, and are rallying around their past core supporters—hunters. They may give lip service to a generalize appreciation of wildlife, but when push comes to shove, it is hunting and consumptive "traditions" like trapping they promote.
Instead of changing policies to appeal to a broader public, Fish and Wildlife agencies pander to their core constituency—the conservative hunters. The solution adopted by most state agencies is to try to convert more people to hunting instead of changing its mission and values to more inclusive of non-hunting wildlife lovers. So the agencies have programs like take a "child hunting" or "outdoor women" effort which they hope will swell the ranks of hunters. But all indications are that such efforts are unable to reverse the overall decline in hunters.
Like the disdain for the values of non-white and youthful voters shown by conservative members of the Republican Party, state wildlife agencies are rejecting and alienating whole segments of society that includes bird watchers, nature lovers, and even animal rights proponents who represent the future for wildlife appreciation activities in America.
THE ALDO LEOPOLD MODEL
It's important to note that not all hunters are anti-progressive or supportive of right wing politics. Nor do all hunters support the war on predators. Aldo Leopold, one of the most articulate spokespersons for a land ethnic and advocate for predators, was also a hunter. But the Aldo Leopold ethical "hunter" is grossly out-numbered by those who fear predators, idolized consumption or the privatization of public wildlife for personal glory (trophy hunting) and engage in/support activities of questionable ethics like prairie dog shoots and coyote contests.
Like Leopold, my own gateway into nature appreciation and ecological insight was through hunting and fishing. Long before I adopted and broadened my outdoor pursuits to include backpacking, mountain climbing, kayaking, cross country skiing, nature photography, wildflower study and bird watching, I was roaming the woods seeking deer and wading rivers attempting to fool a fish into accepting my fly as food.
I personally support some forms of hunting and fishing as having societal value, though I respect those who values are opposed to such activities. I do not, however, see any valid scientific or ethical justification for a generalized persecution of predators.
Likewise, I do not support much of the reactionary legislation being promoted by state wildlife agencies and their more conservative pro-hunting groups. There is currently federal legislation to make hunting a preferred activity on public lands. There are even attempts to enshrine hunting into state constitutions as a constitutional right, in an almost pathetic attempt to equate the right to kill wildlife with such ideals as equal rights for voting.
State wildlife agencies instead of promoting the ethical behavior and ideas espoused by Leopold, seek to validate predator killing as a positive force for society. One can find many wolf killers posing in photos posted on Facebook or the internet with broad smiles as they struggle to hoist up an often bloody dead body, apparently proud of their feat—demonstrating a singular lack of respect for the animals and for others who might not share their perspective on wolf killing. Instead of condemning such behavior, wildlife agencies passively and implicitly condone such actions by promoting and legalizing various forms of wolf killing.
However, it is not just the killing of popular animals like a wolf that is giving state wildlife agencies less and less respect from the public at large. It is the promotion of all sorts of questionable techniques from snaring of wolves to baiting bears to harassing and killing cougars with radio collared dogs.
A good percentage of today's general population (and I might note some hunters as well) finds such behaviors and technologies far from any morally defensible concept of "fair chase" or ethical treatment of animals. There is no faster way to convert even more of the general public against all hunting than giving tacit moral support and legal legitimacy to such activities.
I suspect that most state wildlife agencies are unable to reform themselves. They face tremendous political pressure to continue predator killing programs from their core constituency, which on the whole, sees predators as a threat to their values. At some point, we will reach a tipping point where public outrage over antiquated policies will likely lead to legislation to end hunting, trapping, and other forms of wildlife exploitation. For instance, California voters removed agency discretion by outlawing recreational cougar hunting (except for specific surgical removal of individual animals that might pose a safety threat or attacking livestock).
There are efforts in numerous states now to end trapping. I predict we will see more and more restrictions on some kinds of hunting implemented across the country—and it will be the fault of hunters and state wildlife agencies for their failure to adapt to new demographic realities. I also suspect that unless state wildlife agencies change their policies and, more importantly, their attitudes to embrace, not merely tolerate, non-consumptive wildlife advocates they will see their operational budgets shrink and their influence continue to decline.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment