Dr. Paul Paquet with profound and deeply moving prose sums up the problem that we have with State Wildlife Agencies and the negatively skewed management paradigms that they have in place to "manage" Carnivores.............."Most government agencies have adopted policies skewed towards preserving opportunities for recreational killing rather than conservation or preservation of ecological integrity".......... Ignoring biology and the intrinsic value of species"........., "Wildlife agencies have resolutely judged wolves as animals in need of management, adopting policies that treat them as a problem, rather than as respected members of the biological community"......."This traditional management ethic favors an anthropocentric view that humans are an exceptional species and, aside from their utility for humans, other species are of little or no consequence in the large scheme of things"........ "In traditional wildlife management, human domination over nature is the natural order...........Nature is a commodity that is owned, and used by people in pursuit of personal interests............

A Debate  About Wolf Hunting and Trapping "2013
 International Wolf Symposium 12 October 2013

Why does it matter?

P.C. Paquet

History has demonstrated clearly that societal values and 
perceived
 needs ultimately determine the treatment and often survival 
of species such

 as the wolf. Appropriately, public sensitivity to the killing of
 all large predators
 has now made

any killing of wolves a contentious issue and placed 
management agencies

under intense scrutiny.

With notable exceptions such as parks, the management
 philosophy and policies

of most government agencies are narrowly directed towards
 treating wolves as a

"resource" to kill. Most government agencies have adopted
 policies skewed

towards preserving opportunities for recreational killing rather
 than conservation

or preservation of ecological integrity. Ignoring biology and the 
intrinsic value of

species, wildlife agencies have resolutely judged wolves as
 animals in need of

management, adopting policies that treat them as a problem,
 rather than as

respected members of the biological community.

Red Wolf in North Carolina

This traditional management ethic favors an anthropocentric view
 that humans

are an exceptional species and, aside from their utility for humans,
 other species

are of little or no consequence in the large scheme of things. In
 traditional

wildlife management, human domination over nature is the natural
 order. Nature

is a commodity that is owned, and used by people, in pursuit of
 personal

interests.

Management strategies regarding wolves in North America range
 from full

protection to hunting and control. The lethal strategies are supported
 by efficient

technologies (e.g., aircraft hunting, poisoning, and snowmobile hunting).
 The

idea that wolves can affect mortality rates and densities of their prey
 has

provided much of the basis for killing wolves. Some government 
agencies
 cull

wolves to reduce real and perceived conflicts between wolves and
 livestock.

Wolves are also killed by recreational hunters and commercial
 trappers. The

primary motivation of this recreational trophy hunting is gratuitous
 killing for

pleasure. Likewise, commercial trapping is done for profit but the
 method of

capture and killing causes intense suffering in wolves.\

On moral grounds, killing for pleasure or willing infliction of pain
 is highly

questionable behavior, considered aberrant and deviant by most 
people.

Certainly, society has long recognized that taking pleasure in killing 
an animal or

knowingly inflicting pain are all "red flags" that signal the need for
 professional

intervention. This is especially true when the person has the 
cognitive maturity to

understand that what s/he is doing is wrong - and repeatedly 
does it anyway.

Many human activities harm wolves, both individuals and
 populations, in direct

and indirect ways. Direct effects include lethal culling, hunting,
 trapping,

poisoning, and the destruction of food supplies. Indirect effects 
include changes

to habitat or movement patterns that result in death or disrupt social

relationships.

Importantly, harmful direct actions can have broader indirect
 effects. For

example, in animals like wolves, culling some individuals in a
 social group can

also cause indirect harms by disrupting the transfer of cultural 
and genetic

information between generations, and altering group stability 
and breeding

structures in the population. Although direct harms are more
 obvious and more

likely to attract public attention, both direct and indirect harms
 need to be

recognised as important determinants of animal welfare and
 conservation.

In making moral judgments, people tend to regard harm as 
more serious if it is

deliberate rather than unintentional. Both recreational and
 institutional killing of

wolves, for example, are viewed as more serious acts than 
unintentional killing.

Similarly, people may regard harm as less significant if done 
for a seemingly

worthwhile purpose. This is a slippery slope, however,
 because social and moral

justifications are often used to sanctify harmful practices
 by investing them with

worthy purposes. Disengagement of moral self-sanctions 
enables people to

pursue detrimental practices freed from the restraint of
 self-censure.

Gray Wolf Pack attacking a Bison in Yellowstone

I think it is undeniable that we are harming wolves by knowingly
 inflicting physical

and psychological pain and suffering, which often results in their\
 deaths.

Sometimes we do this for our own pleasure, sometimes for dubious
 pragmatic

reasons, but usually for reasons that are gratuitous and selfish.

Some of us are well-informed participants, deliberately pursuing
 harmful activities

that serve our own interests. We justify our behavior through moral

disengagement by switching off our conscience to exonerate and
 sanitize our

malpractice in the name of worthy causes. Others are uninformed 
or unmindful

bystanders. But all of us are accountable.

From an ethical perspective that considers the intrinsic value
 and welfare of

individual animals and populations, most killing of wolves is 
morally indefensible

and should be stopped.

Further, wildlife conservation aims to ensure that populations
 and species

survive, and that ecological and evolutionary processes continue. 
For evolution

to continue, however, individuals are important because natural 
selection acts on

individuals. Many subspecies of wolves have no evolutionary 
future because of

misguided lethal management practices that ignore the 
fundamentals of biology

and fail to consider individuals. Animal welfare, however,
 is concerned with the

well being of these individuals.

Accordingly, many conservationists and managers are
 embracing and

incorporating ethical considerations of animal welfare. 
Likewise, animal

welfarists who have direct connections to ecology and 
place are drawing upon

information from environmental research. The mutual 
recognition is that

although wildlife science and animal welfare constitute
 different paths to

knowledge, they are rooted in the same reality and affirm 
one another.

Dr. Paul Paquet is Senior Scientist and Carnivore
 Specialist with the Raincoast

Conservation Foundation &; Science Advisory
 Board Member of Project Coyote. He is an
 internationally recognized authority on mammalian 
carnivores, especially wolves,
 with research experience in several regions of the world