- By Dr. Ralph Maughan
Except
for the uninterested, and there a quite a few of them, the 21-year old
controversy over wolf restoration in the West is not really about
wolves. Unfortunately instead, it has become another “values” contest.
To some degree it has also become another red versus blue dispute.
When
wolves were first reintroduced in 1995, with a second batch in 1996,
there was some genuine debate whether this was the best way to restore
them to their native range in Idaho and Wyoming, or whether it was best
that they slowly come back to the Northern Rockies on their own by
southward migration from Alberta and British Columbia.
Experts
and average folks alike discussed whether a wolf reintroduction would
grow or wither and die, whether the wolves would reduce (or maybe even
increase) elk and deer populations. Would they kill thousands of cattle
and sheep each year?
Much knowledge has now been gained.
There are at least a hundred scientific studies about the reintroduced
wolves. I thought about making this column a summary, but there is way
too little space for that.
At
the outset, there were those dead set against wolves no matter what.
They came mostly from public land ranching and some agricultural related
interest groups like the Farm Bureau Federation.
Other
people were completely in favor of the new wolves regardless, right
from the start. However, many folks seemed genuinely open to new
information. The militant anti-wolf narrative didn’t develop and spread
until about 5 years had passed.
Politicians
played an important role spreading this opposition narrative. In 1995, a
Republican Senator from Montana, Conrad Burns, predicted the wolves
would kill a child within a year. It didn’t happen, nor did anything
like it happen in the wolf recovery zone in the next 20 years. However,
in the U.S. Senate Burns was able to cut off funding for the scheduled
second wave of reintroduction in 1996.
The
wolves were brought south that year anyway using some departmental
excess funds, donations from non-profits, and volunteers. The Democratic
Governor of Wyoming Dave Freudenthal repeatedly told the media that the
30 or 40 wolves then in the state were doing the impossible — literally
destroying Wyoming’s economy. Soon other politicians, almost all from
Western rural areas took up the anti-wolf cause.
This
rural geographic base of political support for anti-wolf gives it a
political advantage because localities can elect people (all American
elections except for the President are from geographic districts).
Pro-wolf opinion is often the majority nationwide and often even in
Western states. It comes mostly from the cities of the West and is
scattered throughout the nation. It is nowhere concentrated enough to
win elections.
Those familiar
with politics will recognize the political logic of a concentrated local
viewpoint in opposition to widespread, and maybe more numerous, but a
nowhere densely clustered view in the other direction. This breakdown is
common in political issue after political issue. This is one of the
most important lessons to be learned about practical politics.
Pro-wolf
groups have also been taken to task by some of their friends for making
mistakes both tactical and strategic, but there is a good reason to
believe that the current situation of a slowly declining wolf population
due to human mortality coupled with very unpleasant anti-wolf rhetoric
would have happened regardless of any moves the pro-wolf groups made.
For
example, from the beginning pro-wolf groups have given financial
compensation to livestock owners who lost animals to wolves. A number of
well executed public opinion surveys have shown that giving
compensation has in no way improved rural perception of wolves or
changed the idea that they drive owners of livestock to the wall
financially. The non-violent demeanor of wolves toward humans — no dead
children, no attacks on people period — has made no difference either.
The
wolf issue fits very well into the quiver of anti-government arguments
at large that emerged after 2008. They served as a scapegoat to take
some folks’ minds off the terrible economic disruptions of the Great
Recession.
The pro-wolf
argument was and remains about the beauty of wolves, the need to restore
a natural ecosystem, and that wolves have few negative impacts and many
positive ones.
On the other
hand, the anti-wolf position hardened into apocalyptic tirades. The
wolves are said to be the worst thing that has ever happened to big game
with the elk and deer in an advanced state of decline. Moreover, they
say the agricultural sector of the economy has been delivered a blow to
the gut.
While no group is
immune to believing conspiracy theories, the anti-wolf position relies
on them. The nice thing (or actually the bad thing) about conspiracy
theories is that they are almost immune to facts. For example,
presenting a clear factual disproval of a conspiracy theory usually just
leads its believers to simply say it shows the fact giver is part of
the conspiracy.
Regarding the
wolf restoration, many anti-wolf people believe it to be a conspiracy to
bring a massive non-native beast to Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, from the
“far away land” of Canada. Instead, they say, efforts should have been
to restore a supposedly timid, never seen, small native wolf of the
Rocky Mountains, canis lupus irremotus.
It
is further said that wolf recovery is part of a greater conspiracy to
end hunting, destroy game animals, bring in more federal control (or
perhaps even United Nations control under something named Agenda 21),
destroy gun rights, and the like. The motivation for the conspiracy is
malice and under Agenda 21 the removal of the residents of small towns
and rural areas.
Wolf advocates have
traditionally relied on the federal government to offset what they saw
as the backward policies of the Northern Rockies states toward
endangered carnivores.
Unfortunately
for them, after friendly President Bill Clinton, there came two
Presidents who were of no help or who aided their opponents, George W.
Bush and Barack Obama. Neither President was personally involved with
wolf policy, but their appointments and nominations to key Department of
Interior positions ranged from being uninterested in to against wolf
restoration.
Despite these
setbacks for those who support wolf restoration, the wolf population has
only declined somewhat in Idaho and Montana since their congressionally
forced delisting.
The wolf
population in Wyoming outside of Yellowstone Park is now growing again
after the Wyoming wolf hunt was stopped by a federal court decision
taking wolf management away from that state. In fact, it is now at its
highest point since the restoration began. Wolves have also naturally
spread to Washington, Oregon, and northern California. These states seem
more favorable to a concept of wildlife that includes more than
animal’s value for hunting and trapping.
While
this is very speculative, perhaps twenty years from now we might see
wildlife distributed not as much by geography and habitat as by
politics. Red states might have big populations of a couple kinds of
large grazing animals, designated as “game,” plus varying numbers of
other animals, deemed to be “varmints.” The game would be managed much
like livestock, e.g., cows are privately owned “slow elk.” Actual elk
are public owned quick cows, good for hunting adventure.
Blue
states might have a much larger variety of kinds of animals. They would
be treated as wildlife as well as game. The category of varmint would
be abolished.
The issue will
remain unpleasant because it is really about the cultural values of
rural versus urban and suburban areas. Reason will not prevail. The
facts be damned!
Dr. Ralph
Maughan of Pocatello is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho
State University. He retired after teaching there for 36 years,
specializing in voting, public opinion and natural resource politics. He
has written three outdoor guides, including “Hiking Idaho” with Jackie
Johnson Maughan. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition.
source
source
No comments:
Post a Comment