In 2000 the Bush Administration forced a political sleight-of-hand on the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Up to that point in time, the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) was considered an endangered species in federal policy. But a new policy was soon announced. The administration wished to consider the wolf as ‘recovered’ (no longer endangered) throughout its range, when it was recovered in only a small part of its range. Management would then be turned over to the states, and federal protections would end. This policy was heedless of fragile population levels, inadequate recovery areas, the absence of landscape linkages, and increased poaching. It flatly ignored the availability of suitable habitat elsewhere, much less the mandate of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It would achieve, however, the administration’s goal of undermining the ESA, play to the anti-environmental prejudice of the Republican Party, and off-load endangered species management to under-prepared state wildlife agencies.
So under the coercion of political appointees, the FWS gerrymandered maps of wolf recovery, declared the gray wolf recovered in a few places (e.g. the Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes), and proceeded to ‘down-list’ wolves as quickly as possible. The exceptions were the Red Wolf (Canis rufus) in the southeast, and the Mexican Gray Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) in the southwest. Wolf recovery did not charge ahead for these critically endangered species either. The Red Wolf program has been isolated for years in one recovery area. In 2005, a back-room deal between ranching interests and the FWS resulted in a moratorium on further reintroductions for Mexican grays.
The response of animal protection, wildlife conservation and environmental groups was decisive. Defenders of Wildlife and other non-profit groups sued in federal court, and won a series of impressive verdicts. The courts held that the FWS had proceeded illegally, cloaking political motivation in the guise of science. The administration’s policy was reversed, wolves are again considered an endangered species, and new areas for wolf recovery (e.g. New York and New England) are mandated for consideration.
Now that the courts have spoken, we can rest easily, right? Hardly. The mere possibility of reintroduction does no make it so. There are legitimate scientific, social and ethical questions about where, when and how we should reintroduce wolves. The confusing genetics of wolves and other canids makes it difficult to identify the correct species or subspecies to restore. Of far greater importance is the political opposition from a cohort of agency, commercial and extremist ‘property rights’ interests collectively masquerading as proponents of ‘wise use’. Once all the ecological and ethical issues are solved (and they shall be), advocates for wolves must still organize sufficient political power to achieve their goals.
Moreover, while legal victories are important, they do little to challenge the underlying rationale used to justify the administrations policy in the first place, namely that once recovered, wolves should be managed like any other commodity via State-level game regulations. This is one reason wolves got into trouble in the first place. For example, none of the management plans adopted by western states do more than keep a bare minimum of wolves on the landscape. This is not recovery. It is the creation of outdoor museums, places where wolves are incarcerated in relic landscapes surrounded by what amounts to free-fire zones. If you want to understand the real intentions behind these plans, think of ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or the homelands of South Africa. What is envisioned here is a kind of species apartheid, where a few wolves would live in the back-country, while the remaining landscape is made ‘safe’ for over-hunting, over-grazing and over-development.
The dispute over wolf recovery in the US is a microcosm of parallel controversies across the globe. At its core is the question of how we ought to live with wolves. This kind of question is ethical in character, and demands a rethinking of our relationship with animals. It is also practical, as re-envisioning how humanity might live with wolves is the only means of securing short-term legal and policy victories, through long-term cultural and political change.
When discussing wolves, we hear familiar arguments for and against recovery. Most of these arguments rely on science, and invoke the role of predators in natural landscapes and the conservation of biodiversity. Some of these arguments are social, and focus on the (un)desirability of having wolves in humanized landscapes where they will come into conflict with livestock and companion animals. Few of these claims emphasize the moral reasons for wolf recovery. A few examples include the place of wolves in our stewardship of creation, the biological heritage that wolves contribute to our children and our culture, as well as the intrinsic value wolves have in and of themselves. You hear less of these ethical reasons, because wolf advocates, biologists and policy makers are not used to thinking about such matters. While people of good will and character, they have difficulty relating moral questions to issues of management, policy and politics.
I want to help end this relative silence on ethics and wolves. And I need your help to do so. In future columns I shall share the many ethical reasons I see for wolf recovery. I hope you will share your thoughts and experiences. Ethos is not a set of lectures masquerading as a column. I do enough lecturing in my day job! It is, rather, a conversation about ethics, culture and their effect on wolves and other living beings. Your thoughts need not be long, but they will help guide and enrich our dialogue. So do send your opinions by email or post, and the ensuing conversation will be all the better for it!
Cheers, Bill
~
Bill Lynn is the founder and Senior Ethics Advisor of Practical Ethics (http://www.practicalethics.net/), and a professor at the Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University (www.tufts.edu/vet/cfa).
Image: Tracy Brooks, 2003, Reflection.