ADVOCACY PROJECT

      Picture this: you’ve just flown halfway across the country to visit your #1 bucket list destination, Yellowstone National Park in Montana. You’re hoping to experience some unbridled nature up close before heading back to the city, and there's one species in particular you've got your sights set on: the majestic canis lupus, or grey wolf, native only to North America and select parts of Eurasia. After exploring for several hours you leave the park disheartened, having not encountered a single one. Confused, you ask a nearby guide about this during your last day at Yellowstone. The guide looks uncomfortable and starts getting shifty, but eventually they concede that one main culprit has been largely responsible for the dearth of wolves in the area: hunters, and their seemingly boundless appetite to kill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People often point to dogs as the go-to sidekicks for human adventure - after all, they’ve gone from hunting companions to housemates to what many consider to be treasured family members. Long thought to be the result of centuries of domestication, these tight bonds have earned dogs the status of "man's best friend" - after all, few other species have enjoyed such a loving relationship with humans. Wolves, on the opposite end of the spectrum, are widely perceived as untameable beasts that will never come close to understanding us the way a golden retriever or Australian shepherd might. Therefore, it's well within our rights to hunt them.

 

There are two things wrong with this assumption. The first is that a multitude of research has now demonstrated that wolves can actually comprehend human signals and cues in a similar way to dogs, when given proper training and human acclimatization, and the second is that that shouldn't matter. A common viewpoint among animal rights philosophers is that any species that we know has the capacity to suffer or experience pain, regardless of intelligence, deserves to live free of said suffering and pain. This was first proposed by the renowned animal bioethicist Peter Singer, and it still holds true today when thinking about the 100,000+ wild animals Americans trophy hunt every single year (source: Humane Society).

 

 

 

 

 

Driving back to the airport, something appears to be rotting on the side of the road. Upon closer inspection, you discover the carcass of an adult wolf, stripped bare and abandoned by the highway. Blood seeps out of the flesh into the surrounding mud. A steel bullet lies wedged in the animal's shoulderblade.

​

Disturbingly, this actually isn't so uncommon. A Humane Society investigator found that coyote hunters at a Nevada killing contest would sometimes leave the bodies of dead animals in the mud if they were too lazy to retrieve them. Apparently, just the act of shooting something is a passion in itself; one participant attributed his enthusiasm for hunting to "being able to shoot as many as I f****** want. And kill s***. The itch to kill something. Better than people.”

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

In Idaho alone, more than $1 million have already been earmarked specifically for the purpose of killing wolves. That's on top of their goal for a 90% decrease in wolf population, and Montana's new target to have 90% of their wolves eliminated. (Williams) Former Senator Mike Phillips told Vox that "this is a moment defined by people of authority who don’t value large carnivores much at all." Yet at the same time, Americans overwhelmingly love wolves: support for lethal measures toward wolves consistently ranks lower among the general population than among ranchers, hunters and other groups, and support among all groups drops every year. What's going on?

​

The answer is, as always, politics. Ed Bangs, former head of wolf recovery for the Northern Rockies region, claims that interest groups and politicians are using the species as pawns to provoke their opponents and create a divide between rural and urban voters. “It’s about making ‘snowflakes’ cry....the legislatures politicized everything and made wolves a symbol of liberals and outsiders. It’s 1850s stuff — let’s show how much we hate wolves and the people who like them, and let’s stick it to the feds.” He's not alone in that sentiment. Dan Ashe, who led the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), agrees that “this isn’t about elk, deer, livestock, or science. It’s just old-fashioned persecution, hatred, and cruelty.” In a speciesist turn of fate, endangered animals have simply become seen as symbols of the new urban "snowflake" mentality, and killing one represents masculinity, dominance and a return to so-called rural values. (Williams) It's no wonder the Nevada hunt participants were so bloodthirsty - they're clinging to a sense of identity that never existed, one that was artificially created by conservative politicians and hunting industry groups the second they started replacing or silencing wildlife experts at land bureaus and agencies across multiple states in 2021.

 

In addition to rank politicization, these groups claim that wolves are bad for the environment in general. To prop up their straw-man opposing argument, they point to a now-dispelled myth: that wolves kill livestock, pets and other prey and contribute to economic losses for farmers. First of all, Ted Williams writes that wolves killed 0.01% of cattle along the Rocky Mountains in 2015. Secondly, an important study out of Slovakia revealed that lethal mechanisms were NOT an effective way to address this problem. A group of four researchers analyzed the impact of a public wolf-hunting scheme that involved annual hunting quotas between 2014 to 2019, and found zero evidence that it was effective at managing the loss of domestic animals. Additionally, the authors noted that livestock is only "marginally represented" in wolves' dietary preferences, which is probably why singling them out and killing them didn't work. And in an eerie similarity to the events in North America, they also noted the following: "There are strong political incentives to scapegoat large carnivores (Chapron & López‐Bao, [ 7]), and new attempts for lethal management of wolves in Europe may arise in the near future using similar arguments." (Miroslav et al.)

​

 

 

 

 

 

The need to save our wolves comes from the immense benefits they bring to forest ecosystems. For one, they make for a more diversified food chain, according to researchers from a wildlife centre in Canada. When wolves were reintroduced to Banff National Park in Alberta, cougars responded by eating more deer or sheep and fewer elk, restoring a natural population balance. Conservationists term this kind of effect a "trophic cascade". Further, by keeping elk and moose populations in check, wolves can prevent these species from overbreeding themselves to starvation in what are known as "winter die-offs" and help maintain a diverse array of plants and animals. For example, the reduction in elk density caused by wolf reintroductions in Yellowstone National Park meant less grazing and browsing of plant biomass, allowing for a rebound of songbirds and a 14x increase in beaver colonies! Meanwhile, even the elk themselves recovered to more stable population patterns, since they weren't subject to the "boom and bust" fluctuation of winter die-offs. The researchers noted a similar correlation between those four species in Banff and Jasper National Parks, as well as a less clear relationship between wolves and moose in Isle Royale National Park. In all cases, the trophic cascade from wolf predation was linked to "a more diversified wildlife community". In addition, wolf predation removes diseased individuals from prey populations; in particular, research suggests that it might decrease the outbreak size in herds of wild deer and elk infected with chronic wasting disease (a condition similar to mad cow disease). Because wolves tend to feed off older/sicker/weaker individuals, their presence can limit the spread of infectious diseases and act as a natural selection pressure against debilitating genetic conditions. (Villeneuve et al.)

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

Wolf trophy hunting is a complex problem requiring complex solutions, and it will take initiative both from government agencies and individual citizens to repair at least some of the damage that's been done. Given that officials in Wisconsin can't even agree on the numbers of wolves in their state, that won't be an easy feat.

 

For its part, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has already announced its intention to create a "National Recovery Plan" for grey wolves by December 2025. This plan would involve working with all involved parties - wolf-adjacent community members, hunters, conservation experts, and indigenous tribal leaders - to develop a nationwide strategy to protect the wolves and the habitats they serve. It would also involve taking steps to mitigate conflict and foster a stable long-term relationship between communities and wolves. This solution has the best chance of improving the fate of America's wolves, since it spans across the country and doesn't focus on a specific population or state.

​

Some states, like Wisconsin, seem to be adopting their own versions of this plan. The state's aptly-titled Wolf Management Plan, approved by the Department of Natural Resources in 2023, seeks to employ a variety of measures to address concerns around the species. These will include imposing new restrictions on hunting zones and outlining public education around wolf rehabilitation. Crucially, the DNR worked with tribal representatives from the Ojibwe Nation (who had sued them two years earlier) to incorporate their input and ultimately earn their blessing. (Ever the ones to lead by example, California has already had a statewide grey wolf plan in place since 2016.)

​

On the surface, it might seem from the previous paragraphs that trophy hunting is as much a political problem as it is an environmental one. However, it would be too simplistic to state that politics is the sole contributor to the situation. The people advocating for strict population quotas evidently don't value the lives of individual wolves. Cultural attitudes towards wolves, and large carnivores in general, are in need of a reset, but that's where individuals can come in. The Canadian researchers mentioned above write that "in the past, wolf management has largely entailed the use of lethal methods and the development of control programs that have been poorly assessed but have been repeatedly supported by ranchers, hunters and trappers. Today, wolf management should entail managing wolves for their ecological and intrinsic value."

 

It's this intrinsic value that is so often overlooked when it comes to animal rights policy. Ranchers, hunters and trappers all have one thing in common: they see animals as a means to an end, a resource to be exploited for humans' economic, environmental or aesthetic purposes. The best way to change this isn't through new laws or regulation, but through having heart-to-heart conversations about why we perceive animals the way we do. Social media can be a great tool for changing minds and introducing new perspectives, making it one of the best places for grey wolf advocates to get involved. Start by teaching friends/followers to understand the idea that, maybe, just maybe, animals have a fundamental right to exist (and thrive!) that is independent of whatever benefits they bring to us. This is something that is already imbued in most indigenous tribal communities, which is why listening to their voices is such an important force in conservation.

​

The other factor contributing to antiwolf ideology is misinformation, as even nonconservative areas have expressed negative attitudes toward the canines. Much of this is the fault of simple-minded journalists ignoring scientific nuances and chasing down whatever will net the most clicks online. On some level, it's hard to blame them - it's a lot easier to make a headline about a terrifying wolf attack than about an ecosystem doing what ecosystems normally do.

Nevertheless, public perception trickles down into voting behaviour, and far too many people think that wild wolves are out to get their children and pets. Considering that "higher levels of education [are] correlated with positive attitudes toward wolves", it's clear that a substantial portion of Americans has been misled.

 

Luckily, informing people is just as easy as misinforming them, and social media can help with that too. Supporters of wolf recovery programmes could take action by participating in fact-based educational campaigns and sharing posts about the proven ecological benefits wolves bring to communities. They could also combat misinformation by reporting accounts that post misleading or biased statistics, and shooting down disproven falsehoods anywhere in the media. As mentioned earlier, it's disturbingly easy for governments and interest groups to vilify large canines, so spreading as much (truthful) information as we can is our best bet for safeguarding the species long into the future. That Wisconsin wolf plan mentioned earlier? It was made possible because members of the local Sierra Club campaigned tirelessly, spreading awareness through various channels and imposing grassroots pressure on the public (as well as regulators) in order to mobilize and win over support until the problem couldn't be ignored.

​

 

​

 

 

Some years later, you return to a changed Yellowstone. This time, you're not the only one here to see canis lupus. The gift shop has rows of wolf-themed merchandise lined up on the shelves, and a brochure advertises the importance of carnivore ecology. But it's the outside that's changed the most. You notice more wildlife on the drive out: more birds, more beavers, more butterflies. The hills look greener. Wild lupines dot the side of the road, stretching on in an endless march of purples and blues.

 

The wolves have returned, and they've brought the forest with them.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Sources

Block, Kitty. “An ‘Itch to Kill’: Undercover at Wildlife Killing Contests in Nevada.” The Humane Society of the United States, 15 Mar. 2023, www.humanesociety.org/blog/itch-kill-undercover-wildlife-killing-contests-nevada?utm_source=blogredirect.

 

Campbell, Leah. “A Fight over Wolves Pits Facts against Feelings in Wisconsin.” Undark Magazine, 3 June 2022, undark.org/2022/06/06/a-fight-over-wolves-pits-facts-against-feelings-in-wisconsin/.

​

“Gray Wolf.” California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State of California, wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Gray-Wolf. Accessed 28 May 2024.

 

Jones, Benji. “The Bizarre Push to Kill More of Montana’s Wolves, Explained.” Vox, Vox Media, LLC, 12 Apr. 2021, www.vox.com/22371558/montana-wolves-hunting-deer-elk-moose. 

 

“Science Prevailed in Contentious Wolf Debate.” Sierra Club Wisconsin Chapter, Sierra Club, 3 Nov. 2023, www.sierraclub.org/wisconsin/blog/2023/11/science-prevailed-contentious-wolf-debate.

​

Singer, Peter and Richard Dawkins. "Vegetarianism, Animal Rights, and Living Ethically." YouTube. 22 November 2011. Web. 22 February 2018.

​

Udell, Monique A.R., et al. “Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues.” Animal Behaviour, vol. 76, no. 6, 21 Sept. 2008, pp. 1767–1773, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.028.

​

“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Completes Status Review and Finding for Gray Wolves in the Western United States; Launches National Recovery Plan.” FWS.Gov, 2 Feb. 2024, https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2024-02/service-announces-gray-wolf-finding-and-national-recovery-plan. Accessed 28 May 2024.

 

Villeneuve, Kimberly A., and Gilbert Proulx. "Ecological advantages of grey wolf (Canis lupus) reintroductions and recolonizations in North America." Wildlife conservation and management in the 21st century ̶Issues, solutions, and new concepts. Alpha Wildlife Publications, Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada (2024): 181-195

​

Virányi, Zsófia, et al. “Comprehension of human pointing gestures in young human-reared wolves (canis lupus) and dogs (canis familiaris).” Animal Cognition, vol. 11, no. 3, 9 Jan. 2008, pp. 373–387, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0127-y.

Williams, Ted. “America’s New War on Wolves and Why It Must Be Stopped.” Yale E360, Yale School of the Environment, 17 Feb. 2022, e360.yale.edu/features/americas-new-war-on-wolves-and-why-it-must-be-stopped.