by ZACK STRONG
A Response to George Wuerthner’s column-
On Monday, George Wuerthner published a column attacking and criticizing the recently proposed Wolf Conservation Stamp in Montana. As the person who worked closely with a Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) commissioner to develop this proposal, and as someone who thinks it is an amazing and much-needed opportunity for wolves and wildlife in Montana, I write to respond to George’s column.
First, I respect George’s views, always look forward to his columns, and have enjoyed working with him in the past. I also appreciate healthy debate and believe it can only help make good ideas stronger. But George fundamentally misunderstands the concept and intention of the wolf stamp. This is not some gimmick to “blow away more wolves,” or “promote animals that hunters like to shoot,” or support the hunting or trapping or killing of anything. This is an effort, and mandate, to conserve, not to kill.
As I’ve explained in blogs here and here, this would provide, for the first time, a very real opportunity to keep more wolves and other large carnivores alive, expand habitat for predators and other wildlife, enhance research and public education about wolves, and ensure that, at the very least, the wildlife laws we do have in place are strictly enforced.
The entire point of the wolf conservation stamp, and the reason it is so exciting (and likely the reason George and others have initially been skeptical), is that it is new. This is not FWP conducting business as usual. This is, instead, a new effort and a new idea born from the many conversations I’ve had with colleagues across the country about a difficult and frustrating dilemma: hunting, trapping and fishing license fees largely fund our state wildlife management agencies, leaving little opportunity for “non-consumptive” wildlife enthusiasts to meaningfully contribute resources or perspectives to management policies.
The wolf stamp would help change that. Here’s how.
After paying for the cost of running the program, revenue from the stamp would be equally allocated and spent in three ways: (1) helping to pay for nonlethal methods of preventing livestock depredations and keeping wolves and other large carnivores out of harm’s way; (2) helping to pay for wolf habitat, research, education and outreach; and (3) helping to pay for additional wardens in occupied wolf habitat.
Critically, no wolf stamp funds would be used to kill wolves or anything else. Equally important, the administrative rules creating the stamp would be legally binding and enforceable regulations mandating exactly how the funds must be spent. Thus, the purchase of a stamp would be the purchase of a guarantee: that the money received would be used to help, not harm, wolves and other wildlife.
George argues against the stamp because “we don’t need more management of wolves and other predators.” But whether we call it “management” or “conservation” or just “spending,” so long as this is an effort aimed at promoting the conservation of wildlife, why wouldn’t we support it?
What we surely don’t need are immutable opinions and positions that oppose any efforts to do good unless total perfection can be achieved (with “perfection,” of course, being subjective and different for all of us). George argues, unhelpfully, that ranchers shouldn’t be given a dime, regardless of any positive result for wolves; that because FWP is a state wildlife management agency, it is incapable of conveying a single accurate fact to the public; that because our wildlife laws aren’t perfect, we shouldn’t bother trying as hard as we can to ensure their enforcement.
These positions are inaccurate and extreme, and they promote only bitterness, resignation, and inaction—none of which do wolves or any other creature any good. It is infinitely more productive, positive, and beneficial for wildlife to take the small steps that we can to enhance their conservation – so let’s get the ball moving in the right direction. And once we move in that proactive direction, common ground often becomes evident: indeed, George approves of purchasing additional habitat, and at least generally “support[s] the idea of non-hunters/anglers paying to support wildlife agencies.” As it happens, the wolf stamp would accomplish both.
Let me be clear: this is no hoax, or trick, or “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” It is simply new. And, as the proposal now stands, it is something that I and many others stand behind and believe is an extremely positive development that would provide, for the first time, an opportunity for wolf and wildlife enthusiasts to directly contribute to conservation and sound management in Montana.
But no one need take it from me that this is a positive, groundbreaking proposal. Public testimony at the commission hearing—from members of the public, conservation groups, and FWP alike—was overwhelmingly supportive. The Commission passed the proposal unanimously. And since then, I have received numerous calls, emails and comments from people expressing appreciation for this collaborative effort and unique opportunity, and asking when stamps will be available for purchase.
The next step in the process is for the Department to write legally binding administrative rules creating the stamp and directing how the money received must be spent. There will be a public comment period on these proposed rules, and then the Commission will take a final vote, probably later this summer or early fall. If the Commission approves the rules, stamps would likely become available for purchase before the end of the year.
This is a huge, exciting, much-needed development. The wolf conservation stamp is a forward-thinking proposal that benefits many different interests. It would be a win-win for wolves, other wildlife, hunters, ranchers, wildlife watchers, recreationists, FWP and the State of Montana. For the first time, it would provide an opportunity for the non-hunting, non-trapping public to contribute funding to FWP that would only be spent on efforts to promote the conservation and responsible management of wolves and other wildlife in the state.
We applaud FWP’s leadership on this issue and its willingness to create this opportunity, we appreciate the overwhelming support this idea has received from the public, and we encourage other states to follow Montana’s lead in creating similar opportunities for wolves and other wildlife throughout the country.
Of course, there is still a long way to go, and much work to be done, before the rules are made final and this idea becomes real. I will continue to blog updates as things progress. In the meantime, thanks again to all of you who have expressed appreciation and encouragement for this effort. It is inspiring and motivating knowing that many of us are working hard to collaborate, find common ground, and come up with policies that are a step in the right direction for wildlife and wild places, and a benefit to the millions of us that visit, live in, and love Montana.