by ERIK MOLVAR
The livestock industry and its apologists are trying out a new spin to justify their unwillingness to coexist with native wildlife, arguing that it is necessary to kill large predators from time to time to appease the locals and create “social tolerance.” This is a false and self-serving narrative, and is causing a public backlash that instead erodes the social tolerance for allowing private livestock on public lands.
The latest example in a long and painful litany of ranchers’ abuse comes courtesy of Len McIrvin and his Diamond M Ranch in Washington. McIrvin’s complaints about livestock losses have spurred multiple kill orders against wolves by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). This latest wolf war initiated by the livestock industry began with the snuffing of the entire Profanity Pack after the Diamond M Ranch released its livestock in 2016 on national forest lands in close proximity to a known wolf den.
Dr. Rob Weilgus of Washington State University exposed this rancher-caused conflict, and subsequently released research demonstrating that the killing of wolves had no effect on future livestock losses. The livestock industry struck back against the science through Rep. Joel Kretz, their ally in the state legislature, who engineered a deal to shut down funding for Dr. Weilgus’ wolf research. Legislators further threatened the university with the withdrawal of millions of dollars in funding for a medical school to muzzle Dr. Weilgus.
The killing of the Profanity Pack was followed by kill orders for the Sherman Pack, the Smackout and Togo Packs, and later kill orders against the wolves who came in to fill the vacant territory on Profanity Peak, a pack now called the Old Profanity Territory (OPT) Pack. All through these killings, the “social tolerance” for wolves among locals has not increased one iota; if anything, McIrvin’s calls for more wolf killings have become more strident and frequent over time, and the controversial wolf killings continue.
While McIrvin and his Diamond M have been implicated in the majority of wolf kills in central Washington, but no other ranchers in Washington seems to be having major problems.
The conflict-to-killing outcome is exactly what the Washington state wolf plan envisions. From the outset, some wildlife advocates opposed killing wolves, listed as an ‘endangered species’ in Washington under state law, and refused to endorse the state wolf plan. Other conservationists initially chose to collaborate on allowing wolf killingsin response to livestock losses, citing social tolerance, but even the collaborators are now backing away from the state wolf plan and its failure to require nonlethal methods, and some are now openly critical. The kill orders have become a nationwide scandal and an embarrassment to Governor Jay Inslee and WFDW Director Kelly Susewind, whose competence and environmental ethics have been called into question.
Some of the worst abuses of wolves (and the least social acceptance) are found in two states where Endangered Species Act protections have already been removed: Idaho and Wyoming. One Idaho rancher claimed wolves are “ravaging Idaho.” Another suggested limiting wolves to wilderness areas. In Wyoming, where the “smoke a pack a day” mentality remains widespread, wolves can be shot on sight with no season limits, bag limits, or even a hunting license across 85% of the state. Snowmobilers run them over for sport, and the state legislature rejected a proposed law to ban this cruel and inhumane practice.
Where is the social tolerance for wolves greatest in Idaho and Montana? In Yellowstone National Park, of course, where it is illegal to kill wolves. It turns that that prohibiting wolf killing forces the public to concede that there is nothing they can do about them, which results in acceptance (and social tolerance) for wolves.
All of these abuses of land and wildlife are resulting in lesser and lesser social tolerance for ranchers. In central Washington, rancher McIrvin’s complaints that “non-lethal measures [are] not working against wolves” have triggered a public discussion over non-lethal methods to control ranchers (rather than wolves) and whether they are working or not. There have even been reports in northeastern Washington of cattle being shot, which ranchers believe are linked to the wolf killings.
Based on the 1.8 million Americans demanding continued Endangered Species Act protections for wolves, the social acceptance of wolves is rapidly becoming a wave of public enthusiasm. Meanwhile, from Hollywood to Madison Avenue, the popularity of the cowboy is in decline. It’s not just environmentalists the livestock industry needs to worry about. Livestock are responsible for fewer elk and deer, sage grouse population losses, degraded trout streams, and dewatering of rivers for hayfield irrigation. Livestock industry front groups are leading the charge to get rid of wild horses and also to privatize public lands. Whjn you add together the hunters, anglers, birdwatchers, wild horse lovers, hikers, and campers – all of whom would benefit from reducing or eliminating livestock on public lands – you’ve got most of the American public covered. In short, ranchers are making a lot of enemies these days.
In light of this reality, the ranching industry’s smartest move might be to start policing their own – from the Bundy crowd to the wildlife killers – and prove that they can coexist with native wildlife and healthy lands. To achieve more social tolerance for native wildlife, Congress ought to make it illegal to kill wolves anywhere in the United States.
Erik Molvar is a wildlife biologist and serves as Executive Director for Western Watersheds Project, a nonprofit environmental conservation group working to protect and preserve watersheds and wildlife throughout the American West.
Source: http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2019/08/01/social-tolerance-for-wolves-and-ranchers/