Beyond
the knee jerk
When I hear about threats from large predators,
my first knee-jerk reaction is one of fear and then defiance.
But this attitude is a contradiction to what I was taught by
my father and grandfather, as a youngster.
It is a contradiction to the practices we have developed to
manage land health and functional ecological systems.
As a child, I remember my grandfather explaining that a mixture
of grass was good for cattle performance. Since that time I
have learned that more production results from a broad array
of species. If we have some cool season grasses, some warm season
grasses, some shallow rooted plants, some deep rooted plants,
and some wetland plants, we have a more stable source of production.
Encouraged by this awareness, I began using the tool of grazing
to increase willow production on our riparian areas. The willows
provided habitat for beavers. As the beavers built dams, lateral
storage of water prolonged hot-season flows and increased flood
plain production.
In fact, during the worst drought in over 100 years our production
on restored riparian areas held at 100 percent of the 10-year
average, which makes sense because there was no drought where
the water table remained static.
The increased functionality of our riparian areas was a result
of increased plant and animal diversity.
As a result of this increased diversity, we saw an exponential
increase in migratory song birds, leopard frogs, water foul,
and a resident moose population. My observations and experience
suggest that if I have a problem on the land, it is due to the
absence of a species rather than the presence of a species.
For example, if we have Canada thistle on our riparian areas,
we introduce short duration hot-season grazing. In fact, we
need an intense, short-duration, hot season grazing about once
every three years to keep Canada thistle in check.
If leafy-spurge or knapweed are a problem we are missing goats.
If mosquitoes are a problem, we are missing songbirds, water-foul
and bats. If mountain lion are a problem, we are missing an
adequate mule deer population.
As a result of these and other observations, I have an idea
that the key to stability is diversity and complexity.
Therefore, anytime we remove something from our system, we are
moving the wrong direction and away from stability. The proper
discipline I struggle to maintain on our ranch is to ask what
species is missing, if we have a problem.
As a result of this increased plant and animal diversity, our
ranch is more profitable. Our expenses are less and our income
is more. As an aside, we have had guests help us with our cattle/ranching
activities for 15 years.
There are specific keys to turning out a satisfied guest but
those keys change with different guests. One might define a
"successful" vacation as the ability to ride several
good cow-horses. Another might see the majestic scenery as their
satisfaction. A third might think roping a calf as the ultimate
conclusion to a successful vacation.
However, one thing holds true: A moose sighting is guaranteed
to send away a satisfied guest. In essence, a moose sighting
is worth $1,400 to our business. Moose are a by-product to our
idea that diversity and complexity equals stability.
We intend to maintain that discipline and when confronted with
a problem we will ask ourselves, "What is missing?"
We will not be lured by the overly simplistic tendency to treat
a symptom by removing a species. After I work through the fear,
the defiance, and focus on the goal of managing for diversity
and complexity, I can't help but wonder, "What would a
wolf or grizzly sighting would be worth to one of our ranch
guests?"
--
Tony Malmberg
Wyoming rancher
Too big to be natural
Okay, so I am not one to candy coat things.
The last NATURAL wolf I remember in Idaho was in 1978. My
Dad is a hunter and we were camping up by Deadwood Reservoir.
The wolf was strolling through a flat just off of the road
about 150 yards.
The last UNNATURAL wolf I saw was 2002. My husband and I were
scouting out a prospective turkey area outside of Garden Valley.
We had just pulled into camp when I noticed a cow elk moving
through the campsite.
She was ringing wet with her own sweat and her tongue was
literally extended from her mouth. I remember thinking to
myself why is she so distraught? Why would she be running
like that when she looks as if she is going to kill herself
from running?
Then I noticed a fluffy white something coming from her backside.
Take into consideration that this all happened within seconds,
and you know how the mind operates at milliseconds. Then the
fluffy white thing turned and was moving in the opposite direction
and I could not believe what I saw.
This damn thing was huge! I have a 150-pound guard dog and
this thing would have made him look like a pup. This thing
was a Canadian grey wolf.
I vividly remember the wolf at Deadwood and this wolf was
at least twice its size. Idaho has or should I say had natural
wolves, but how in the world could our natural Idaho-sized
wolves stand a chance against something this size? It is a
dreadful thought that only seconds later that cow would have,
and maybe did, fall prey to the wolf.
The wolf would, and may have, "hamstringed" her
which disables her from moving - from defending herself, and
then slowly and literally tears into her until she bleeds
to death or dies from shock. A very slow death.
Imagine being paralyzed and an animal ripping and tearing
its way through your body while you are helpless, unable to
defend yourself. Now imagine yourself with child. It was,
after all, calving season.
There is something to be said about Shoot - Shovel - and Shut
up. Send the wolves back.
- Dory Lane
It's the question
First,
let me say that I grew up on a cattle ranch in eastern Idaho
and my Idaho heritage goes back to before Idaho was a territory.
I recall shooting two great horned owls with one shot. I recall
shooting the only lynx anyone has a record of seeing on the
lower Blackfoot River. I killed badgers, hawks, porcupines,
skunks, weasels, ermine and coyotes.
That was what one did on the ranch. These were all "predators"
and needed to be eliminated to protect our stock. That was how
we grew up and that was what we were taught.
After I left the ranch I found that there is a whole world out
there and our ranch was just a tiny particle of one piece of
a region on a continent. But what we did there would impact
large cycles of the natural ecosystem we happened to occupy.
It took me a lot of years to get an inkling of what I had done
to the ecology of that ranch with nothing but a single shot
22. I did not grow up as environmentalist and still don't know
if that term fits.
There are two groups of people that need to "get off the
ranch" and develop a world view before they discuss how
to "manage" predators.
The first group is the people who insist on returning the predators
to their natural environment. These folks have a view of only
the natural and pristine world. We don't live there any more.
Your dream of a natural, open and unrestricted corridor from
Mexico to the Yukon is a wonderful dream but it is not practical.
We humans are going to breed and we are going to require more
space and we are going to take that space from whatever region
is the easiest to develop. It has always been that way and will
always be that way.
Developers don't seem to be rushing to the Sahara nearly as
fast as they are rushing to the mountains of the West. People
will prevail over wildlife. This group of predator managers
must recognize that the primary predator (us) will prevail and
we will expand in to whatever space is needed to contain us.
The people living and earning a living on the land are going
to have to realize that, although they have had a good century-long
run, the free range days are coming to a close. Sure it's sad
that a four-generation cattle or sheep operation may come to
a close, but economics are telling the tale.
More and more, the other multiple-use uses of open, public land
are going to be more economically rewarding than grazing cattle
or sheep.
The people who are trying to establish the predators' return
are not "greenies" wanting to look at a cuddly animal.
That opinion is naïve at best. The predator managers have
a desire to preserve some of what made this country so unique
in the first place, and there is nothing wrong with that desire.
Nor is there anything wrong with wanting to make a living on
land held by your ancestors.
The free range people must realize that the free range belongs
to the greenies and the oil people and the mining people and
the Wal-Mart clerk in Ohio and the dentist in Manhattan. The
convenience of grazing living stock on public land next to the
ranch is not sufficient reason to declare a right to exterminate
all the predators on that public land. Try grazing your cattle
in Central Park in New York and see what kind of reception you
receive.
So the answer to this dilemma of wolves or livestock is not
the issue. The issue is what is the question? Is the question
about who has rights to the free public land? Is the question
about whether or not we as a nation want to preserve large tracts
of wild lands with the resultant food chain that makes them
work? Is the question about allowing people to settle and develop
anywhere and everywhere they can afford to do it?
Or, is the question about what is the right thing to do and
who makes the decision?
Since my early ranching days of predator management I have changed
my world view. I don't eat much beef. I have hung up my rifle.
I work in a job that tries to balance impact to species and
infrastructure construction. I have seen only one wolf in Idaho
and that was back when we didn't have any wolves in Idaho.
But something down in my soul is comforted by knowing that the
wolves and the grizz are out there in places I haven't much
chance of ever seeing again. I have never had that feeling from
eating a beefsteak.
So, you folks who want to shut down the world in order to preserve
all things living now, maybe you better walk in a cowman's shoes
for a few days and feel his attachment for the heritage his
ancestors have left him. And you stockmen might want to consider
that clerk in Ohio who may never get to Idaho but still wants
to know that there are still some wild things living close to
the way they always have and maybe her grandkids will get to
see them.
My response here is based on emotion, not science. After all,
science will only define the facts and emotion. Politics will
make the final decision on whatever the question will be.
-- Charles K. Just
HQ Environmental Planner
Idaho Transportation Department
Living together
Once upon a time (white European-descent), settlers in the West
took
what they wanted and lay waste to the rest. If a place ran out
of ore, water, grass, or timber then, hell, no problem, there
was always another place just one mountain range over.
Well, after occupying this land for over a
century we are beginning to figure out how to dwell in it. For
many of us, this means allowing the land to be what it is, and
not making it into what is most useful to us. So along with
the land come lions and wolves and bears, oh my!
The demands of sustainable economics and landscape restoration
come hard for those who believe God created elk solely for human
consumption, nature is a non-renewable resource, and every mountain
top needs an ATV road.
Wolves are here to stay, so let's learn how to live with them
and quit whining. Personally, I'm not looking forward to eating
wolf steaks. But if some rancher wants to shoot a calf-eating
wolf or if some hunter wants a wolf fur coat, have at it. As
humans we too are part of the landscape, and we ought to be
able to manage (i.e. live in balance with) wolves like any other
critter.
Pat Munday, PhD
Professor of History and Philosophy
Technical Communication Department
Montana Tech, Butte
It's private property
The issue
of large predators, as well as endangered species, is not about
"ecosystem health." It is about the taking of citizens'
rights.
As guaranteed by the United States Constitution and as provided
for in Federal law, a U.S. citizen has the right to protect
himself and his property.
Private property is the anti-Christ to the extreme environmental
community. Mr. Hawley touches on it in his editorial. He mentions
"the taking down of fences that closely guard ideological
territories."
These "ideological territories," as he refers to them,
are pieces of ground that are under title of private ownership.
Yes, ladies and gents, your real estate. We are a nation that
stands on your being able to hold equity and capital in your
property rather than the government owning it.
Some of the biggest environmental disasters in the world have
occurred in the Soviet Union and third-world countries where
their citizens do not hold equity in property. When you own
it, you tend to take care of it. When someone else owns it,
you won't.
Hawley again hammers on your right as a citizen to hold equity
in property when he states "short-term benefits of ownership
have trumped ecosystem health for centuries."
Again, ecosystem health is not about science. It is about private
equity in ownership. You have it, they don't want you to have
it, and they are using things like "ecosystem health,"
"watershed management," "riparian health,"
"linkages," and "corridors" as the theme.
Grizzly bears, wolves, mountain lions, sage grouse, mountain
plover, Prebbles jumping mouse, etc., are the tools being used
to implement their theme
So, if that's what you want, to turn your property over to the
government, you need to sign on to the idea of tearing down
your fences and you need to allow whomever to do whatever they
please on your property.
Conversely, if you subscribe to the notion that you have the
right to determine how your private property is managed, then
you need to be very careful about supporting the folks who are
trying to take that away from you, your family and your neighbors.
-- Crosby Allen, commissioner
Fremont County, Wyo.
Hawley replies:
Commissioner
Allen's concerns are echoed by more than a few rural property
owners. They are understandable, in a West where family ranching
and farming become increasingly less viable as a means of making
a living, and the possibilities of private property, with all
the benefits Jefferson and other framers of the Constitution
intended, have been eclipsed by an economy where landscapes
are either nothing more than outlandishly expensive, pretty
views, fenced to keep wild animals in and people out, or impoverished
to the point where nothing lives well there anymore.
Who's responsible? It may be that the misunderstanding between
two less powerful interests (ranchers and environmentalists)
is keeping them from facing a common enemy, a corporate economy,
and more recently, a corporate government with an insatiable
appetite for land and resources that displaces rural land-owners
and conservationists alike.
Wendell Berry has written a lot about this. He's recently refused
to sign on to any environmental campaign that doesn't also provide
for the health and welfare of local communities and people.
He's also written that the two groups either begin the process
of looking for common ground, or concede victory to corporate
America, which it seems has a big head start already.
In Wyoming, one has to look no further than the scam promoted
by the Bush-Cheney administration to turn over huge chunks of
real estate to energy interests, regardless of who owned the
surface rights. Cheney also promotes the idea of invoking the
feds' right of eminent domain to construct more power lines
across the nation, including in his home state.
Start with the big ones
I own
a small tour business, running tours out of Jackson to Yellowstone
and Grand Teton.
Total number of times I've seen wolves while driving tours,
since 1995: 0
Total number of grizzlies in 12 years of running tours: about
3
I think they're almost gone already ... and it's sad.
Did you read the article in this month's Nature Conservancy
Magazine? About the Pitchfork and Diamond G ranches ... about
predators in general, Jack Turnell, the manager of the Pitchfork
is quoted as saying, "The wolf is not an important part
of the food chain and neither is the grizz. Anybody says it
is, is going to have to prove it to me."
I say we eliminate all the predators, and start with the ones
who prey upon baby back ribs with that tangy bbq sauce.
-- Cal Glover,
Jackson, Wyo.
Hawley replies:
While it's tempting to suggest Mr. Turnell
and others of a similar mindset be slathered in tangy barbeque
and posted solo in the nether reaches of Yellowstone as proof
of the viability of big predators, the temporary satisfaction
of making such a statement too quicky fades, and unfortunately
does nothing to address to problem. (See it's already gone.)
Each stakeholder will probably have to give up ideas and even
actions they currently hold dear and protect voraciously (as
any predator will) if there's enough room at the top of the
pyramid for species other than homo sapiens. Unfortunately,
even if that miraculous scenario comes to pass, it may not be
enough, given the economic pressure and the sheer numbers of
humans forecast for the next century.
Hunters
contribute more
Before you
get rid of hunting, bother yourself to learn a little history.
I'm ashamed of the behavior of a few hunters. But that's like
outlawing cars because teenagers drive dangerously.
The amount of money hunters have spent on species protection
far outweighs the contributions of those who believe the Bambi
myth. -- Dean Miller,
Idaho Falls
Screwball theory
There
are a lot of screwball claims advanced to attempt to support
turning wolves loose in our subdivisions and ranches, but Hawley's
statement that the wolves have somehow increased elk herd sizes
is one of the dumbest.
I live in a 30-year-old subdivision in Paradise Valley, Mont.,
with a pack of 10 wolves on my side of the Yellowstone River
and a pack of 12 (last year's counts) on the other side of the
river.
Our valley has been populated by ranchers, loggers and residents
since before the turn of the century (the one prior to the one
that just turned). There is absolutely no doubt the wolves have
hammered our elk herds hard and cow-calf ratio reductions promise
more declines.
Anyone who has actually ever seen wolves rip open the belly
of a horse or cow, pull entrails out while the animal is still
alive and struggling and start eating it alive, has got to have
a hard time seeing any redeeming qualities in wolves. I sure
don't.
The Feds (Ed Bangs) suggested, (after wolves killed deer on
two occasions in my mowed lawn last season) that I should keep
my pets, if I have any, inside at night. If the wolves become
a real problem I can have some rubber bullets. Thanks a bunch.
How about we give a bunch of them to the characters in Central
Park or San Francisco who think they are so cute and cuddly?
Pretty effective job you guys have done on selling these animals
to urban greenies. Give me a cat anytime. They kill quickly,
cleanly and only what they need to eat. We can only hope they
develop a taste for wolves.
--
Larry Stephenson,
Paradise Valley, Mont.
Hawley replies:
On
the contrary, there is not yet any evidence, other than the
anecdotal variety offered by Larry Stephenson and others with
an anti-wolf ax to grind, that wolf predation alone is causing
elk populations to ebb to unhealthy levels.
The available data suggests a downward trend since 1988, but
according to Yellowstone biologist P.J. White, this can be attributed
to a variety of factors, including drought and severe winter
conditions, and predation from a variety of hunters, including
human.
On this last count, White notes that the Gardiner late elk hunt
was very much a factor in the reduction of the northern Yellowstone
herd counted in January 2003. The hunt is esigned to kill elk
so they won't "cause long-term change to plant communities,"
or "decrease the quality of winter range."
In some areas, it would seem, elk herds have exceeded healthy
population levels, a condition that can also be attributed to
a variety of factors including lack of predators, ranches and
subdivisions with neatly-mowed lawns that provide no cover for
deer and elk.
On the second count, that "urban greenies" and enviro
journalists have misread what belongs in Yellowstone and similar
ecosystems because of a city-bred naivety about the warm fuzziness
of wolves, Stephenson may be closer to the truth.
Wolves aren't nice when they kill, as photos and first-hand
accounts will verify. But it's disingenuous to hate wolves because
"they don't kill cleanly. Anyone who's come across a gut-shot
deer or elk knows that humans don't always kill cleanly either.
Field dressing an animal after killing it is a sobering experience.
Such thoughts on the nature of eating at the top of the food
chain abound in hunting literature. And cows -- anyone who's
heard a description of what happens to bovines at the meat factory
may run screaming to the nearest pawn shop to buy a hunting
rifle.
To finish an analogy that Stephenson began, not liking wolves
because they don't kill cleanly makes about as much sense ethically
as not liking a fellow New Yorker because his latte is from
Starbuck's rather than Dean and Deluca's. It may be a personal
preference, but its not basis for a sound argument.
Best hope is fewer humans
Steven
Hawley scores a basic point in observing that human attitudes
will make a difference in the survival of predators. But he
may score a more telling point in referring to human population
growth and what > passes for the thing we call our "economy."
There is reason to think that living nature has more future
from the unfolding reduction of human numbers than in hope of
perfecting what Aldo Leopold called the "still unlovely
human mind."
Our basic approach to wild species has been substantially the
same for millennia. Scholars including Jared Diamond and Niles
Eldredge have pointed out for years that, ever since our diaspora
from Africa began, we triggered extinction of creatures great
and small. E.O. Wilson has lately cited the same studies.
It seems that when we pioneer into new areas, extinction happens.
When places including Montana get hordes of neo-pioneers coming
onto the scene, encore performances seem more than merely plausible.
Attitude matters. But attitude will likely not be enough.
For species such as the grizzly bear, the simple fact of human
density across the landscape may be the more critical variable.
I've told friends and colleagues that if I were a grizzly choosing
a home on either of two continents -- one with 500,000 of the
shoot-'em-uppingest, bulldozingest land-rapers available from
the human genetic pool, and the other with 5,000,000,000
environmental saints -- I'd pick the continent with the sinners
over the continent with the saints every time.
Of course, we need to remember that dichotomies are almost always
fallacious. That's just as true in the realm of attitudes and
population as it is for any other two important variables.
Population density can lead to some very destructive attitudes.
As long ago as the 1950s and 1960s, psychologists such as John
B. Calhoun of the National Institutes of Mental Health were
finding evidence that population density is a predictor of social
pathology.
Calhoun's "Population Density and Social Pathology",
in Scientific American, February 1962, is a good starting point
for delving into this record of evidence.
There seem to be some promising signs on the horizon. Just a
few years ago, demographers were predicting that the human population
would double from 6
billion to about 11 or 12 billion. A recent Wall Street Journal
article recounted that fact when pointing out that demographers'
estimates have been changed.
Now the projected growth is to a total of 8 billion, not 12
billion, and some see reason to expect that our population may
fall lower than it is today.
As the Journal put it, "the implications of a shrinking
human population are profound." Profound for all of us.
-- Lance Olsen,
Ambience Project
Missoula, Mont. |
