Defenders of Wildlife Supports Killing Wolves: Livestock Win

Note: I've just published an update on the wars on cats and wolves called "The Wars on Wolves, Cats, and Other Animals: It’s Time to Forever Close Down the Killing Fields." It contains numerous references and links concerning these topics.

Why has Defenders of Wildlife become Defenders of Livestock?

I'm always looking for news that could be wonderful topics for research in academic disciplines that focus on human-animal relationships. To the end, I just received an essay by David Kirby titled "Why Some Conservationists Approve the Killing of a Wolf Pack." The subtitle of Mr. Kirby's essay is "Washington state is set to eliminate an entire group of endangered gray wolves linked to livestock deaths."

Who are Defenders of Wildlife defending? Why is killing a "necessary component" of conservation?

Mr. Kirby's entire essay is available online, however, I want to mention here the following text:

"Among the conservation groups approving the protocol was Defenders of Wildlife. 'We have met and significantly exceeded that threshold,' said Shawn Cantrell, northwest director of Defenders of Wildlife. 'This is for us very sad and disappointing because we really hate to see any cows or any animals killed, [but] we do support the department moving forward at this time,' he said."

We also read:

"Another group that approved the protocol, Conservation Northwest, echoed Cantrell’s sentiments in a statement on its website.

'Though it’s tremendously difficult to see wolves killed, we understand and accept this action as a necessary component of coexistence where people, wolves and livestock share territory,' the group said."

I was utterly shocked when I read this, as were many people who immediately emailed me about this decision. Indeed, Defenders of Wildlife and others are not defending wildlife, but rather, they are defending livestock. If there's any other way to unpack this it's eluding me and many many others. Why is killing a "necessary component" component of conservation?

What does "authorized removal" really mean?

Along these lines, in an essay by Jamie Rapport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife called "Defenders of Wildlife: Protecting and Recovering Wolves," we read about their support for the "authorized removal" of the Profanity Peak pack." (Please also see note 2 below.) Authorized removal" is a phrase used to sanitize what they sanctioned, namely, the outright killing of the wolves. It completely ignores the fact that wolves are highly emotional and sentient beings who care about what happens to themselves and to their family and friends. I wonder if she would use this dismissive phrase, one that objectifies wolves, to refer to the killing of dogs.

Of course, other conservation groups strongly oppose this decision. Here is a statement released by the Center for Biological Diversity called "Conservationists Express Outrage That Entire Pack of Wolves, 12 Percent of State Population, to Be Killed for Preying on Livestock on Public Lands."

Conservation psychology, anthrozoology, and compassionate conservation to the rescue

While trying to figure out how this decision came about, I came to the conclusion that it is a gold mine of research for conservation psychologists and anthrozoologists who study human-animal relationships. Those people who are interested in the rapidly growing international field of compassionate conservation also should be able to provide important input. The guiding principles of compassionate conservation are "First do no harm" and the lives of all individuals matter (please see, for example, "Compassionate Conservation Meets Cecil the Slain Lion," "Compassionate Conservation: More than 'Welfarism Gone Wild'" and many links therein).

The vexing question that comes up in different forms basically is, "How can people claim to defend other animals and then allow them to be killed?" I really can't say any more other than there are some serious inconsistencies that really need to be studied and explained, and I hope that conservation psychologists, anthrozoologists, and compassionate conservationists can help us along.

A few people have asked me the following question: If the wolves were going to be killed even without Defenders of Wildlife’s blessing, why did they support it?

Please ask every organization you can think of to post a formal statement against the killing -- or as the Defenders of Wildlife President and CEO calls the "authorized removal" -- of wolves. The killing is going to happen with or without the blessings of national wildlife or humane organizations, so there's nothing to lose by their saying something like, "Stop the killing now."

Relationships Essential Reads

Does It Matter if Your Partner Speaks Your Love Language?

5 Ways to Break Negative Romantic Tendency and Find True Love

If wolves and other animals cannot depend on those who claim to defend them to actually defend them, just on whom can they truly rely? Judging by the deluge of email I'm seeing on questions of this sort, numerous others also are rather perplexed, and to say the least, shocked.

Note 1: Please also see "More wolves killed because of the sacred cow at the public trough" and "Defenders of Wildlife = Defenders of Livestock? Why Do They Support Killing Wolves in Washington?" The comments for these essays are extremely interesting and worth a read. Please also view "The Imperiled American Wolf."

Note 2: I also was just sent this statement (August 29, 2016):

For Immediate Release

August 23, 2016 3:45 p.m.

Joint Conservation Wolf Advisory Group Statement

By Wolf Haven International, the Humane Society of the United States, Defenders of Wildlife, and Conservation Northwest

The authorized removal of wolves in the Profanity Peak wolf pack in northeast Washington is deeply regrettable. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is however following the protocol developed by the Washington State’s Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) - a diverse group of stakeholders. The WAG and WDFW have committed to evaluate how the protocol worked on the ground this season in order to improve it for next year. In addition, we intend to conduct a thorough and open-minded assessment of the issues raised for all stakeholders involved. (The italics are my emphasis because an improvement could simply mean killing fewer wolves.)

We remain steadfast that our important goals remain the long-term recovery and public acceptance of wolves in our state alongside thriving rural communities. In the meantime, we ask our community and the citizens of Washington State and beyond to engage in respectful and civil dialogue as we work through these challenging events. We believe that ultimately we can create conditions where everyone’s values are respected and the needs of wildlife, wildlife advocates, and rural communities are met.

Marc Bekoff's latest books are Jasper's Story: Saving Moon Bears (with Jill Robinson), Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation, Why Dogs Hump and Bees Get Depressed: The Fascinating Science of Animal Intelligence, Emotions, Friendship, and Conservation, Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence, and The Jane Effect: Celebrating Jane Goodall (edited with Dale Peterson). The Animals' Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age (with Jessica Pierce) will be published in early 2017.