I recently saw a youtube video that really bothered me. Long story short, the video features Ashley Judd speaking out against the wolf season that is currently going on in Idaho. To further frustrate me, the Ian Somerhalder Foundation posted a link on their twitter page to this article. Both the video and the article are misleading and illustrate a false image of the wolves' status as an endangered species (they are not), their viability in their habitat, and the "catastrophic results" of the season on the population of the wolves in Idaho. I would like to take some time to explain some key points to clear up some of the confusion caused by these two media sources.
1. The video anthropomorphized the wolves' living situation and family units. Ashley Judd says in the youtube video, "Their families are a lot like ours, with parents teaching their young the skills they need to make their way in the world" (cue footage of wolf pups frolicking with each other). This statement is true to a point. Wolves do travel in packs with mating pairs, and they do teach their young by example. The difference is that the monogamy seen here is not the same as the monogamy seen in the human population. Humans form pair-bonds because of a desire to form lasting connections. Wolves form these pair bonds in order to survive and to increase the likelihood that their offspring will survive.
2. Ashley's extra dramatic voice is next heard saying that the goal of the IDFG (Idaho Fish & Game) is to "Slash the population from nearly 1,000 to 518." While this statement is true, it fails to explain the all important question, why? The simple answer is that the wolf population is reaching levels that are dangerous for the animals that they are predators to. Wolves prey on moose, bison, deer, elk and other ungulates. This predation is essential to keep these populations below the carrying capacity for the ecosystem in which they reside. Unfortunately, the wolf population has expanded beyond the needs of system, and they are killing too many of these ungulates. Furthermore, the wolves' territories are starting to expand, thereby increasing human interaction and livestock predation. To date, there have been no recorded accounts of a wolf pack killing a human in North America. This is due in part to the fact that the wolf populations have been closely monitored and controlled. The goal of allowing a closely monitored season on wolves is to restore balance to the ecosystem. The IDFG wants to keep wolf levels high enough that they can continue to produce offspring and interact with one another, while maintaining a predatory balance with their prey.
3. Next we hear Ms. Judd's voice saying, "Hundreds of wolves will be shot, with many orphaned wolf pups left to starve to death during the brutal winter months." This portion is meant to tug on your heartstrings as footage of small pups looking around fades on and off the screen. These images are an unfortunate distortion of the truth. Hunting seasons are set up in a manner that allows species to have their breeding season and raise their young to a viable point. So by the time the season opened, the wolves would be grown enough to fend for themselves (basically, they'd no longer be pups). In addition, even if the season opened while mothers were lactating, (which it doesn't) it would be highly unlikely that they would be harvested as they would be spending almost all of their time with their young in their den.
4. The article that the ISF linked to and several more that link from it suggest that the IDFG was reckless in removing the wolves from the endangered species list. Ashley Judd's video urges President Obama to restore the wolves to the endangered species list. What these groups are not pointing out is the fact that the current population is well over the MVP (minimum viable population) and are nowhere near needing to have endangered species protections put in place. Ashley Judd noted that these actions weakened the Endangered Species Act. What she doesn't realize is that misinformation like this is what really weakens that act. If people do not have confidence that the act is protecting and supporting the species that need it most, they are less likely to support it and its proponents in the future. In turn, this effects those species that actually need to have ESA protections.
While hunting is not the most desirable means to harvest the wolf population, it seems to be the most effective. Efforts by the IDFG to sterilize or relocate populations have been largely ineffective. When IDFG offered to trap some of the population and transport them, no other states would accept the transported wolves. The monitored harvesting of wolves in Idaho and Montana is necessary to control populations and keep balance in the beautiful ecosystems abundantly found in this area. If readers have more questions, they can find many answers here.
No comments:
Post a Comment