I do admit that it’s sometimes hard for me to see the other side of the argument when it comes to trophy hunting. I’m talking about trophy hunters who claim to be conservationists because a portion of the cost of the hunt goes to preserve huge swaths of land for future generations. My issue is that it’s not future generations of people who love wildlife but rather future generations of people who love blowing the wildlife to bits.
Sometimes it feels like a losing battle. A while back I had dinner with some friends who have a country place in rural Wisconsin. They were complaining about the deer who wander onto their property and eat their flowers. Their first thought was to shoot the deer. “Don’t you think,” I asked, “that if you are so fortunate in. life as to be able to have a house in such an idyllic and unspoiled part of the world, you should be thrilled to have deer wandering through your property? Instead of shooting the deer – which you’re not going to eat – why don’t you cultivate a garden with indigenous plants and trees. They won’t deter the deer, but they are hardier than non-indigenous plants, better for the soil, require virtually no maintenance and they’re incredibly resilient. They’ve survived hungry deer forever. And that way you’ll at least be doing what I imagine having a house in such a bucolic spot is all about; harmonizing with nature. The deer get to eat, and you get to enjoy the wildlife.”
Of course I realize this is the view of an idealist. There isn’t enough land for the deer to survive and unless they are culled, they’re going to starve in any case. Humans are finally the only remaining predators.
The most confusing part for me in the argument for wildlife management is trying to separate emotion from reality. What you want to believe from what you have to accept. There are certainly hard facts, but facts get manipulated to justify actions. I just read an article in the Washington Post headed “the relentless slaughter of wolves paved the way for a predator that refuses to die.” The article talks about the fact that coyotes that once were mostly found west of the Mississippi are now found everywhere and the issue goes back to the systematic eradication of wolves. As you can imagine the NRA were quick to pounce on the article, calling it fake news and misleading reporting in a piece published on NRA Hunters’ Leadership Forum headed “Just the Facts on Wolves and Coyotes.” It tells – as you can imagine - a very different story.
I guess in the end, as Robert Evans (producer of The Godfather and Chinatown) said, “There are three sides to every story. Your side, my side and the truth.” And this is where the question of motive is critical in deciding who is right. Quite frankly I’d rather believe the Washington Post piece, because the real facts in the NRA article all lead to increasing the number of coyotes killed (over 500,000 are already slaughtered each year) and further justifying the hunting of wolves.
I am so grateful to organizations like W.O.L.F Sanctuary who not only rescues captive wolves and wolf dogs but have an extensive education program to help people understand the plight of wolves in the wild and why they are so critical to the ecosystem.
W.O.L.F Sanctuary and like-minded organizations have no motives other than to save and protect what little is left of a now largely unprotected species. And that alone justifies what they do and deserves our support.