The Siege on Wolves: When Unchallenged Science Sanctions Cruelty
In the supposedly progressive province of British Columbia, killing of wildlife prospers and flourishes; worse, it does so under the auspices of officially sanctioned science. The BC provincial government and pro-hunting groups tout the notion of the “best available science” to give credence to the highly controversial wolf cull program aimed at saving woodland caribou. Indeed, references to science dominate official statements and press releases. The Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development indicated that the government’s approach to predator reduction is based on science and sound wildlife management principles. It is a decision not taken lightly, “but science and past results show that this recovery action is an effective way to decrease predator pressure on B.C.’s threatened caribou herds.” So far, in the name of the best available science, more than 1704 wolves have been slaughtered.
Several fallacies are at play here.
Firstly, the word “available” signifies that a scientific pursuit is an evolving, imperfect endeavour, and its current findings can be corroborated or refuted by future discoveries. This obvious fact should warrant attention, especially when the natural world becomes a vast experimental lab. Inescapably, a management plan implemented in the forests under the rationale of the best available science affects the lives of wild animals living there. Scars will linger on. The cruelty and suffering to which countless wolves have been condemned cannot be reversed, even if, years from now, the best available science proves fallacious.
Unfortunately, this is a likely scenario, given the inherent complexity of socio-ecological systems. And not a hypothetical one. Various research studies tried to demonstrate that killing predators could lead to the recovery of dwindling caribou populations. Predictably, many failed to do so. In Alberta, over 1000 wolves were killed to protect the Little Smoky Caribou herd over 11 years, with no significant increase in caribou numbers. These wolves were strangled, gunned down from helicopters, and poisoned using carcasses laced with strychnine. Snares set for wolves also strangled at least 700 other animals. Another study attempted to prove that killing wolves should be supplemented by additional predation reduction strategies (e.g., maternity penning). However, a different research study questioned those findings by pointing to the lack of statistical robustness and provided numerous arguments contradicting the efficacy of the predator control program.
Overall, therefore, the best available science behind the wolf cull is far more unsettled, contradictory, and open to diverging conclusions than its proponents would want the public to believe. Of course, undaunted by criticism, these proponents try to tinker with the findings and overwhelm them with endless qualifications and clarifications to both obfuscate the emerging picture and save shreds of their credibility. What they will not save, however, are countless lives of sentient creatures — tragic casualties of human hubris.
In addition, the government concedes that providing relief to the caribou population would require the never-ending slaughter of wolves. The ministry’s scientist states that “a very extensive effort will be required every year to continue to keep the wolf population low” because of the wolf’s natural resilience and quick recovery. The cycle of violence is thus meant never to end. The endless perpetuation of cruelty — shooting and poisoning wolves year after year into the foreseeable future — is not the plan’s unlikely consequence but its integral feature.
Moreover, the best available science merely reflects our current intellectual and research preferences. As Toby Spribille argues, “we can only ask questions that we have the imagination for.” That is a profound limitation on a scientific level because posing a different, more creative or innovative question can shed light on the research area left unexplored. Occasionally, it does happen. For instance, a recent study showed that killing individual wolves negatively affects the reproduction and cohesion of a pack. In contrast to the prevailing approach that studies wolves on a population level — as is the case with the BC wolf cull — the authors of this innovative study had the imagination and insight to delve into wolves’ family life and its dynamics in the aftermath of the selective killing. A different question was asked, and a different answer was received — one that challenges the accepted notion of the best available science.
And yet, such findings do little to dissuade the provincial government from pursuing the wolf cull. The dogma disguised as the best available science prevails. It happens because the current wildlife management solutions mirror the sanctioned research trends and an unopposed scientific consensus.
In management, including wildlife management, there is an irresistible tendency to perpetuate what was done before. Since brutal extirpation has been an orthodoxy in dealing with predators, it is all we can imagine moving forward. Innovation becomes the casualty of opportunism, inertia, and a lack of courage.
It’s easier to eradicate countless wild animals than to eradicate the ingrained idea that their death is necessary. Challenging the status quo demands shattering intellectual and psychological limitations. It goes against our instinct because humans are creatures of habit on both individual and societal levels. Only in retrospect, historical injustices — be it slavery, racism, the subjugation of women and sexual minorities, or sending indigenous children to residential schools — seem inconceivable. However, for decades, even centuries, they reflected the prevailing view of how things should be, how things should be done.
For wildlife managers and scientists, an openness to new perspectives and a willingness to entertain less lethal ways of interfering with nature present an especially insurmountable obstacle. Years of academic indoctrination and professional conformity militate against considering more humane, innovative approaches. This is what “wildlife specialists” have been taught and conditioned to believe in; this is what they staked their career or reputation on.
Unsurprisingly so. Humans seek internal psychological consistency, and inserting new, clashing ideas into a calcified system of beliefs can cause cognitive dissonance. Confirmation bias occurs, and outdated, cruel, ineffective ways of “managing” wildlife get reaffirmed to save both the career and ego. That’s the reality pervading wildlife management in British Columbia. Sadly, the current generation of practitioners, researchers, and decision-makers have inherited and incorporated the wildlife management philosophy that favours killing predators to bring out a desired balance in the natural world. No matter what, that’s the way to go; a solution seeks a problem. In this light, the best available science is the one that most closely reflects the inculcated beliefs of those who profess it.
Furthermore, a question arises: best science for whom? Vested interests also play a role in wildlife management decisions. The politicization of science changes the order of the equation. No longer does objective science decide what steps to take; instead, interest groups determine how to use science to corroborate their preconceived goals. In the context of the wolf cull, the BC government and extractive industries seek suitable forest areas for logging, mining, oil and gas development, hydro dams, and road-building. The presence of wolves in these areas presents an obstacle, so finding the best available science that supports shooting wolves under the guise of conservation comes in handy. A perfect fusion takes place. The prevailing, ingrained, decades-long wildlife management approach that advocates killing matches the opportunistic intentions of the government and the extraction industries. Miraculously, the best available science for saving caribou also happens to be the science that increases the profits of the powerful oil, mining, and logging lobbies.
Not only these lobbies, however. Hunting groups also have the incentive to champion the elimination of wolves as a management plan. The best available science coincides with their interests as well. Of course, more visceral and less monetary motivation drives hunters, but it is a selfish motivation, nevertheless. The one undeniable benefit of the plan lies in its sanctioned invitation to kill more predators to increase the ungulate populations. The expected excess of ungulates will, in turn, make the blood sport even bloodier. In essence, hunters’ paradise materializes itself. Regardless of the ultimate ecological verdict of the wolf cull, one thing remains certain: hunting will prosper now and into the future.
Finally, when proponents of the wolf cull refer to the best available science, they explicitly limit their argument to hard sciences. In other words, the best available science consists of numerical and statistical data that shows trends in wolves’ and caribou population dynamics. This is not enough. The complex family structure of wolves also requires attention.
As Gordon Haber, a biologist who studied wolves in Denali National Park and interior Alaska for more than 40 years, states, “You can’t manage wolves by the numbers. You can’t just count the numbers of wolves over a particular area and decide whether it’s a ‘healthy’ population. That’s because the functional unit of wolves is the family, a multigenerational extended family group.”
This is not all, however. Also, the science of sentience, cognition, and emotions needs consideration. These aspects add a vital ethical component to sound wildlife management. Intentionally and cynically, the wolf cull discards it all. The suffering, anguish, and shattered lives of bereft wolf families do not matter to those who approve and unleash slaughter. But they should matter, and they should matter to all of us because when the agony of sentient beings takes place, questions of emotions, ethics, and morality become pertinent.
The wolf cull is not a sanitized, abstract initiative to lower the number of wolves in the caribou habitat. No, it is the descent of hell on the forests. Wolves die in neck snares and leg-hold traps, and they are poisoned and gunned down from helicopters. Some die instantly, and some suffer prolonged, indescribable pain, like a recently found “Judas” wolf that was choking to death on a tracking collar and had to be euthanized. This is what the wolf cull looks like; this is the fate that the best available science offers.
If implementing such horror can be divorced from ethics and morals, what’s left of our humanity? No, this is not the way to go. Santiago-Avila wishes “we could get wolf management to the point where the policy was considered ‘science-based’ from both natural and social science aspects.” He is right, and more importantly, it’s an expressed wish of British Columbians. In 2021, the province surveyed over 15,000 British Columbians about their views regarding the predator reduction strategy. Fifty-nine per cent of respondents opposed culling wolves to protect vulnerable caribou populations. Another poll conducted by Mario Canseco Research showed that a large majority of British Columbians were against using neck snares, leg-hold traps, poison or aerial gunning — the same methods employed in the wolf cull — to get rid of wolves in the areas where caribou are threatened.
This data cannot be ignored; sentience demands compassion. As a society, we are moving away from the dominance paradigm and increasingly embracing the mutualism paradigm. Social values are not static, and what was once acceptable is no longer. Therefore, the death and suffering of sentient creatures necessitate redefining what the best science really means and complementing it with social and ethical values predominating in the 21st century.
Two conditions become indispensable. Firstly, only the science that is evolving, creative, open to criticism and innovation, and free from vested interests can address wildlife management challenges. Moreover, such science must be imbued with compassion and respect for all sentient beings. This is what British Columbians demand; this is what wild animals deserve.
The unscientific, unethical wolf cull carried on ceaselessly and with unremitting cruelty fails on both grounds. We need to end it to save wolves from suffering and to regain our dignity as human beings who share this land with other creatures. It’s time for the scarred forest to heal its wounds. Enough horror has been unleashed. Enough anguish has been witnessed.
Please help to stop the cruel wolf cull in British Columbia
Go to The Fur-Bearers at https://tinyurl.com/3wmz63f6 or Pacific Wild at https://tinyurl.com/yhfeet9c to take action.
This article was originally posted on omere.ca at https://omere.ca/essays/the-siege-on-wolves/
