You are here

Guest Column: Pondering The Proposal To Remove ESA Protection From Gray Wolves


How should the gray wolf be viewed by humans? US Fish and Wildlife Service photo by Gary Kramer.

Editor's note: Earlier this summer the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to remove Endangered Species Act protection from the gray wolf. In this guest column, ecologist Barbara Moritsch, author of The Soul of Yosemite: Finding, Defending, and Saving the Valley's Sacred Wild Nature, questions that decision.

This morning as I washed the breakfast dishes, I pondered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list. I considered arguments I had read that contested this proposal: wolves had not yet fully recovered in the lower 48 states; after spending so many millions of dollars to re-introduce wolves, it is stupid to de-list them prematurely and allow people to hunt them; wolves play an important role in natural ecosystems, and are proving to be an asset to ecosystem processes; and wolves have a right to life, just as humans and all other species have such a right.

I agree with all of these points, and I am strongly opposed to the proposal to de-list wolves. But as I considered how I wanted to frame my comments to the agency, something kept nagging at me. My heart told me that the wolf controversy, of which this recent proposal is only one element, goes much deeper than ecological principles and species recovery. The wolf controversy, particularly the strident and very ugly anti-wolf campaign, is a pure reflection of a very dark side of human nature—a side that does not bode well for the future of any living thing on the planet.

To wolf advocates, wolves symbolize wildness, freedom, and big, open country. To wolf haters, the animal may symbolize everything that is wrong, evil, or vicious in their lives—a scapegoat. To trophy hunters, the killing of a wolf may symbolize strength and manhood. Note my use of the word “may” on these latter two—I am speculating because I neither hate nor hunt wolves.

It suddenly struck me with great force that the wolf symbolizes something much greater, something much more important than these fairly superficial human emotions. The wolf symbolizes, as perhaps no other species does, the inability of many humans to co-exist with anything that competes with or threatens them in any way—even if that competition or threat is largely imaginary. The wolf symbolizes the mistaken opinion that, when push comes to shove and either a human gets to hunt the elk or the wolf gets to hunt the elk, the human has the greater God-given right to that elk.

This opinion holds true for cows and sheep, as well as elk. The attitude of too many humans toward wolves epitomizes selfish human nature, at the expense of all other species, as well as their habitats.

Anyone who is paying attention knows that the human tendency to take whatever he or she wants from the Earth with little consideration for the long-term consequences is quickly catching up with us, and the consequences of our inattention may be dire. The truth is, unless we change our ways rapidly or there is a massive die off of humans, we will experience shortages of clean water and food, probably in the not-too-distant future.

Given how poorly we are coping with wolves, I can’t help but wonder how we will react when we are faced with these shortages, and there is not enough to go around, when instead of wolves, we are “competing” with other humans. A lot of people think things will get ugly, and they are stockpiling weapons and ammunition, so they can fight for “their share.” Do you really want to live in a world like that? I don’t.

It’s time to change our collective ways. It’s time to view the Earth and all of its inhabitants as important and precious. It’s time to learn to share, instead of compete. Learning how to make peace with and co-exist with wolves and other species is the first step in this shift.

Some Native Americans believe the wolf symbolizes the teacher. I believe we have much to learn from our brother the wolf, and these are lessons we need to learn quickly. Transmute the anger, transcend the fear, and embrace all other life with compassion and reverence—this is how we will survive and thrive as conditions on Earth change


"And who annoints the person able to declare others 'inhuman'?

Hmmm - perhaps the same people that do it today - our Justice system."

This clearly isn't what the Justice system does. When has it ever decalred a person to be inhuman?

ec, you still haven't explained how exactly my point is "absurd."

And who annoints the person able to declare others 'inhuman'?

Hmmm - perhaps the same people that do it today - our Justice system.

Why is it no one willing answer the question. It comes down to a person or an animal (to get by Justinh's absurd objection and to the point, we will assume they are both angelic) if you had to save one, would you save the animal, the person, or let nature take its course. Even if you don't admit it, I believe the vast majority would save the human. Why would that be if the human were not deemed superior?

And I also note that none of those claiming equality have answered the question about whether they actually live based on that belief. I doubt it.

I'd just like to thank everyone here, and thank Kurt for letting the conversation continue even though some of the comments are a bit sharp. It's interesting how much wolf discussions rest on these different religious/philosophical/secular world views. I don't think an article on black-footed ferrets in the Badlands would spark similar reactions.

It's not yet represented in the conversation above, but I'd like to remind everyone that the Nez Perce tribe's participation in Idaho wolf reintroduction stemmed in part from their spiritual beliefs.

It seems that when we talk about religion we are indeed talking about wolves.

And who annoints the person able to declare others 'inhuman'?

What happened to discussing wolves?

So how do you define "human"?

I'm not sure what's absurd here. This is your belief system I'm quoting.

And of course Justin - you take things to the absurd.

The terrorist is inhuman so he doesn't rate above the dog.

If it came down to saving the life of a human or an animal, which would you choose?

If it came down to saving my dog's life or a terrorist's life, I'd save my dog. According to your belief system--that "human life is more valuable than that of any animal"--you would save the terrorist's life instead of your dog's. As Barabara notes, "that's okay."

which is why you resort to name calling and projecting

Name calling? Where?

That human life is superior to animals is self evident. It is demonstrated in the daily activities of the vast majority of humans on this planet. Anyone that eats meat demonstrates their belief that their life is above that of an animal. Anyone that builds a house (disturbs animal habitat) demonstrates their belief that humans are above animals. Anyone that wears leather shoes, boots and belts. Our legal system that allows hunting or penalizes biting pit bulls. And if you would be honest you would admit it as I suspect you engage in most if not all these activities.

If it came down to saving the life of a human or an animal, which would you choose? Or would you just let nature takes it course?

And once again - "God given" was not my language it was Barbara's.

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide

Recent Forum Comments