In a concrete jungle far, far away from where any wolf should roam (but perhaps where they ought too) people feel the need to demonize all who would oppose the irrational over-protection of wolves. From the midst of New York City, we all become enlightened by some of the most slanted editorials about wolves and wildlife management in general.
The New York Times on December 1, 2009 had an editorial, “Wolf Hunt” in which it was quite clear the editors are completely ignorant of what they speak but yet felt compelled to continue the environmentalist brainwashing they can so feverishly perpetuate in their daily rag.
“Wolf Hunt” says:
Nothing lays bare the true point of the wolf season more than Idaho’s recent decision to extend its hunt by three months, ending on March 31. The reason is that hunters have simply not killed enough wolves — only half of the state’s quota of 220 so far.
Unfortunately, this is a poor representation of the truth, not that that ever stopped an editorial. What the writer(s) is attempting to do is influence the reader to believe that the only reason a wolf hunt was extended was so that evil hunters could get in some more killing. How far from the truth.
Quotas on wolves weren’t randomly drawn from a hat. It was all based on projected goals of wolf populations within specified wolf zones or wildlife management areas. Tags were issued in numbers that represented the sought after number of wolves that best would biologically and socially be supported in that zone. The fish and game departments readily admitted the quotas were low in order to err on the side of caution.
The wolf hunt was therefore extended in regions where quotas had not been met based on science and wolf management goals not in order to fill the blood lusts of hunters. This same idiotic mentality is displayed in another letter to the editor in response to “Wolf Hunt”. The writer says,:
This small but fervent group (hunters) sees wolves not as part of a complex ecosystem but rather as an enemy to be conquered, a demon to be exorcised. Thus, they kill with abandon and, often, glee.
Talk about broad strokes with a brush. And of course this is as far from the truth as one can get. Yes, there are those who would probably illegally kill a wolf for no real reason at all, just the same as there are environmentalists who would burn buildings, turn over cars, destroy property and harm people to perpetuate their agendas.
It is quite unfortunate that few of the environmentalists and wolf lovers are at all interested in discovering the truth about wolves. If they did, they would be better armed to know how to protect them. In their fervent love affair with the romantic and iconic wolf, much of what they promote is more harmful to the overall protection of the animal they strive to protect.
The information being used to sway readers to their side of the aisle is often inaccurate. But they don’t know that and don’t want to. In “Wolf Hunt” the editor writes:
What matters is the survival of not just a few token wolves, but strong, genetically healthy wolf populations.
Sounds great! But it’s a myth. What was deliberately kept from everyone, including most wolf lovers before reintroduction, was the fact that it had been learned that 1). the Canadian gray wolf to be introduced was not the same wolf that roamed this area before extirpation; 2). wolves were already established in Northern and parts of Central Idaho and Northwestern Montana; and 3). there really are no such thing as pure wolves. Testing that has been done has determined that wolves and coyotes regularly interbreed and have been for a long time. Combine that with the interbreeding of domestic dogs, both intentional and unintentional, and what we have dotting our landscape are populations of hybrid dogs, some of which we are spending millions of dollars on to protect.*
*See, “Wolf Recovery and the Corruption of Government Science” by George Dovel – The Outdoorsman; Bulletin Number 35; July-November 2009 issue; pages 14-21
It’s an uphill battle for sure. While virtually every major media outlet in this country and scores of smaller independent media sources, espouse to environmentalism and readily reprint the propaganda put out by these groups, the task of educating the public to the truth becomes enormous. Most people do long for the truth and they have yet to learn that their sources might not be giving them what it is they want.
Tom Remington
