Wolves are one of North America’s most fascinating indigenous species but they also pose a major threat to cattle populations. While poaching wolves is illegal, culling of wolves by government officials and trophy hunting have historically been used to keep wolf populations in check. However, Guillaume Chapron of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Adrian Treves of the University of Wisconsin-Madison recently conducted a study on wolf populations in Wisconsin and Michigan and found that state laws that opened up legal culling actually slowed population growth–a notable problem for America’s wolf population.

The logic for legal culling is simple: it was assumed that these outlets for hunting would limit illegal poaching and would encourage Americans to coexist with the wolf population. The wolf population would continue to grow without hovering to the point of extinction, as locals will not feel the need to illegally hunt the animals. Including legal culling is a cornerstone of “carnivore management,” which deals with carnivorous populations in the wild that can pose a threat to human life but can also coexist with humans when handled correctly.

Wolves are not the only predators that conservationists have difficulty handling–African lions, grizzly bears and other large carnivores present a massive challenge. Consider that a set of brown bears released into the wild in Italy last year had to be hunted down after they attacked several humans. Whereas conservationists can hope to release animals like pandas and elephants back into the wild, large carnivores that are held for some time may never be able to return to the wild because they are so dependent on a stable ecosystem that consistently supplies them with their daily meat intake. Wolves historically could have eaten bison but now the bison is a protected animal, a population which the United States has a vested interest in preserving. When one species in the food chain becomes off limit, it is difficult to deal with its predators. Farmers across the nation are eager to receive the “right to kill” wolves who threaten their cattle but a survey conducted by Washington State University found that killing wolves who attack livestock can actually backfire. Researchers hypothesized that:

Killing an adult wolf can disrupt the entire (complicated) social system of the grey wolf pack…killing adult wolves may end up locking their offspring to the place where they were killed: without parents to keep them sexually distinct and roaming, the way they normally would, pups may settle down prematurely, having their own pups earlier than normal, and sticking to the place where they became independent — the place where their parents were killed.

These pups then go on to eat local livestock, just as their parents did, rather than roaming to different areas where they might be able to feast on rabbits and other small mammals that have no financial value for ranchers. Wolves are imperfect creatures, that simultaneously threaten human livelihood (ranching) while also desperately dependent on humans for their survival (conservation), but they are part of the American landscape and we are responsible for their future. Containing a large carnivorous species is not an easy task, but with new evidence suggesting that legal culling and “right to kill” laws are not having the desired effect, conservationists and government officials may need to rethink how best to preserve the wolf population.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Hunting American Wolves: Conservation or Extinction? appeared first on Law Street.

While climate change, habitat loss, and strains on food resources are all putting pressure on many forms of wildlife to survive, another human induced threat is direct action by way of poachers. Especially in parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, poaching is pushing already endangered animals such as the black rhino, elephant, and some big cats to the brink. Turbulent political situations and market demands further escalate the determination of those involved and the degree of their activity. Attempting to protect said animals will require more than raising awareness and implementing additional rules, rather, we need widespread alterations to value systems. However since there are so many factors involved that need to be addressed, any progress is desirable–during his notable recent visit to the United States, Prince William spent time advocating for wildlife conservation.

A city in Myanmar named Mong La, called by some a mini Las Vegas, is a haven for black market outlets and red light activities. In addition to gambling and prostitution, many endangered animals are desired in one form or another. Rhino horns are thought to have healing qualities, tiger parts are thought to be aphrodisiacs and increase virility, and bear claws, leopard pelts, and live monkeys are also common sights. These things have been the practice in the region for a long time, but recently it has worsened due to China’s economic expansion. A vast increase in members of China’s middle and upper middle classes has provided an enormous demand for these already extremely rare animals. Such people have cash to burn, and desire to spend it conspicuously on trophies, prestige, and lavish leisure.

Poachers cut up a kill. Courtesy of Rod Waddington via Flickr.

One does not need to be ethnocentric, insofar as declaring one’s own culture, values, and belief systems to be correct or superior to those of another. However there is no scientific evidence to support the theories that these animals provide the medicinal benefits that are claimed.

Yet this should not be the only factor in the issue. Individuals and societies should be allowed to exercise their cultures regardless of scientific validity. The Faroe Islanders, located between Scandinavia and Iceland, got into a scrape with Greenpeace over their Grindadrap, or Pilot Whale Hunt. Greenpeace made assumptions about the Islanders–that they were killing simply for the sake of it and in attempts to assert masculinity. This seemed pointless to them and Greenpeace advocated for an end to the hunting practices. However upon further investigation, many minute details regarding the Faroe culture and its relationship to the hunt were discovered. An aesthetic interest in whales was not sufficient to deny the Faroes the right to pursue these values. This conclusion became all the more prevalent when it was discerned that the Islanders were in fact going about the hunt in a sustainable fashion, and the pilot whale itself is not an endangered species. However neither of these two details are the case with regard to the poaching discussion at hand.

Ivory jewelry. Courtesy of USFWS Mountain-Prairie via Flickr.

Currently the primary solution to the poaching problem is armed defense. Many African national parks employ heavily weaponized rangers to patrol and defend the borders. Often times firefights break out; there are often reports of poachers, and occasionally rangers too, getting killed in these conflicts. While this might help on a case by case basis, it does not stop poaching at the source. That is, it does not address the root motivations for poaching in the first place.

Rangers confiscate ivory. Courtesy of Enough Project via Flickr.

Poachers and Rangers are not the only ones engaging in armed conflict in the African national parks. In 2013, the two-year-old country of South Sudan erupted in civil war. Sudan is already known for hosting Africa’s longest civil war, lasting from 1983-2005. During that time, it is estimated that all but 5,000 of the country’s 80,000 elephants died. After the first war, elephants, giraffes, antelope, buffalo, and others were in a position to begin a recovery. Paul Elkan of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s South Sudan program explains that formal protection, ecotourism, and other programs were being established which could have aided these animals in returning to a healthy population. However with the onset of another war these systems collapsed. As a power vacuum has opened up in much of the region, there is little to stop poachers from running rampant. Furthermore, as combat spreads into the parks themselves, poachers are not the only threat to the animals. Commercial bush meat hunting to feed soldiers is a common occurrence during hostility.

The Duke of Cambridge is a longstanding advocate for wildlife conservation. While in Washington D.C. at the beginning of December, Prince William vocalized his intention to address the trafficking aspect of poaching, in an effort to work with transportation companies and international regulations on trade. Trying to cut the actual trade of the animals could reduce the level of poaching on site. This is just one of the many means by which Prince William hopes to improve the situation and spread more environmentally conscious sentiment across the globe. Being in an authoritative and high profile position, he continues to put his influence and altruistic intentions to productive use.

Prince William speaks about wildlife conservation. Courtesy of World Bank Photo Collection via Flickr

If the increased demand for these animals is in part a consequence of modernization, interconnected markets, higher income, and more leisure time for the societies in question, the interest in sustainability and environmental conservation should not be long to follow. If they could heed the Prince’s warnings and follow his example, we may be able to find effective and long lasting solutions to these problems.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prince William Speaks Out Against Animal Poaching appeared first on Law Street.

Next Monday begins the week-long tradition of the New Jersey black bear hunt. During this process, between 250-300 bears of a population that tends to dance around a total of 3,400 north of Interstate 80 are “harvested” so as to keep their numbers in check. The reasons for this hunt and the manners in which it is pursued are controversial, and there may exist more progressive and responsible alternatives.

The general argument is that black bear populations can get out of control; they encroach upon our territory and into our backyards, and the likelihood of people experiencing dangerous encounters with them increases. We do not pause to consider that human populations might be the ones getting out of control. Rampant development and overbuilding in the North Jersey area means habitat damage for all manners of local wildlife. As forests are bulldozed, bears’ homes are destroyed. Furthermore, the homes of the animals on which they prey are destroyed as well, meaning that they all must relocate. This concentrates bears into smaller areas, which might produce the illusion that there are more of them while in actuality we simply see them more frequently.

The extensive building does not effectively take into account animal geographies; that is to say, the routes and manners in which they travel, hunt, court and mate, and go about their business. As we build out of control, bears are channeled into ever narrowing corridors or their paths are completely blocked, forcing them to pass through our backyards. We should also keep in mind that leveling wooded areas might put a strain on their food supply; the common image of a black bear sifting through people’s trash might not be a result of overly aggressive and bold bears seeking out human habitat in order to feed, but a last resort to which we have reduced them.

A site of deforestation and habitat destruction. Courtesy of crustmania via Flickr.

The very concept that a large and occasionally predatory animal such as a bear is constantly undergoing a population explosion seems to run contrary to the laws of nature. The food chain is a pyramid; the things on the bottom are the most numerous and as one ascends there are fewer and fewer of those creatures that prey on them. For example, as plants are at the bottom of every food chain, their numbers are astronomical. Then, the small rodents that eat them are naturally less numerous than the plants on which they feed, and the foxes that eat those rodents are fewer still. Bears are very large and, while they feed on roots, berries, and things of that nature as well, there would first have to be population explosions at every level of the food chain below them if their own numbers were to get out of control.

The New Jersey Fish and Game Council’s black bear management policy declares that it intends to consider

The cultural carrying capacity, which is the number of bears that can co-exist compatibly with the local human population in a given area in concert with the biological carrying capacity of the land to support bears.

There are two things wrong with this statement. The first, in conjunction with the previous discussion, is that it presumes to take into our own hands the bear population for the sake of the biological carrying capacity of the local environment. It assumes that the exploding bear population will overwhelm the local ecosystem and it is our responsibility to keep it in check. Again, if the population is growing rampantly it is because the ecosystem is flourishing in a manner so as to support it; the bears will not simply increase on their own. Therefore the ecosystem would maintain its balance. If for some reason at a particular point in time the bear population was unusually large, competition for food, shelter, and reproduction would increase and some bears would lose out and die off. Thus the ecosystem would self regulate. That’s the point; these things occur naturally all the time. Humans do not need to step in and play God.

The second problem with the management policy’s statement is that it assumes bear populations are the only factor in measuring the quality of the cultural carrying capacity. It declares that only a certain number of bears is suitable for a healthy carrying capacity; then if their populations get too high things go wrong. Why must this be the determining factor? Instead, if the unlikely situation arises that their populations do rise substantially, why can’t we readdress our own behavior, building policies, and attitudes and interactions with the environments of which we are a part? Why do we absolve ourselves of any responsibility? On the local level, humans aren’t exactly putting checks on their own populations; it is always others who are in the wrong and must get out of the way.

Let’s assume the bear populations are in fact rising. How is this determined? A team uses a DNA sampling technique in order to estimate the number of actively breeding bears in the region. Based on this, the total number is subsequently calculated. This method is supposedly more accurate than the more traditional catch, tag, and release systems. Be that as it may, does the hunt account for this delicate dynamic or do we shoot indiscriminately? What if, say, 80 percent of the bears killed during a particular hunt are active breeders? This could potentially devastate the bear population. It is not simply a matter of how many bears should or should not be killed, but which ones and where.

Courtesy of Tim Lumley via Flickr.

Rather than turn to black bears as scape goats, we should admit that we are causing habitat destruction and environmental damage. The validity of the black bear management policy has been questioned in the past, but to no avail. On the basis of not just science and policy but inward social reflection and questions of human behavior and value systems, it is time to challenge it again.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time to Change the Problematic New Jersey Black Bear Hunt appeared first on Law Street.