Wildlife for ALL

We often think that those entrusted with protecting wildlife forget that wildlife is for all people. History, tradition, political pressure, and funding, have made it a challenge to respond to the needs of a broad demographic. The non-hunting community is left unsure of their representation at a state level. Is this the fault of the agencies alone? Not entirely, there are several ways that we can work together on finding solutions to the seeming imbalance that permeates wildlife management.

  • We can look for agency practices that DO encourage diverse participation, and who strive to protect our wildlife without reverting to only ‘killing them to save them’. We must affirm those efforts and positively reinforce the actions that show a true understanding  of managing wildlife in ways that serve the wildlife above all else.
  • We must show up! You will never go to a game agency meeting that has no hunting users present. We are all constituents and we must be prepared to show up too!
  • We must realize that change comes slowly, and that lasting change often comes from the changing of perceptions and understanding. A change of culture, not just of regulation. This is best illustrated when Bills are introduced in many states that liberalize hunting practices or fail to protect species we know need to be protected. Strong advocacy can often help to defeat those Bills, but it symbolizes winning a hill that will need to be defended-legislative session after legislative session-for years and years to come. These protracted battles mask the underlying issue which is not the regulatory question of ‘can we’ but the ethical question of ‘should we’?
  • We must always identify who the actual ‘decision-maker’ is, and that means knowing where the ‘leverage’ comes from. The person in front of you may have no control at all over what is happening. Find out who does and direct your efforts to them. Do not be afraid to ask the hard questions, over and over again if necessary, until you get an answer that is not simply rhetoric.
  • One of the main reasons that agencies are reluctant to include the needs of non-hunters and  advocacy organizations is that we rarely vote according to our core environmental beliefs. This often results in state governments, especially in the Rocky Mountain West, being mostly comprised of those with similar ideologies to their state’s historic demographic of producers and hunters. For the strategic politician these special interest stakeholders can mean the difference between re-election and ‘retirement’! This is the source of many of the policies that we find challenging and this is where the ‘buck stops’. Political pressure is as unfair to the dedicated agency folk as it is to the advocates.
  • Producers and carnivores CAN co-exist but it is up to the producer to take the steps required to do so. More and more livestock growers are embracing non-lethal deterrents and conflict prevention. We must support and encourage them as they try to find the new balance that is found beyond the use of bullets. They are 21st Century pioneers indeed!
  • We must be able to identify the actual issues that we are addressing. It can be cathartic to express our dissatisfaction through anger and by personal attacks. This becomes a distraction from what we are actually advocating for-the quality of life for the animals. It really is OK to disagree, in fact it can be the first step to real communication, we just have to remember to do it in a respectful and non-judgmental way. Talk to people the way you would like your favorite friend or relative treated if they were in the same position. It may be hard to admit, but our motivation may sometimes be biased by ‘baggage’ from interactions with particular personnel in the past. This goes both ways-it ends up with each side putting more energy into attacking the smoke than in putting out the fire. The animals and landscape are not helped when we give or take personal ‘hits’.
  • In identifying issues, we must also acknowledge that the differences we experience are usually based in ‘values’. ‘Science’ is a standard that we have put value on. However interpretation of ‘science’ can be a source of disagreement among scientists themselves, so in and of itself, it is not an involuble measurement. Knowing that our beliefs, attitudes and values are the foundation of our differences can be a breakthrough in how we see each other.
  • We can try to engage the people whose values we feel most distant from. This can be hard but it helps to know that you are not giving up your beliefs just by listening to someone else’s view, and maybe they will then listen to yours. Empathy is not about betraying yourself, it is about allowing yourself to try and see how the other person is experiencing the situation at hand. Remember to approach every situation as an opportunity to learn and to celebrate the chance to do so!
  • We cannot bully people into being compassionate! What we would like to see more than anything is compassion towards non-human animals. Let’s try it on each other first! Our enduring message is to question whether killing something just for recreation is justified. Simply put, it is easier to empower people’s compassionate nature than to overpower them into reluctant submission.
  • Advocates and watchers are associated with being ’emotional’. If we think about sport hunting of large carnivores (cougars, wolves, bears) logically, we realize that there is no reason to do it. It is not a conflict prevention measure because it does not target ‘problem’ animals. It is for recreation, and why do we recreate? We recreate for enjoyment-it gives us pleasure. And what are ‘enjoyment’ and ‘pleasure’ if not emotions?
  • Always remember that change IS happening. If we examine societal attitudes towards carnivores even since the 1960’s, it really is better, BUT there is movement today to go back to the old way of regarding these creatures as redundant. Several states have had bills introduced in efforts to relegate cougars to ‘predator status’ which is basically no accountability whatsoever.
  • Surprisingly much of the pushback to this regression is from professional wildlife managers. Some of them really are stepping up to the plate to fight for protection for wild carnivores. Those that do, deserve our support. As do those brave public servants devoted to protecting our Public Lands-these lands must stay in the Public Sector. This is an insidious and very real threat and we must respond to it with unity and firm resolve.
  • Lastly, funding is ‘in the news’ these days. Agencies are facing budget shortfalls and it is time for the funding AND the representation to reflect all the different stakeholders. There cannot be one without the other…

A quote by Woodrow Wilson recently came to our attention. It was part of an address to the Senate regarding the 1st World War. The arena of wildlife management is similar to the arena of war in its propensity to end up as highly defined ‘sides’. Perhaps the theme of this quote could be well utilized to administer the Public Trust Doctrine that governs our nation’s wild-lands and wildlife.

‘There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power; not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace.’ 

There has been a monopoly for too long, it is time for community and not rivalry to take center stage in the protection of our most wonderful natural world….

Could large carnivores be the new ‘canary in the mine shaft?’

This article brings up some important questions. Predators and prey have co-existed for millennia. We know that large carnivores eat ungulates but the fact that both thrive indicates that the predation has been what scientists call ‘compensatory’. The population of ungulates is only affected by predation in the same way that sickness and natural death would affect them. The enigma that is being observed now is that ungulates and predators are not keeping this biological balance and, in fact ungulate herds are diminishing.

Many states and provinces are resorting to exerting extremely heavy pressure on carnivores in an attempt to retain prey numbers. The Cougar Fund has always questioned the wisdom of managing one species for another-especially when the targets are carnivores and the prey is being preserved for socially driven harvest demands. The socially driven harvest is similar to the mine owner demanding the extraction of ore in spite of the obvious danger.

The deeper question is why is this happening? Is normal predation becoming additive because wolves, bears and cougars are ‘over-indulging’ in keeping with our cultural buy valtrex in australia propensity? We doubt that…We think it is more likely that the predators are actually indicating some greater danger, somewhat like the canary in the mine shaft! If ungulates are dying because of something greater-like gasses in a mine shaft- the affect of the carnivores is telling us to look beyond predation. Instead of heeding the bigger picture-the ‘gas’ which could be climate change, habitat destruction, human encroachment-our agencies are trying to resuscitate the canary!

It is time to stop pretending that killing predators is solving the problem. It is time to recognize that until we harness the negative effects that we, as humans, are having on the planet, we are merely scapegoating wolves and cougars and bears. We are making political choices to manage for the hunter and not the animal. We are making excuses to distract from our own behavior and we are not looking at the big picture of what our planet needs, rather at the short term instant gratification of what a minority of people want.

Click here to read the article

Love them or hate them, celebrities have the ability to broadcast widely and loudly.

Our concern for the treatment of animals often means we have to take a stand on issues that we feel negatively impact them. Trophy hunting is certainly an issue that we feel must be addressed. When a human animal chooses to kill a non-human animal in a Trophy Hunt it is for several reasons:

  • Prestige-a way to enhance one’s own superiority over other people and over animals that were once a threat to primitive man. We are no longer that primitive man.
  • Sport-the idea that competition produces winners and heroes. But how can it be called  sport when it is between a man with a gun/guns, a pack of hounds, a porter to carry his gear, electronic equipment, vehicles to give chase in…and a lone wild creature?
  • Revenue– exploiting foreign markets that value teeth, tusks, internal organs, genitals, i want to order valtrex horns, pelts and other parts of animals is cruel and unconscionable. There is more illegal profit in killing wildlife than in the worlds drug trade! When hunting puts value on dead animals, poachers are sure to follow…
  • Conservation– the theory behind this is that trophy hunting kills animals to save them. Do we really need to explain this….?
  • Altruism-Support for local communities or indigenous populations. Really?  all the money it takes to kill something to hang on a wall could just be donated to the people that need help.

Cruelty will change when cultures change, and cultures can only change when the people that care, speak up against the cruelty. Celebrities are able to do this in the same larger-than-life way that they live their celebrity lives! Thank you for being a BIG voice for animals Ricky Gervais.


What do YOU think about cougars recolonizing the East?

An excellent article to read this Earth Day!

Montana cougar quota controversy continues

We must tell our Government that this is just not good enough!

The annual report that quantifies the number of  wild animals that are slaughtered by tax-payer funded programs has been released. It really is time for everyone that is concerned about the nation’s non-human animals to make their voice heard. We can examine our own behavior first…are we doing everything we can not to attract wildlife into residential or agricultural environments? Are we paying attention to the latest non-lethal methods of conflict prevention? Are we doing our part so Wildlife buy valtrex online usa Services don’t have to do what they do? This is such an alarmingly huge issue we cannot leave it to one agency to make all the decisions. There needs to be greater over-sight of the autonomous power of a single entity that chooses to kill so often and in such unbelievable numbers. The reason this happens is because ‘they can’, we need to tell them ‘no more’.