A myopic view of success: Killing wolves is not the answer

A recent publication in the journal Ecological Applications by 34 authors provides a myopic view of success in the recovery efforts of an endangered species, and what defines “success.” Briefly, it describes that caribou numbers in western Canada are finally beginning to increase due to the slaying of thousands of wolves and suggests that this action must continue. There is grave danger in the “glossing over” of important ethical concerns that verges on callousness, in addition to a blatant disregard for ecological considerations that go unmentioned or are perhaps wilfully ignored.

I am not contesting the scientific rigour of the paper in question, but I am stating that critical moral considerations, as well as ecological concerns, have been disregarded, and that these are not inconsequential.

The article, and the media coverage it has gained, have serious “sins of omission” that should not be neglected by society at large. Specifically, I am referring to the inference of the “success” of caribou recovery due to the en masse killing of highly sentient beings, most of which are wolves. While the authors do mention that the practice of killing wolves is controversial and somewhat uncomfortable, they leave it at that and move on to describe the necessity to kill thousands more for decades to buy time for caribou habitat to recover.

While the authors point out that caribou habitat continues to be disturbed, destroyed and impoverished by ongoing industry, they state that a full recovery to suitable caribou habitat will take decades after it is initiated. However, for deep-snow mountain caribou, which rely on arboreal (tree) hair lichens that live in old growth forests of the Inland Temperate Rainforest (currently threatened by ecological collapse), forest recovery of a clear-cut back to its former caribou-supporting stage could take 120-150 years, although the system may never return to what it was.

Although the authors mention that climate change may present additive pressure to struggling caribou herds, biodiversity is also at risk and the precautionary principle would suggest “keeping every cog and wheel” to maximize ecological resiliency and species adaptations. Little mind is paid to the fact that the changing climate, which involves fires, floods, snow levels, and changes in forest composition (plant and animal), may well render the previous conditions as unrecoverable when it comes to suitable habitat, as we are on a fast track to becoming a vastly different planet.

We can not, and will not, be returning to the previous state of the world in which caribou evolved, especially if we continue to degrade what remains. On top of continued resource extraction, there is ongoing motorized recreation in caribou habitat, such as heliskiing and snowmobiling, which are unmentioned in the paper, but also subject caribou to unfavourable health and reduced resiliency, as well as changes in predator-prey relations.

Despite decades of recommendations from scientists, the provincial government continues to authorize the destruction of known high-value mountain caribou habitat, and a long-term plan to kill wolves to keep caribou on life-support is not justifiable.

Critically, there is little thought given to how killing wolves impacts other species or ecological processes they influence, aside from wolves’ direct effects on the numbers of elk, deer, and moose. Where wolf populations have been extirpated in North America, a cascade effect is observed in which small mammals, fish, insects, birds, amphibians, ungulates, tree species and vegetation all suffer (e.g., Banff National Park, Yellowstone National Park). Wildlife management policies based on reducing carnivore numbers have caused, and will continue to cause, severe harm to many other organisms that seem distantly removed from the apex (top) predators like wolves.

I regard the act of shooting thousands of wolves from helicopters, or killing them slowly in strangling neck snares, as no different from a holy war where no one “wins”. Put bluntly, I do not think that saving caribou is worth the slaughter of thousands of wolves.

Government scientists admit that ‘there is no humane way to kill wolves’, an admission that goes unremarked upon in this widely cited paper. I am not alone in believing that ethics is integral to “good science.” Other scientific publications have focused on the questions surrounding the collective decision of what practices are acceptable in efforts to save caribou, noting the distinction between efficacy and ethics when it comes to how we treat carnivores. This matter is not only a math equation that increases the growth rate of caribou.

One issue of serious import includes the role that wolves, as apex predators, provide in maintaining healthy forests, healthy herds, and ultimately, healthy ecosystems. In addition to moving grazing animals around the landscape to allow plants and trees to grow, large carnivores exert many indirect effects that help ecosystems stay diverse and resilient.

One of these involves a dampening effect that wolves have on disease transmission. Chronic Wasting Disease is spreading across North America and all cervids (including caribou) are susceptible to it. The first two known cases were recently recorded in BC. This deadly prion may even pose a direct threat to humans. Also discounted is evidence that predators help other species to adapt to our changing climate. Neglectfully, there has not been an environmental assessment of the impacts of BC’s tax-funded wolf-kill program on wolves — in the short- or long-term — or ecosystems. Western provinces appear to have been bought out by “big business” and blindfolded to the issue of causing more harm. It is surely the two-legged that need managing here.

The wolf-kill programs taking place in Western Canada under the false guise of caribou conservation are not unlike applying a Mickey Mouse Band-Aid to a gangrenous wound; at first it may appear to some that care is being given, but in the long run, and without proper treatment, the sore will continue to fester and worsen. If caribou are to continue to exist, their remaining habitat must be off-limits to extractive industries and new roads. Killing wolves does not lessen these landscape-level impacts, although it provides a temporary distraction.

The paper also ignores the spiritual and cultural benefits that wolves afford us, raising questions as to the outcome this violent act will have on the collective human psyche. In the story of Ishmael, a novel by David Quinn, we learn of Leavers and Takers. Quinn makes the case that humans have not yet destroyed the community of life, and with it, ourselves. He raises the question, valid today more than ever, of what kind of species we want to be. It is a good question.

As a conservation biologist, I was taught that science is a tool to help inform us, but it does not give us permission to cause harm. I am not alone in wanting to improve the ways we treat other sentient beings, or in advocating for publication reform to safeguard wildlife from researcher harm. Science without ethics is not acceptable and the 34 authors of this paper are risking the future of academics, and society, who do not acknowledge this limitation when it comes to sharing this planet with other beings. We all have a responsibility to engage in this sociopolitical, rather than scientific, problem of scapegoating wolves to satiate industrial and recreational interests.

Sadie Parr lives in Golden, B.C. She is dedicated to working towards conserving wolves across Canada as part of a functioning ecosystem.