Poachers and political damage

The problem with predators is us. How do we deal with them? Do we tolerate them, let them multiply naturally and do nothing while occasionally seeing our livestock and pets become sustenance? Do we try to find some reasonable level of human control to minimize conflict, while letting wild carnivores live in self-sustaining numbers? Or do we prefer to unnaturally expunge large carnivores in order to protect our property and boost the sense of security for those on the edge of the sort-of wilderness?

The answers are mostly political. The divide is large. It is politically difficult for humans to control the large carnivores that naturally roam our supposedly wild lands, but letting nature take its course is difficult to the point where it may be that some people feel compelled to resort to serious crimes.

I am not any kind of environmentalist or animal rights advocate. I have nothing against hunting or hunters and I hope our ranches and livestock operations prosper, but I also hope Washington will keep and preserve what are close to wild lands and that the wildlife there can survive. I also wish the law be followed. That means the poaching of endangered wolves is and should be considered a serious crime, not cheered and applauded as some would have us do. Driving Washington’s first breeding wolf pack in 70 years into virtual extinction, while the state is still working on a reasonable wolf management plan, is a crime against nature and an assault on the political process that could find some kind of balance and hope for coexistence. It is a high-cost crime. The gray wolf, like it or not, is protected by state and federal law and we are legally committed to its recovery. We could pay a high price to undo the damage the Methow wolf poachers have done. If the poacher was motivated by impulsive hunting instinct or by violent disagreement with their legal protection, the result is the same.

Contrast the wolf with our vastly more abundant predator, the cougar. In 1996 Washington voters overwhelmingly approved Initiative 655, banning the hunting of cougar and bear with hounds. The measure, promoted by anti-hunters and animals rights activists, tipped the balance. Cougar sightings and complaints to the Department of Wildlife quadrupled in the next four years. Then a pilot hound-hunting program began in five northern counties, including Chelan and Okanogan, where cougars had been most problematic. And in those counties, cougar complaints have dropped by 75 percent. By a lopsided bipartisan vote the state Senate just approved a bill to extend the pilot hunting program another five years, and was correct to do so. Wildlife officials say the hound-hunting program gives them better options for managing cougars, allowing them to choose more easily the sex and age of animals killed. There are about 2,100 cougars in the Washington wilds, and the pilot program shows careful management can have an effect on minimizing conflicts with humans.

It would be ideal if we could calmly work toward the same kind of balance, but wolves are not cougars and emotions run very high. It should be remembered that Washington’s wolves are not optional. Wolves know nothing of our human political boundaries and care little if they are establishing territory in Idaho, Canada or Washington. The animals made the choice and once they were here the law protects them. The law protects them until populations reach self-sustaining levels, and if and when that happens they can be removed from the endangered species list and the state can manage the population at a reasonable number. The crime of poaching puts that day, and hope for resolution of these political conflicts, very far away.