The Art of Wolverine War

For years, I’ve whispered two secret, wolverine-related prayers to the great karmic mechanisms that pivot the universe. These pleas have, to some degree, contradicted each other, but they have been equally sincere. The first had to do with keeping our research animals out of harm’s way during the Montana trapping season. The second involved hoping that the wildlife advocacy community had enough wits not to escalate the wolverine’s profile in a way that recruited the species as a mascot for pre-existing conservation conflicts and thereby created an anti-wolverine constituency.

In 2006, when I first volunteered on a wolverine research project, the species’ public profile was miniscule. By 2008, when I began grant-writing for gulo work in the Yellowstone region and started establishing my own project in Mongolia, the wolverine research community had begun to discuss how to introduce the wolverine to the wider American public in a way that would build a broad-based constituency and that – crucially – would not repeat the divisive mistakes that had been made in previous carnivore conservation efforts. We knew that the wolverine’s profile was increasing and, with Doug Chadwick’s book, Gianna Savoie’s PBS documentary, and a new listing decision all due out by 2010, we anticipated an explosion of interest. The last thing anyone wanted was to see the wolverine shoved into the same predictable narrative track that has plagued the West for decades now – a quick path, for Gulo gulo, to becoming just another symbolic totem in an on-going identity war. I had looked this animal in the eye, I’d read all the science, and I’d developed an incredible respect for the researchers. I’d also spent enough time with hunters and trappers in Mongolia and the US to understand that most of these individuals  respected the landscape and wildlife, even if they did so in a way that was very different from my own relationship with these entities. I wanted them to be part of the constituency as well. I wondered if there was a chance that we might be able to convey some of this rich picture in a way that allowed wolverines to become a different kind of carnivore conservation story, one that respected the integrity of the animal, the science, and the scientists, instead of one in which an endangered species was lobbed around like a hand grenade in the service of people’s existential anxieties and moral agendas. When I started the blog in 2009, I did it because I’d already been writing about wolverines for a while and I wanted to continue to do so in a way that experimented with a new medium and allowed some degree of critique of my work. But I also started the blog because I wanted a nuanced narrative out there in the public domain well before the advocacy community and the states’ rights folks began honing their blades for the fight. If we were lucky – if the advocates in particular played it smart – I thought we had a chance of avoiding a conflict and also gaining some degree of support for the species.

A few tricky, treacherous regions were already on the map when I began writing. One was the prospect of an ESA listing decision, which is high profile and always invites litigation. Another was trapping, which is a cultural activity for some and a moral abomination for others; the scientific ambiguity around wolverine trapping was unlikely to calm anyone’s outrage if the issue was pushed. A third challenge was recreation, particularly snowmobiles, which, according to anecdotal evidence, might pose a threat to denning female wolverines; there was no proof, but the advocacy community, already opposed to snowmobiles, began to make some claims that wolverines were definitely sensitive to disturbance. This situation was partially defused when the snowmobile community came forward with funding for a study in Idaho, which is entering its fourth year and yielding good data, although the results have yet to be published. Finally, there was a minor issue around fear that wolverines might depredate on livestock, although it is clear from global research that this is really only an issue if you have a widely scattered herd of small, semi-feral reindeer in your care.

The array of players and issues felt like the set-up for a round of aikido combat, one in which the advocacy community would never need to go on the offensive, but only artfully step to one side and let the energy of any objections to wolverine conservation dissipate and fall flat in light of the fact that wolverines are entirely non-threatening. The match might involve a few artful blocks and deflections, but on the whole it hardly seemed to call for the kind of brutal medieval siege warfare tactics that have been employed (by everyone…) around, for example, wolf conservation.

To the credit of a number of people in the advocacy community, wolverine conservation did go forward with minimal combative rhetoric. When the advocates spoke up, it tended to be more or less in the mode of blocking or deflecting. The lawsuit following the 2008 ‘not warranted’ decision was  legitimate, because that particular ruling seemed so politically motivated. The lawsuit following the 2010 ‘warranted but precluded’ decision dealt with a range of species on the candidate list, and avoided putting wolverines in the spotlight. Conservation groups sponsored and hosted a number of talks by wolverine researchers, which focused on the science and the inspiration without getting anyone riled up. Rumblings about trapping and snowmobiles remained at a low level, and advocates tended to be respectful of the lack of evidence in the scientific literature. Rumors circulated that a decision for wolverines was due out sometime in early 2013, and if that decision was in favor of listing, then wolverines would gain protection with minimal controversy – something almost unheard of in large carnivore conservation in the West. All we had to do was keep a low profile until then, and if the decision went in the other direction, then it might be time to consider new action.

So it was with substantial horror that I watched a particular faction of the advocacy community roll out its catapults and trebuchets and crusader knights and line them up for unnecessary battle as 2012 drew to a close. In the space of two months, two lawsuits filed by advocacy groups sought to accelerate the listing decision and put an end to trapping. In the wake of the lawsuits, animal rights groups started petitions to submit to the state of Montana; in some cases, the petitions were factually inaccurate and insulting to management agencies. All too predictably, these tactics brought a buzz of negative attention to wolverines, as well as the sort of self-righteous moral support that, publicly aired, tends to exacerbate conservation divides rather than accomplish anything useful. This situation can be tracked in the comments that people leave on online articles, and although I realize that comment boards tend to amplify and simplify polarized dialogues, it’s still striking – and disappointing – to see the same old arguments appearing more frequently in these responses to wolverine-related media.

Here’s the kind of dialogue – these brief examples are from an article in the Missoulian – that I am particularly interested in avoiding:

…The kind of subhuman who would find recreation in this kind of evil torture of one of our most magnificent creatures is not someone whose interests we should have anything but utter disgust for. To place the life of even one wolverine beneath the depraved motives of these fools is a calumny on the very concept of civilization.

This sort of assertion results in inaccurate and inflamatory responses like this:

“Wolverines are not endangered! They exist in large numbers all over the northern hemisphere. Montana just happens to be on the southern edge of their habitat. This is just another excuse to further the agendas of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, the Wildlands Network and Agenda 21. The re-wilding of Northwest Montana and the reduction of people in the region and shutting us out of public lands. The wolf, grizzly bear, wolverine are key species to bring it about. Doubt it? Do an in depth study on these groups and learn the facts.”

It’s worrying to see wolverines lumped in with wolves and bears as the objects of elaborate conspiracy theories. This was certainly not the case a year or so ago, when articles about wolverines were greeted with support, or at worst a vague lack of understanding, but seldom with outright opposition or invocation of anti-federal arguments. Again, I realize that comment boards are not the best medium for doing social science research, that thoughtful people make thoughtful comments, and that trolls are just trolls. I also realize that there are a lot of rational people out there who don’t engage in this kind of argument. Nevertheless, I am sure that these dialogues represent some sample of the broader population, and I hope that we don’t reap the fight that the more litigious members of the advocacy community have been so diligently and unnecessarily trying to sow.

Conservation is not about minimizing conflict – it’s about accomplishing conservation objectives, and sometimes that will involve contention. Lest it seem like I am trying to appease people and smooth away a fight just for the sake of avoiding conflict, I want to clarify that I do see the point of taking a stand when that stand is necessary and there are no other options. But wolverine conservation efforts in late 2012 did not present such a situation. Wolverine conservation efforts in late 2012 presented a situation in which smart diplomacy was a good and viable option. I wonder whether, for some people in the environmental community, the fight itself, the need to think of oneself as a warrior, has become a greater objective than the conservation outcomes. I understand this impulse, it’s deeply seductive and I have been known to succumb to it once in a while, but in the end, if you frame yourself as a warrior, you have to have a war, or you don’t have an identity. And if you have a war, you have to have an enemy, and that enemy has to contain some essential identity that opposes your own. If you go looking for an enemy, you’re certain to find – perhaps even create – one. The same thing applies when you go looking for a fight.

I had hoped that, for wolverines, we could talk about conservation in a way that rebuilt some of the lost social capital of the wolf era – and again, there’s a reason for this, besides just aversion to conflict. Wolverine conservation needs a broad-based constituency not because conflict is bad, but because the wolverine population exists at a scale, and within an embedded set of conservation challenges, that require support from everyone in order for wolverines to succeed. Wolverine conservation is not as simple as stopping a single destructive activity like trapping or logging or development. It’s about connectivity across the entire Western US, and it’s about climate change. Reducing direct mortality is part of this picture, reducing disturbance to denning females is part of this picture – but when those discussions are over, we still need every single person who cares about the outdoors, in any capacity and by whatever standards, on the side of wolverines in order to address the much larger and more complicated issues facing climate sensitive wildlife and ecosystems. And just as we need landscape connectivity, we also need institutional connectivity – that is, functional relationships among state management agencies, various conservation groups (including hunting groups), the federal government, researchers, and supportive individuals. We need these relationships to work because wolverines move across state lines, across jurisdictions, across the physical territory of so many different communities with so many different cultural affiliations. Creating divisions among these groups isn’t smart; it’s the equivalent of setting out a line of traps or building a six lane superhighway through a likely dispersal corridor. The socio-cultural ecosystem is just as important as the physical ecosystem, and you can’t protect one while compromising the other.

Wolverines are powerful little animals that live outsized lives across vast geographical scales. If you want to practice the art of war on behalf of wolverines, every action that you take, everything you say in support of wolverines, must be taken or said with this scale in mind. I’m deeply appreciative of the many people I know who have taken this approach thus far, but at this moment of escalating attention – a moment likely to continue through the January 10th hearing and the listing decision – a few cautions bear repeating. No matter what your personal moral outlook on certain issues, remember that wolverine conservation isn’t about enacting (let alone legislating) your own sense of identity. Even if you loathe trapping, don’t make wolverines a platform for fighting about it, or else you do a disservice to the species. It’s fine, of course, to say that you’re supportive of the decision to suspend wolverine trapping, especially if you acknowledge that this is your emotional response – and I am most definitely happy, because this does, in fact, constitute an answer to my other appeal to karma – but don’t gloat. It’s fine to talk about why science suggests that trapping might pose a threat, but it’s not okay to say that science proves your moral position. If you find yourself tempted to rant about evil trappers, or Agenda 21, or to employ the phrase “calumny on the very concept of civilization” in service of either side of this discussion (or ever, for that matter), take a deep breath and refrain. Say a private thank you to the universe. Put the catapult back into storage. Practice inviting someone you might previously have considered an enemy to talk strategy for building a broad-based wolverine constituency. That is what it’s going to take to keep this species on the landscape, and in the end, maybe the best warrior is the person who knows when to put the weapons down and engage in a little metamorphosis instead.


17 thoughts on “The Art of Wolverine War

  1. I want to underscore my appreciation for this breadth of logic and advice. I thoroughly enjoy all of your posts, but especially this one, for providing something that people on both sides of wolverine management (and beyond) can reflect upon for self improvement- myself included. It’s a special bonus that you deliver this message with tact, thoughtfulness, and articulacy. I can imagine only good things coming from people who heed this advice.

  2. In our system of government, there are checks and balances. Part of that is our court system who interprets the laws. So when a conservation group is forced to sue in order to uphold the law, they are not using “brutal medieval siege warfare tactics,” they are using our Constitution and our code of laws. When a conservation group sues and wins, don’t blame them; blame the government agency who violated the law in the first place. If you don’t wish to live in a country with an adequate court system to serve in an oversight role, than you might consider Egypt. Attacking conservation groups for using the court system to uphold the law reveals a profound contempt for our democracy.

    • Thanks for your thoughts. I want to issue a reminder that I have a lot of respect for my readers, and I expect a similar respect on the comment boards, towards myself and towards anyone else who supports wolverine conservation and is willing to share their thoughts. Personal insults, including imprecations of being an ignorant despot who ought to go live in a non-democratic country, are not appropriate here. I think we should all assume that this blog has a fairly educated author and a fairly educated readership, and that everyone involved in this exchange has a good understanding of how democracy operates.

      With that out of the way, it’s clear that you care a lot about wildlife conservation, but please be attentive to the accuracy of your claims. I’m not sure if you’re referring to the recent lawsuits around wolverines, or the ongoing litigation around wolves, so let’s clear up both issues. Wolverines are not legally endangered, so the trapping lawsuit isn’t about defending the law. USFWS was well ahead of schedule in preparing a listing statement for wolverines – the deadline was either the end of 2013 or the beginning of 2014, and we’ve been hearing for a long time that it would be out in early 2013. So the lawsuit against USFWS is, likewise, not about upholding the law or even enforcing a timeline. In both cases, it’s about trying to push a special interest by way of litigation. One hopes that the advocacy groups involved in these lawsuits were simply too far outside the chain of communication to have known what was going on among the decision-makers, otherwise the only possible motivation for those lawsuits was getting attention.

      As for wolves, I did my master’s research on the biological and social consequences of wolf reintroduction in the GYE. I’ve also done a lot of social science work and some biological study on wolves in Mongolia, so consider me qualified on this topic as well. Wolves in the GYE had reached the recovery goals outlined at the time of reintroduction, so in fact that argument for adherence to the law is on the side of the people in favor of delisting – not the groups who continued to sue to keep wolves on the list. Wyoming has been a pain in the neck, but the other states have done exactly what they were supposed to do, according to the law. The advocacy groups have been the ones who keep moving the target. I like wolves, I think they’re beautiful and inspirational, and they belong on the landscape, but the science says that their populations can handle a high level of mortality and still survive. They’re extremely versatile animals. I would never hunt one myself, and I hope that anyone who does hunt one hunts it with the respect it deserves, but I don’t think that the underpinnings of democracy are at stake just because someone gets to do something I disagree with – especially when that activity is well within the limits of the law and the science. So I don’t really see how the argument of checks and balances applies in this case. I’m not going to get into this further here – I have a book chapter on this topic coming out within the year, so I’ll refer you to that once it’s published. It does more justice to the topic than I have the time or inclination to do on a blog comment thread.

      • I’m sorry but much of this is simply false. The courts only consider the legality of an action. So if an environmental group wins a lawsuit, the government agency violated the law in the eyes of the presiding judge. This is a fact. It does not get more simple than that. In the case of wolf delisting, the original delisting attempts were in violation of federal law according to Judge Molloy. And so they were illegal, uncontroversially. It’s uncontroversial because we have a court ruling. For instance, in the 2010 ruling, Molloy ruled it was illegal to subdivide the different states’ populations by delisting wolves in Montana and Idaho but not Wyoming. And so yes, the original delistings were in violation of the law. Thats the fact. I’m sorry that you were offended by my something in my initial post, that was not my intention.

      • This is a wolverine blog and not a wolf blog, so I don’t think this is the place to get into a massive debate about the wolf issue. I may write something about it later, in a post. For now I stick with my assertion that litigation is appropriate as a last-ditch option in situations where nothing else works, but that was categorically not the case in the wolverine situation, and that litigation used inappropriately can, over the long term, subvert the conservation goals that advocates think they are defending in the short term.

      • I’m sorry if you feel I distracted from the conversation. But I will remind you that you brought up the wolf issue. My only reference to wolves was pointing out an error you made when you made the claim that the initial wolf delisting attempts were legal. They were in fact illegal, and uncontroversially so (because we have court rulings).

        Best Wishes
        Sam Parks

      • 2007 – Initial decision made to delist; wolves far surpassed recovery goals outlined in the recovery plan, the guiding legal document for the reintroduction. Lawsuits back and forth regarding Wyoming’s management plan.
        2008 – Wolves initially delisted. Advocates sue on grounds of possible lack of genetic connectivity. Molloy issues preliminary injunction returning wolves to ESA protections until suit can be heard. Suit withdrawn. No ruling on legality of delisting attempt. De facto concession by FWS, but no de jure decision.
        2009 – Wolves delisted again in Montana and Idaho, remain listed in Wyoming in attempt to address connectivity concerns around Wyoming’s poor management plan. Delisting challenged on grounds of DPS.
        2010 – Molloy rules that ESA prohibits delisting part of a DPS of an endangered species, stating that the entire DPS must have the same status. (Single ruling in ongoing series of rulings, stating that the second delisting attempt is in violation of ESA.) States (and ag groups?) appeal (therefore, decision controversial enough for people to invest time and money in challenging it in court.)
        2011 – Before appeal is heard (ie, controversy not settled), and after negotiations between feds and advocates collapse, wolves delisted by congress, in a rider attached to a budget. Advocates sue. Molloy upholds the federal government (congressional delisting, a terrible precedent, is now legal ‘fact’ and final outcome of exercise of checks and balances.)

        This is according to my notes, which get sketchier after 2009, when I stopped following this in so much detail. I was pretty sure that there was no decision on the initial delisting attempt (a preliminary injunction is not a ruling….) and that no one had ever actually ruled that the grounds for the initial delisting were in violation of the ESA. That probably would have been the ruling if the case had been heard, but it wasn’t, and there is therefore no legal ‘fact’ in the case of the initial delisting attempt, ie no ruling on the biological grounds of the 2008 delisting.

        This is just the bare bones outline. Check back in with the blog, because I will be sure to post a link to the book chapter when it comes out. You can get the rest of the analysis there.

  3. Very well done! Here you offer rules of engagement that, if followed, should reduce any wildlife war to little more than skirmish. Your articulate expression of fears that I share were truly inspirational. I will share this far and wide.

  4. Tim and Nate, thanks for your comments and your long-term support and interest. One of the things I’ve enjoyed most about blogging is the opportunity to engage with the people who read my posts – it makes the act of writing into an ongoing learning experience and also offers such a great chance to get to know people who I wouldn’t otherwise be able to interact with.

    Jason and Jeff, thank you for your words. You both know that your appreciation means a great deal.

  5. I just wanted to say that your post was wonderful and eloquently expressed. It is so important to see the bigger picture and I appreciate your views and what it means to wolverine conservation. Thank you for sharing and reminding us.
    On another note, the wolverine seems to have become a bit of a poster child in California although to my knowledge there is only one in the state and he is not in the Yosemite area…

    • Thanks, Zea. You are right – wolverines are big news in California. And you are also right that there are no wolverines in Yosemite, to our knowledge. It’s extremely odd that these guys are making that claim. Do you know this group? I may get in touch with them to ask about the basis for their statement. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and thanks for reading.

  6. Hi

    We met in Hatgal earlier in the summer. My brother and I were on bicycles. You explained the project (and kindly offered us some very welcome chocolate!). We said we’d report back on any sightings. Our route was Jigleg pass / up to Tsaaganuur / down to Ulaan Uul then on. Unfortunately we saw neither Wolverines nor tracks. We did keep our eyes peeled. There was snow for a few days only, so it would have been difficult to see tracks.

    Sorry we don’t have any helpful information to share.

    Best of luck with your endeavours.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s