More Than a Conversation
The National Wolf Conversation was a glimpse of a better future.
Originally published in Conservation Works by Michelle Nijhuis.
In January, I was one of 25 participants in an event called the National Wolf Conversation, which took place over three days in Tucson, Arizona. Convened by Constructive Conflict, an independent consultancy hired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the conversation was originally intended to involve several extended meetings over 18 months, but funding cuts put a stop — a temporary stop, at least — to the process almost before it started.
The three days we got, however, were remarkable. I’ve written about them here and here, and now you can hear directly from each participant in these short before-and-after interviews recorded by filmmaker Jared Callahan. The participants were chosen by Constructive Conflict to represent a wide range of experiences with and positions on the recovery of wolves in the U.S., so everyone who came to Tucson knew they would have fundamental differences with at least some of the other participants. Many of them, as you’ll see in the interviews, were skeptical at the start; they’d sat down with adversaries before, and come away feeling like they’d wasted their time.
I was skeptical, too. Over the years, I’ve observed plenty of roundtables, dialogues, and councils intended to resolve deep-seated disputes over wildlife, and only rarely have I seen them produce anything but frustration.
The National Wolf Conversation was different, though. I’m still trying to figure out exactly why, but one important difference was that we got to know one another as people before we even started talking about wolves: We were asked not to share our last names or professions, or to reveal our positions on wolf recovery, until we had spent most of a day together. By the time we fully introduced ourselves, we’d established enough goodwill that our differences, though deep as ever, generated more curiosity than antagonism. During the rest of our time in Tucson, I saw that curiosity serve us again and again, drawing us together instead of driving us apart.
Another difference was that the conveners didn’t hold us to a fixed agenda. Specialists in conflict transformation, they observed the group closely and responded to what they saw, nudging us toward difficult issues and then, as tensions arose, introducing a question or an exercise designed to remind us of what we had in common. Some of their interventions were so subtle that only in retrospect did I realize they had intervened at all.
Finally, the participants in the National Wolf Conversation weren’t seeking consensus, or compromise. We certainly weren’t trying to craft new policies, not in three short days. What we were doing, as I think you’ll see in the videos, was shifting and expanding our own perspectives.
If we came in thinking that all environmentalists hated ranchers, or that all ranchers were rich guys who had it out for wildlife, or that the idea of wolves themselves having a voice in the conversation was ridiculous, or that conflicts between livestock producers and wolves could be easily solved with better fences or fiercer guard dogs or more vegetarianism, we were thinking again. We were being reminded of the realities behind every stereotype, and recognizing the costs of polarized conflict to all involved, wolves included. We were forming the kind of relationships that could, eventually, lead to lasting solutions.
These might sound like platitudes, and maybe they are, but the conversation in Tucson was anything but. It was complicated, fascinating, frustrating, sometimes hilarious, and immensely rewarding. I hope it will continue.
Michelle Nijhuis is a longtime conservation and environmental journalist and the author of Beloved Beasts: Fighting for Life in an Age of Extinction, a critical history of the modern conservation movement. She is also a longtime contributing editor of High Country News and the lead editor of its Conservation Beyond Boundaries series. In Conservation Works, she writes about what’s working (and what’s not) in conservation today, shares new findings from research and on-the-ground experiences, and reflects on where conservation has been and where it’s going. Michelle is a participant in the National Wolf Conversation.
Nicole Roberts is the Associate Editor for PAN Works and provided editorial support for this essay.
Please visit PAN Works for more about our work on ethics and animal wellbeing.
