Who Speaks for Wolf?
Voters do, Editors might, and Readers can
by Monica Ogra and Megan McArthur
Monica Ogra is a Research Fellow with PAN Works (1) and Professor of Environmental Studies at Gettysburg College (2). She is a graduate of the University of Colorado at Boulder, studies human-wildlife conflict & coexistence, and is currently working on a book about the ethics and practice of care in wildlife conservation and wild animal rescue. Megan McArthur is a junior at Gettysburg College (2), majoring in Environmental Studies with curricular specializations in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Biology. Funding and research support by the Kolbe Summer Research Fellowship, Musselman Library team, and the Environmental Studies Department at Gettysburg College are gratefully acknowledged.
Authors’ note: We thank JMT for help with references. Opinions expressed are solely our own and do not express the views or opinions of Gettysburg College or PAN Works more broadly.
THEY SAW, TOO
That such a task would change the People:
they would become Wolf Killers.
A People who took life only to sustain their own
would become People who took life
rather than move a little.
IT DID NOT SEEM TO THEM
THAT THEY WANTED TO BECOME SUCH A PEOPLE.
~ (From an oral history of human-wolf relations, Who Speaks for Wolf? as told by Paula Underwood)
Who Speaks for Wolf?
It seems that we are collectively still asking this important question, shared as a 10,000 year old learning story with those of us outside the Native community by Haudenosaunee Elder Paula Underwood. In this tale, the People made a decision to occupy an area that turned out to be the center of Wolf space, and conflict eventually ensued. After coming to understand that their decisions had been taken with no one present to speak “for Wolf,” they decided to reconsider what would be required to live respectfully and honorably with their Wolf neighbors. The story offers a model of decision-making that takes into account not just the interests of those present, but also the needs of those who would be affected but who nevertheless have no voice in the deliberation process. With the gray wolf’s listing on the Endangered Species List in 1974 another generation of Americans signaled that they, as a People, similarly did not want to become a nation of “Wolf Killers” — but were instead also finally willing to “move a little” to ensure peaceful relations.
Yet, as a People, we have indeed become Wolf Killers.
The USFWS is working with wildlife managers, Tribal authorities, and local communities to produce a national-level recovery plan for the gray wolf that addresses conflict prevention and ensures long term stability, with a new plan expected in December of 2025. Meanwhile, however, legal hunting of wolves (and other canids) in five states continues in a manner of cruelty that permits hunting during breeding season, baiting, night-vision hunting, incineration of wolves while in their dens, use of painful leg-hold and crushing full-body traps, strangling by neck snares, and bounty-style incentives with the intention of decimating pack numbers (more on this here and here).
Much has been written about the steady rollback of federal protection of wolves and their renewed status as a proxy target in today’s so-called culture wars (see here, here, and here). But this symbolic positioning has real-world consequences, perhaps best illustrated by social media postings made by witnesses who documented — and celebrated — the capture, public torture, and prolonged death by execution of a wild yearling wolf in a Wyoming bar earlier this year. The perpetrator was fined $250 for bringing the trapped wolf pup to a bar first, rather than shooting it on sight — but current laws in the state do not penalize the actions that took place that day on animal cruelty grounds (read more about this case here). Commenting on the case, the Humane Society of the United States writes, “Such an extreme case should lead us all to consider more deeply what responsibilities we have to protect animals, and how such protections can be encoded through our legal system and applied.”
Who speaks for wolf, indeed?
Colorado’s Wolf Reintroduction Experiment
It is against this backdrop that debates about the ongoing reintroduction of wolves in the state of Colorado are playing out.
A bit of context, for newcomers to this issue: In late December of 2023, a profound social and ecological experiment was officially launched in Colorado by voter mandate: ten gray wolves were trapped and radio collared in their home state of Oregon, then tranquilized, transported, released, and reintroduced into western Colorado as members of an “experimental population” without federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. (Read more about the rationale and implementation of this historic event, as well as a quick history of human-wolf relations in the settling of the United States, here and here.) Through their actions, statewide voters spoke both “for” and “against” wolf, with the reintroduction only narrowly passing (51% to 49%).
Regular readers of this page will likely recall Dr. Marc Bekoff’s (2024) recent column, “Colorado Wolves: Hyped Media Derails Neighborly Coexistence,” in which he laments the misinformation and lack of science in news reporting about the ongoing Colorado wolf reintroduction. Dr. Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a leader in the study of canid behavior, does a great service in offering a perspective about the reintroduction that reflects scientific understandings of wolves, gains made in addressing concerns about livestock predation, the benefits of restoring ecological balance, and the moral value of wolves as individuals (among other points). Estimating that 95% of the media landscape is “anti-wolf,” Bekoff calls attention to the need for better understanding of one another, as well. We could not agree more.
As it currently stands, livestock producers and community members living in the reintroduction zones are bearing high, undue burdens of fear regarding potential negative livelihood implications related to wolf predation on livestock and elk populations, as well as about personal safety. The narrative myth of “the big bad wolf” seems to be back in full force, despite countless efforts to rehabilitate the canid’s public reputation. In this context, many people are disconcerted by the prospect of having to once again co-exist with a form of wildlife that had intentionally been extirpated to near extinction.
In the news: How has the Colorado wolf reintroduction been reported so far?
In this hypercompetitive and noisy media landscape, it can be difficult to tell what’s really going on (and why). Historically, the news media was supposed to speak to (and for) all of us humans. But does it still? And does it speak effectively for nonhumans? Whose voices are represented there, and whose are missing? And how does partisan bias shape media content, in an age when so many mainstream outlets are now under private and corporate control?
To find out more about what is going on in these contexts in this case, we took a deeper dive into how the Colorado reintroduction was being reported by mainstream news organizations operating at local, regional, national, and international scales. Targeted keyword searching was tailored to identify all relevant English-language articles using the EBSCO Newspaper Source database and GoogleNews search engine for the period July 1, 2023-June 1, 2023 (6 months before the reintroduction and 6 months after). Our search yielded 118 different news articles after removing duplicate results. (See here for more detailed information.)
Here’s a snapshot of some of what we have found so far:
· 73% of news articles emphasized cost in terms of potential harms
· 45% highlighted negative aspects of the reintroduction process
· 50% were characterized by discussion of ecology and ecosystems
· 36% included discussion of benefits more generally
· 36% referenced themes related to coexistence
· 9% described the case with consideration of individual wolves and their lives
· Headline framings demonstrated partisan media bias (left- and center-leaning sources published “positive”, “negative”, and “neutral” headline framings, while right-leaning sources published a greater proportion of “negatively” framed content, and reported no “positive” article frames).
Taken together, these findings suggest to us that Dr. Bekoff is correct: Mainstream news media are, on the whole, quite biased against wolves at the end of the day (though perhaps not quite to the degree that one might think).
And, we can see that there is very little discussion about the value of individual wolves in the overall reporting (or about values of farmed animals beyond their economic worth, for that matter).
A third trend of interest that we observe is that, while headline framing is quite negative, the actual body content often includes important details that many readers may be missing (particularly those who don’t get past the headline). These details are essential to understanding the complexity of this important ecological, social, and moral experiment.
Taking Action
If you’ve read to this point, you might be asking yourself: So what can I, as a reader, do to help promote good relations between people and wolves?
Below, we offer a few ideas for ways to get involved if you want to help speak for wolf:
1. Think about what co-existence means for you and the fellow members of your communities — ecological and social; human and non-human: What does it mean to respect others’ desires and needs to simply live in peace? Why are some cautioned to avoid whispering even the mere idea of “coexistence” with wildlife? What is at stake for a society that is unwilling to even consider what is required in order to live peacefully with wildlife?
2. Call out media bias. Send in those “Letters to the Editor” to let them know you want — and demand — unbiased, science-based journalism from their publications!
3. Add your voice by posting content that supports the need for solutions, rather than reposting or repeating narratives that actually seek to divide us. Please don’t repost hateful or unsubstantiated content. It just makes things worse. Do your part to lower the temperature by calling attention to proven strategies endorsed by scientific and community organizations working together to support people, farmed animals, wolves, and their prey. We’re all connected.
4. Learn more and help to spread awareness about “care-based” rather than “kill-based” frameworks and solutions. Bekoff argues in his post that “the life of every single individual wolf matters and should not be traded off for the good of others” — yet the designation of these wolves as part of an “experimental” population suggests that their lives are less valuable than those protected under the Endangered Species Act and are, “as a last resort”, nevertheless ultimately expendable. Compassionate conservation demands that we find a way forward here.
5. Consider what has worked, what hasn’t, and why. Communities abound in which members have learned not just to tolerate wolves, but have also shown a willingness to accept a fragile coexistence as “uneasy neighbors” (3) — a situation found virtually all over the world, wherever people and wildlife move through periods of conflict and coexistence. We don’t hear enough about this!
6. Stay tuned! We hope to report back with another update after the first anniversary of the reintroduction hits at the end of 2024. What new perspectives might be introduced to the public discourse, if more voices are added?
Bottom line: We need to work together to build communities comprised of spaces where a willingness to find solutions based on respect and care can flourish. Such a reconfiguration would give everyone the chance to live with peace, dignity, and respect — including individual wolves.
Notes
(1) We thank members of PAN Works for sharing helpful resources, inspiring us, and supporting our work.
(2) This piece was completed and written with the support of Gettysburg College, where we recognize the connections Indigenous Peoples have to this land and acknowledge the impact of settler colonialism. We honor Indigenous pasts and presents to ensure vibrant futures, and commit to deepening our relationship with the land and the human and other relatives with whom it is shared.
(3) “Uneasy Neighbors” is a term we credit to Dr. Lisa Naughton-Treves, whose 1990s research insights on human-gorilla relations in Kibale National Park remain seminal in the study of human-wildlife conflict and coexistence (HWCC).
Kim Hightower is the associate editor for PAN Works.
Please visit PAN Works for more about our work on ethics and animal wellbeing.
