Wolves yelp, bark, and howl at night to commmunicate, establish territories, and even to show affection. They do not actually howl at the moon, although that romanticized vision was cited by many voters who thought returning wolves to Colorado would somehow enhance their lives. Artworks showing silhouettes of wolves howling at the moon are very popular, though the image is pure folklore.
Many ancient cultures believed that the moon had supernatural power, and howling at the moon was considered a means of tapping into that. Ancient Greeks howled at the moon to honor the goddess, Artemis. Some Native American initiation ceremonies included howling at the moon, to communicate with spirits and ancestors. Today, “howling at the moon” is a common expression to describe futile or irrational speech or activity.
Maybe bringing wolves back to Colorado enhanced the quality of life for some, but it certainly did not enhance the lives of the wolves. They were trapped, held in cages barely large enough to move, transported in noisy vehicles to strange places, released in front of cameras and gawkers, and then vilified by the public for doing what wolves do. Some have been tranquilized, recaptured, and moved again, and some have been killed – for committing the unpardonable sin of killing and eating. What should one expect wolves to do?
State wildlife officials are under fierce scrutiny for importing wolves from packs with a history of depredation (killing livestock), which they promised not to do, and for taking too long to remove depredating wolves in Grand and Jackson Counties. But their choices are limited. With some northwestern tribes now refusing to send any wolves to Colorado; with Oregon offering only those from depredating packs; and yet with voter-passed law nevertheless requiring the reintroduction; what exactly are wildlife officials to do? Ignore the clear instructions of voters and the legislature?
There is plenty of blame to go around, but it is mostly misplaced. In truth, the entire wolf controversy is final proof – if more were needed – that wildlife should never be managed by ballot initiatives.
Coloradans should have learned this lesson. In 1992, 70 percent of the State’s voters prohibited spring bear hunting, with entirely predictable results. An estimated bear population of 8,000-12,000 increased to 17,000-20,000 and conflicts with humans have increased sharply. Wildlife officers dealt with over 14,000 reports on problem bears in the last three years alone. Sometimes problem animals can be relocated or scared away. But while 213 bears were relocated in the last three years (2021 data), more than twice that many had to be “euthanized.” That number went from about 300 in 1992 to well over 1,000 in 2011. Voters may have thought there would be no more bear killing, but in fact hunters still take about as many bears as before (just not in the spring). But wildlife officials must “euthanize” many more than before, because there are more bears and therefore more conflicts.
This pop-culture of wildlife management isn’t unique to Colorado, either. Oregon and Washington both passed similar bear hunting initiatives, Arizona voters prohibited most trapping on public lands, Californians banned mountain lion hunting, and Alaska voters banned airborne hunting of wolves, foxes, lynx, and wolverines.
This year, Colorado voters are asked to decide whether to ban hunting of mountain lions, bobcats, and lynx (the latter is already prohibited by federal law). Most mainstream wildlife conservation groups oppose the initiative, including Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Colorado and National Wildlife Federations, Safari Club, Mule Deer Foundation, Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society, and numerous others. They all point out the danger to professional wildlife management structures long in the making, and all oppose the general idea of leaving wildlife management in the hands of voters who have no real stake in the outcome – such as when Denver and Boulder voters forced wolf reintroduction on the Western Slope, not in their own counties.
Voters should also understand the consequences of well-meaning initiatives like this anti-hunting measure. It will have a direct impact on populations of game animals, including North America’s largest elk herds. Some animals will likely starve to death when voters artificially impose management regimes based on political correctness, rather than biology and habitat. The wild animals these activists seek to protect are likely to pay the price.
Proponents say lions and bobcats are beautiful creatures, and they’re right. But suggesting wildlife managers don’t know what they’re doing, and the general public should take over – well, that’s just howling at the moon.
Comments on this entry are closed.