Wildlife Management and Common Sense

(I took the first two photos, but the wolf is "borrowed" from National Geographic)



Is "wildlife management" an oxymoron? Often it is more about managing people and politics than it is about the science, the habitat, or the actual animals. After a trip to the Oregon Coast last summer and talking with a US Coast Guard officer about the over abundance of California Sea Lions and the lack of Salmon, it made me think about the similarities to managing wild horses and wolves in the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain States. I stated to wonder if there is anyone out there that has both common sense and the authority to manage wildlife? It seems like the ones with the authority often don't have any common sense (have you listened to Nancy Pelosi lately?), and those with common sense don't have the authority. I am sure that at some point the people involved in the Marine Mammals Protections Act, the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, and the Endangered Species Act had good intentions, but now what is the Road to Hell is paved with?


Sea Lions have few natural predators, and are big critters that do a lot of eating. A bull can weigh 850 pounds and be 8 feet long, it takes a lot of Salmon to keep an animal that big full. There was no commerical Salmon fishing season in Oregon this year. Of course the hard core environmental groups want to place all the blame for low Salmon numbers on historic overfishing, dams, and pollution, which may play a part, but the quantity of Salmon eaten by Sea Lions is rarely brought up by those groups. There were an estimated 50,000 Sea Lions in 1972 when the Marine Mammals Protection Act was passed, and current estimates are in excess of 300,000. I think Sea Lions are neat animals, and would like to see us maintain a healthy and sustainable population of Sea Lions, but do we really need 300,000, especially when some Salmon populations are on a serious decline? Who decides which species is more important than another? Is having 300,000 Sea Lions rather than 150,000 Sea Lions worth the livelihoods of all commercial salmon fishermen in the Northwest? Does it make sense to provide complete and total protection to an unmanaged species that has serious impacts on other species, the ecosystem, and local economies? Where does the common sense come in?


In the interior Western States we face many of the same issues with species like "wild" horses and burros, and wolves. "Wild" horses and burros would be more accurately described as feral. They are not native to the west, and are remnants of escaped domestic horses originally brought to this continent by the Spanish. The arid ecosystems of the west are not adapted to these large eating machines. Large native herbivores like elk, deer, and antelope are ruminants, with 4 chambered stomachs that work in synchrony with microbes to break down cellulose and maximize the nutrition extracted from the grasses, forbs, and shrubs that they eat. Horses and burros do have some mechanisms for extracting nutrition from course feeds, but they are less sophisticated and not as efficient. Because of the differences in their digestive systems, horses have to eat significantly more to extract the same amount of nutrition as a native ruminant. Horses are territorial and aggressive. They will often prevent native animals from using preferred feeding areas and water sources that are so critical in the dry west.


While I find it ecologically hard justify having any feral horses and burros on public lands, it would at least be a little easier to swallow if their populations were managed. If public land and wildlife managers could determine a population objective and manage to that objective through round-ups and/or harvest we could minimize impacts to habitats and other species and still have "wild" horses.


The BLM is proposing a removal of some wild horses near my home. If the removal is not stopped in court, receives the necessary funding, and all the stars align, the BLM will pay thousands to round horses up using a helicopter, place them in expensive temporary corrals, truck them to a holding facility, test them for diseases, hold and feed them for a month awaiting the outcome of the disease testing, and then euthanize the horses. The entire operation will cost millions of dollars and has about as much a chance of happening as I do of winning the lottery. The Federal Government at its efficient best eh? If they would issue permits to the public to allow either the live capture or harvest of a wild horse, the BLM could generate positive income and remove the problem horses. Using hunting as a wildlife management tool is the most effective, efficient, and economic method available. But due to poorly designed policy and misleading advocacy groups any significant change in wild horse and burro management is unlikely.


When the US Fish and Wildlife Service started the Wolf re-introductions in the Northern Rockies they defined a "recovered" wolf population as one containing at least 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves. Based on the most recent estimates there are an estimated 1,545 wolves and 107 breeding pairs. The US Fish and Wildlife Service declared wolves "recovered" in the Northern Rockies and removed them from the endangered species list turning management over to the respective states where the wolves live. An environmental law firm, Earthjustice, filed suit protesting the delisting and was granted an injunction returning wolves to endangered species protection until after the final outcome of the litigation (which could/will take years). Their lawsuit is based on concerns that limited hunting of wolves could limit genetic exchange between wolf populations. There is no provision for genetic exchange in the Endangered Species Act, and the argument is questionable. Earthjustice shopped around, found a judge sympathetic to their cause, and filed the suit in that court. Now the recommendation of the top wolf researchers and the scientists employed by the Federal Agency specifically charged with using the best science available to monitor wolf populations will be thrown out, and the future of wolf management will be decided by one man that doesn't even have a background in wildlife, biology, or science. How does one man overrule the numbers, the data, the science, and the combined expertise of multiple highly educated professionals? How does this make any sense? Activist judges legislating from the bench, is this a good thing for America? This particular issue transcends the field of wildlife management, and has the potential to affect many aspects of life in our country.

The bottom line is that we need some serious reform to well intentioned environmental laws that have taken on a lives of their own. We have created several monsters in the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammals Protection Act, Wild Horse and Burro Act, National Environmental Protection Act, etc. We can still protect wildlife, plants, and their habitats, but do it in a way that makes more sense. Sure, let's have some seals, some horses, some wolves, but lets manage these species in a way that ensures a sustainable population, and that also takes other factors into consideration and allows for some common sense. Wildlife managers have a proven track record of managing species like black bears and mountain lions in a way that ensures continued survival of the species, and allows for hunters to take some animals to maintain the populations within socially acceptable levels. The North American Conservation Model is unique, and has been proven to work time and time again. Let's let the biologists and scientists define the biological boundaries and limits, and then wildlife managers can work with the public to make additional recommendations. When common sense is part of the equation, Wildlife Management is a win win proposition. The animals and their habitats persist in perpetuity, conflicts with other species and interests are minimized, and the animals are enjoyed by multiple segments of the human population.