The Kind of Article We Used To See About Personal Courage and Commitment-
Oprah Magazine, O, is running a lengthy and well written article about wolves in NW Wyoming. These are the Wyoming wolves that do not live in the protected, though relatively small, confines of Yellowstone National Park. It is a story about one woman and her friend’s efforts on behalf of these wolves. That this story is being run in a major national magazine is now a story in its own right. Howl: One Writer Devotes Herself to the Survival of the American Gray Wolf. By Polly Brewster. O, The Oprah Magazine. From the December 2011 issue of O.
An explanation __ When the wolves were first restored to Idaho and Yellowstone Park in 1995-6, there were many articles about the people involved, the character of the wolves, their prey, and changes they would likely make to the natural ecology. Opponents too had their say from the beginning.
Over time as the wolf numbers grew and most of the science had been laid out, national and regional media attention went elsewhere. We expect that. It is called the issue attention cycle. Many small, local wolf stories continued to be reported, however, because in addition to changing the prey animals’ behavior and populations and the effects of that, wolves as predicted killed a few livestock, dogs, and an occasional horse.
“Wolf kills calf; rancher angry.” These stories began to appear. It certainly was legitimate news because they were unique events. A wolf grabbing a ewe had not happened for maybe 70 years in an area, but after a few years such an event became routine and somewhat minor — an event that would never get a story if the sheep or, less often, a cow calf was felled by disease, poison plants, lightning, theft, trampling, or coyotes. These states contained millions of cows and every year tens of thousands of them died before going to market, but the only stories of their deaths were of wolves killing a few here and there. Some of these “incidents” were even reported more than once. Some were reported as news months or even years after they happened. In other words, they got recycled. Many got more attention than local homicides.
Not surprisingly, after a time many of the public got the idea that if there were so many stories about it, then wholesale livestock slaughter must be taking place, rather than the reality of maybe 50 cattle and a hundred sheep being killed over a huge state in generally small attacks. It seemed each “depredation” as the government called them, got its own special story. Even more unusual were the stories of wolves killing livestock when the cause was clearly something else, such a cow calf dying of scours. Wolves sometimes wandered by and performed a public service by cleaning up the carcass. Instead they caught blame in an accusatory news story.
Comments
Very good article.
This author is not well informed and has very slanted views. Probably works for Jon Marvel.
Uh,…. well is this author confirming wolves which she saw in Colorado near a condo complex, as far back as five years ago Four paragraphs in and I am a skeptic (Also see reaffirmation of seeing wolves at the CO condo in the last paragraph)? . We better tell researcher Christina Eisenberg, and maybe CO Div of Wildlife about this.
Oh, that’s right she’s not a biologist. She is a for profit writer. Looks like the propaganda mill is at work again.
…and the fact checker was asleep in the editing room.
I think the point here is that it’s exposing a huge audience to the wolf issue that may know little or nothing about it. I think that the conservation movement in general could benefit from a little more exposure to the mob, even if it sometimes comes at the expense of details and objectivity. There are two options with the mainstream media on issues like this: No reporting at all; or watered down, sometimes biased little blurbs that draw sneers from grizzled veterans to these issues such as yourself.
I might enjoy reading the detailed analysis and debate over the political, social, legal, and biological ramifications of wolf re-introduction from those of you who are kind enough to contribute to the Wildlife News, but your average Oprah consumer probably won’t pay attention past an attractive story line. I consider it fortunate that they made room for a blurb on the congressional rider and how unprecendented it was. Who knows how many would have even made it to the part about the rider if they weren’t sucked in by the dysfunctional opening of her breaking up with a boyfriend over a couple of coyotes.
Good morning Ralph. I would agree with some of the posts above. While it’s great that wolves are getting written up in a positive light in a widely read magazine like “Oprah”, it is full of sensationalism and more of the “wolves are mystical creatures that I am called to” type of stuff. I personally don’t think these types of articles help the political and social situation of wolves in the northern Rockies at this point in time. Just my opinion.
But people can write whatever they want to which is a great thing and good for Polly Brewster. Hopefully she learned something which she can share with others and didn’t have her head buried in her iPhone looking for service.
Hi Adam Gall,
I don’t agree. This is written for a national audience, and it is written for women. From the beginning, I noticed that the idea of wolves motivated women.
JB maybe can comment on this, but I think there is a strong gender difference on this issue, especially among activists. However, outside of a rural communities (and maybe there) if you strike up a conversation with a woman you don’t know, I usually find latent support for wolf restoration. This is a lot less likely among men.
I think there is opportunity for an article by sociologist or social psychologist here.
Ralph, as a long-time woman activist for Mexican gray wolves, I can vouch for the fact that women probably make up 60-65% of wolf activists. They are always well-represented at outreach events. This article will reach many of them, as well as their less-engaged sisters.
By the way, I, too, am skeptical about the identification of the animals Ms. Brewster saw in Colorado, but I found much of the rest of the article to be reasonably factual. However, one has to remember that this event took place before Ms. Brewster began digging into the wolf issue–and indeed was her motivation for doing so. If she were to see the same animals today, I wonder if she would have made the same identification?
Her reporting of interviews with both ranchers and agency people seemed pretty fair to me. Certainly this article is less biased that much of the stuff coming from anti-wolf sources.
In the conservation circles that I operate in, about 90 % of the long-term education volunteers are women. They have the drive and are committed to the cause. I can hardly keep up with them and they are 20 to 30 years older than me!
condemnation of accounts which shed a positive life on wolves via the recognition of their ‘sensational’ and ‘mystical’ appeal are too often successful at minimizing wolf-advocates’ legitimate values.
People value wolves at an emotional level – it is a unique experience to see, hear, or know that they are in the wild – it is as legitimate an experience and value as any other – even if some wet-blankets choose not to share it.
Odd how decision-makers are apt to bend-over-backwards to placate the viscerally delivered red-faced lies of anti-wolfers — masculine fear, belligerence and aggression is somehow politically appropriate — but when it comes to what some would consider a ‘feminine’ expression of compassion and awe experienced by wolf-advocates it is immediately dismissed as illegitimate emotional hysterics (even when accompanied via objective fact).
We’re talking about why people value wolves, an inherently political question – a legitimate one.
I believe wolf-advocates would do well to better articulate that mystical value that is a very real experience of being in the wild, an emotional experience. It moves more to act – it prompts conviction. These things are the capital of the political economy. This is the appeal of John Muir, Aldo Leopold, etc. etc. etc. I think this approach is much more compelling to uninformed folk that may be ready to express interest, maybe even support – more so than ‘facts’, scientific studies and sterile talking-points could ever hope to achieve. Unfortunately, all-too-often advocates are apt to sterilize their articulation of the value of this incredible wild creature – to run away from the criticisms that the issue is too “emotional” rather than standing up for that experience as legitimate as any other.
Brian,
Very well said. Folks ask me why I like wolves, and it started long ago. I guess I liked the wolves in Little Red Riding Hood and The Three Little Pigs, so I’m talking about 3 years old. This fascination with wolves has never abandoned me.
Even though the paths I have taken in life have been varied, that interest has always been there, enough so for the move to N MN. Camping in the Winter on a frozen lake and hearing a pack howl is unlike anything one will ever hear in nature.
Doesn’t make me a member of the “WOLF CULT”, nor does it make me an advocate for a Disney version of the wolf. To quote you,”People value wolves at an emotional level – it is a unique experience to see, hear, or know that they are in the wild – it is as legitimate an experience and value as any other, rings true.
Interesting thoughts that made me stop a minute to think.
I value wolves on a biological/ecological level, not so much on an emotional level – I want them out there doing their thing, but I’m not so concerned about who they are as individuals. I guess my concern is that people naive about wildlife (like I imagine most of Oprah’s fans to be) be hooked on the “nobility” or “mysticism” or “grandeur” of wolves, and yet never be educated about the importance and value of all wildlife and wild spaces. I think I secretly begrudge wolves all of the attention and fawning “luv” when other species are suffering and losing due a lack of charisma or public appeal. You won’t soon be reading an article in “O” magazine about the razorback sucker, Wyoming toad, or Preble’s meadow jumping mouse.
WM,
I began this with great skepticism when she wrote of seeing wolves in Colorado, but the article’s accuracy improved quickly. For example, not many people knew that Lisa Robertson was the primary pilot for wolf flying in Wyoming south of Yellowstone Park. There is also a time order problem with the emergence of groups like Lobo Watch because at first it was just individuals like Ron Gillet.
I think if it was not just poetic license for the story, she saw coyotes in Colorado.
In non-scientific writing for the public, I think these minor errors compared to the “200 pound non-native Canadian wolves,” the wolf attacks that never happened, the complete destruction of the elk herds of Wyoming that somehow are still all above Game and Fish objectives.
My point is, however, that it is this kind of pro wolf writing, regardless of its accuracy, that disappeared to be replaced with hundreds of small stories about the loss of a couple cow calves or sheep suffered by the livestock owners, that explains much of the decline in public support.
If you want to learn the exact details of wolf behavior, you have to do what almost no one does in the general public, read scientific papers, and go observe for yourself.
In my files you’ll find a classic example of hyperbolic localr eporting on Grey Wolves populating northwest Wyoming. The very -anti-wolf Cody Enterprise semiweekly had a banner headline for the report of two widely dispersed lone wolves seen 60 air miles apart in Park County one week back around the turn of the millenium :
” Wolves galore! “.
Let me tell you how to suck all the oxygen out of the room at a Wyoming Game and Fish Department public meeting discussing wolves— a meeting populated mainly by hunters, outfitters, and wolfhaters— vis-a-vis the May 2008 meeting in Cody when the first Wyoming Draft Wolf Management state plan was floated .
Ask the moderator, himself an alleged biologist whose job description at the time was either Trophy Game Coordinator or Wildlife Coordinator, one simple question:
” Do you personally or the Wyoming Game and Fish Department see any positive value to Grey Wolves, such as buffering the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease ? ”
[ insert giant Gasp! here ] . His answer to my question was an unqualified ” No, we see no positive value to wolves ” .
Next question.
I was there at that meeting/hearing and was not surprised by that response. Most of the folks at that hearing were male. Many of those giving testimony were female and represented NGOs.
The criticism of this article, because it was authored by a woman, as wrong-headed only perpetuate the bias against women in general.
I will say that I have battled the “women are stupid and over-emotional” perception all my life and I do whatever I can to dispel it whenever possible.
The reason men try to discredit what women think, feel and express by calling it trite or trivial is meant to “keep them in their place” ~ a prison-like second class citizen zone from which we are not allowed to leave in their minds. It just goes to show how much farther we have to go before anything resembling true equality takes place in this country/society. Anyone who passes this comment off as “women are stupid and over-emotional” is only exposing their lack of willingness to accept that women are 50% of the population and deserve the same level of power in government and other facets of life.
Maybe it’s time for a world-wide Lysistrata event. It worked in Liberia recently…
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-14-2011/exclusive—leymah-gbowee-extended-interview-pt–1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-14-2011/exclusive—leymah-gbowee-extended-interview-pt–2
“Unless women are given control over their own fate and the power to make political decisions, humankind cannot go forward.” Oscar Arias, Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former president of Costa Rica.
Perhaps the purpose of putting it in a “women’s magazine” was to bring this issue to women who actually read, most of Oprah’s following does… and not forcing them to search through hunting oriented rags for any info, which is usually negative coming from that corner of the population. Thanks to the editors of “O”.
Couldn’t resist making that point.
Salle,
You certainly make an excellent point. All of the rehabilitators that I work with are women. I think that in much of society it is seem by many of the “macho” types that showing any compassion for animals is a sign of weakness. My father in law tries to give the impression that he couldn’t care less about animals because among many males in the deep south it is viewed as a sign of weakness. However when no one is looking he is out beside his house filling the bird feeders and worrying when his “friends” do not show up. He also falls all over our dog when we come down, all the while pretending to not care about animals. He will never admit it but he does care.
As a male I have no shame in showing compassion for animals and being an advocate for them. I will put my credentials up against anyone who thinks that they are “more of a man” than I am just because I actually have compassion for non-human beings.
As for the role of women in society, I think that religion has a major influence in attempting to minimize the role of women in our society. This is flat out wrong and has no place in 21st Century America. Maybe if the macho meat heads in this world would listen to our wives, mothers, and sisters much of the turmoil in this world could be avoided.
I can’t argue with that.
My thoughts on religion are simple… I see organized religions as “population control devices” based on fear and guilt. Many condemn Niccolo Machiavelli for governing methods attributed to him but if you actually read his “Discourses” you will see that he was describing what he saw in the governing of people in his travels as a civil servant. Not advocating these methods but describing them and how they affect populations. After reading that, I came to the above conclusion and was able to relate this info to my own experiences in a male-dominated world.
“When they lose their sense of awe, people turn to religion.
When they no longer trust themselves, they begin to depend on authority”
Lao Tzu
Government = corporeal control of the masses.
If that doesn’t work…
Religion = spiritual control of the masses. The meek shall inherit the Earth…..
Perhaps the greatest liberating “device” for women was the pill. It finally allowed women to call their own shots.
Wise comments Paul. As a “guy” I strongly concur.
Salle and Paul,
I’ve noticed this attitude in my 20 years with the Sheriff’s department. When I saved injured birds, a calf elk, a skunk, etc., while on patrol, the other deputies would make fun of me. And yet, the dispatchers, who are mostly female, thought it was great that I would go the extra mile to help an animal rather than just “dispatch” it and go on my way.
Interesting and thoughtful responses…
I admire people who exhibit compassion towards the other species we share the planet with; a product of respect.
Based on circumstances, any individual of any species can lead to the demise of another… humans seem to enjoy the perception/myth that they are somehow superior because they are so adept at “dispatching” other living things be it other humans or whatever they may encounter. Those who can engage their minds before responding in a reflexive action usually are the ones with compassion… in my opinion this is the higher state of human-ness.
Unfortunately, brutality is seen as an asset ( a “manly thing”) when it comes to maintaining the perception of superiority and control over others… seemingly a requirement for acceptance in the American mainstream social context. So macho.
It seems, in too many cases, that only after being damaged to some degree we chose to reflect on our place in the “world”.
“Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone…” Joni Mitchell, Big Yellow Taxi.
IDhiker
I am a dispatcher and most of my officer co-workers come to me for suggestions on how to handle animal issues. They also call me off duty when they need advice or to have me come out and deal with the issue. I think that they do not want to incur my wrath if they handle an animal issue wrong because they know how I am concerning animals. Unfortunately we also have some officers who are far too quick to “dispatch” an injured animal. The others have seen how willing I am to go the extra mile to help an animal in need that I think some of my compassion has rubbed off on them, and they try to seek my “approval” on animal issues. The craziest one was when some a$$hole released over a dozen “feeder” rats into an alley behind a business because the city banned snakes and some other “exotic” animals from being owned. My wife and I were called out there and we rounded up all of the rats, some of whom were quite cantankerous and left me with a few holes in my hands. My co-workers could not stop talking about it and were impressed that we would go out of our way to help an animal that so many consider to be a pest. The good news is that all of them were adopted into good homes. I even had one of the animal hating dickheads of the department call me about how to deal with an injured seagull found in the parking lot of our local hospital. This really surprised me. I do get picked on about my animal loving ways, but I think that most of my co-workers respect my views and value my assistance. I just have to laugh at how many of these “tough guy” cops have to call me a “peon” dispatcher to handle stubborn dogs and other animals that they bring into the PD to hold until our shelter can pick them up. If there is one thing that I can take away from my less than enjoyable time at that department it is the pride in knowing that I helped countless animals in need.
I liked the article. Close to 3 million people will read and agree with it, which has to help the cause of wolves.
While I am dubious about the Colorado wolves, the writer has been out and observed wolves since and if she lives in Jackson she gets to see coyotes on the elk refuge anytime she wants.
Did any of you notice what Wolf Biologist Mike Jimenez said about wolves in the article:”But with people they are as dumb as a box of rocks.” He says that wolves are easy to find and as such, easy to kill.
Everytime I read comments on this blog about how hard wolves are to find and hunt, I immediately know that the commenter has never spent much time around wolves. I have observed and photographed hundreds of wolves in Alaska, Canada,Montana, Wyoming and Idaho and they are not hard to find and if one uses some common sense, not hard to approach.
One of my favorite days was spent howling at and with a pack of wolves near Hinton, Alberta, where the wolves introduced into Yellowstone and Idaho came from. A wandering wolf pup mistook my howls for those of the pack and came right up to me.
Yeah Polly, Yeah Lisa, Yeah article. I can’t wait to sit down and read it thoroughly. And comments coming in already are so predictable. This is the woman’s personal story from her life view. That’s what stories are. People read stories and heck might even feel the exact same way as the storyteller. If folks want the gritty facts about wolf (mis) management here in Wyoming,there is plenty of material out there to follow up with. This sounds a lot like my story, which has lead me to my pro wolf advocacy work through the years. One difference between us is I live in here and my home is within a few miles of at least one wolf pack. The story inspires to me to keep moving forward in a respectable and informed manner so we can continue to educate the country about these fascinating creatures who finally made it home again (yes sensationalism)..
Good article. The plight of the wolves needs this kind of national exposure.
I read the article just now. Beyond a couple of factual missteps –the opening paragraph where she saw an unidentified canid in the woods , likely not a wolf , and alluding to 1500 pound Grizzly bears which can only be another member of the Ursus arctos line, the Alaskan Brown bear not found anywhere near Wyoming, it’s a good article. Very well written from the vantage of she’s ‘ been there done that’ with professional wolfers in the field complementing her own personal experience.
Point being: when a young woman like this can eloquently narrate an honest portrayal of such a churning cultural topic , it is a good antidote to the venom of the vituperators who so despise wolves but cannot really say why in language not abrasive or threatening.
I’m glad I read it , since I can be a fringer on oaccasion.
The more articles out there in the public, the better. It would be great if people east and west, north and south, were commenting on issues like the USF&G WY delisting; pouring balanced comments in and discussing the big holes in WY’s plan. I really think that folks outside of WY, ID, MT have no idea how contentious the wolf issue is here. If the general public were more involved, maybe Polly’s ‘wolf’ sighting in CO will someday be the case. Perhaps she was having a future vision…
I think you’re right about the lack of awareness out there. This article will at least spark the curiosity in quite a few folks.
+This article will at least spark the curiosity in quite a few folks+
I was kind of hoping that would happen when Miss O did a show a year or so ago on puppy mills. It was quite the production but unfortunately, puppy mills are still going strong.
http://www.prisonersofgreed.org/USDA.html
I am not usually a fan of Oprah, but she reaches millions of women who otherwise would never know anything about the wolves. So, however flawed the story might be, it does a great service to the wolves. The comments made here are very insightful, and as a woman who holds the wolves and other predators dear to my heart, I offer my explanation for how I feel about the wolves. These intelligent, determined animals will fight to the death to protect their young. Their familial practices could teach all of us a thing or two about family and what is important. These wolf packs consist of mothers, fathers, pups, aunts and uncles, all of which join together to survive. Anyone who cannot respect and hold in awe the wolf packs and their determination for survival has no heart or soul.
I appeciate your affection for wolves, but dislike this growing trend among wolf advocates. If by teaching us about family practices you mean enforcing discipline and maintaining social status through brutality; dealing with troublesome neighbors with deadly force; ignoring (and occasionally “offing”) the “special” children because they’ll never keep up; occasionally mating with mom, pop, aunt, sister, or brother; holding the “less-abled” family members down in subordinate positions and denying them the right to reproduce and have families of their own; dispensing with (and occasionally dispatching) grandpa or grandma when they cannot contribute to the family business; making the occasional secretive booty call to hook up with the neighbor’s teenage sons or daughters; killing off the local competition for jobs and desirable resources (literally, not figuratively), etc., then I wonder about your family values. Wolves are not humans – they don’t need to have human values thrust upon them. Enjoy them for being exactly what they are and living every day in the here and now, making ends meet as best they can and contributing to more robust, diverse, and healthy ecosystems.
TC,
For thousands of years some people have believed that we can learn lessons about morals or ethics directly from animals. I am skeptical too, although we might learn things indirectly that we can use to help us. Thank you for a well thought comment.
I knew my comments would get a rise out of someone who thinks I am anthropomorphizing wolves. TC- are you a wolf biologist? Otherwise, I would say you know nothing of the family values of which I speak. I said nothing about “affection” for wolves, but admiration. It seems you play into the myth of “the big bad wolf.” My admiration of the wolf is based on research of wolf biologists who have witnessed the behaviors of wolves in which they “respect the elders, teach the young, cooperate with the pack, play when they can, hunt when they must, share their affections, show their feelings and leave their mark.” I have observed wolves in the wild and have to say I admire what I have seen. To vilify an animal that is living based on instinct, survival techniques and intelligence seems to me to be an easy way to dismiss the attributes of wolves and other predators. If the behavior includes brutality and deadly force, this is instinctual, not a conscious behavior.
Virginia – no, I don’t buy into the “big bad wolf myth”. I don’t buy into wolf myths period – that’s my point. I appreciate them for exactly what they are – very necessary predators that contribute to a more intact healthy ecosystem. I do enjoy seeing and hearing them also – don’t get me wrong – but I recognize that they don’t play by our rules or worry about our values, and they don’t fit most of the stereotypes, good or bad. I don’t know, I guess I’ve tried to make my point and failed. But I worry when emotion rules the day, because there are strong (irrational, entrenched, etc.) emotions on the other side of wolf conservation too, and the only valid ammunition we have against those assaults at the end of the day is the best available science. At least in my world.
This article is great positive exposure for the wolves. A personal narrative story has power to it.
(Aldo Leopold’s Sand County Almanac got it’s first person narration form because the publishers insisted that, in order to reach the greater public, he needed to put himself in the story, instead of just laying down the facts).
In the comments of the article, somebody tried to chime in about the Canadian wolves and the illegality of the reintroduction…another comment suggested the person needed to read Niemeyer’s “Wolfer” to educate herself… That is pretty sophisticated… Who knows…maybe “Wolfer” will end up on Oprah’s Book Club…
And regarding women… One of the past New Mexico Game Commissioners (he is a hunter and wildlife advocate) was pretty skeptical about the state’s politics regarding wildlife after NM dropped it’s support for the Mexican gray wolf last August; he said that he believes the future of the environment is in the hands of youth and strong women…
We have to get to a point where politics is taken out of decision making. The teabag Gov of NM made the decision to stop cooperating with Mexican Wolf Recovery after appointing Commission members friendly to the livestock interests in Catron County.
You see the same thing happening in Idaho and Alaska for example where hunter and trapper interests trump science and reasonable wildlife management principles
William:
“Politics” can’t be removed from decision-making. Science can only as “is” questions, not “should” questions (e.g., scientific tools can allow us to assess the risk of extinction for a species, but they cannot tell us if that risk is acceptable). The best any of us can hope for are fair, representative, and transparent processes.
Follow up: This essay, in part, addresses disconnect between science and policy: http://bruskotter.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/social-conflict-over-wolves-the-predator-pendulum-revisited/
Good read JB!
Worth repeating:
“Pursuit of aggressive, lethal management which does not consider the extent of wolf impacts, methods of wolf harvest, or more generally, the desires of non-hunters risks alienating non-hunting conservationists and [gasp!] environmentalists, who should be seen as partners in wildlife conservation, not as foes; such actions also risk alienating many of the very people wildlife agencies are trying desperately to recruit in the face of lagging participation in hunting and fishing–that is, people who already care about wildlife and the environment”
Thank you, Nancy.
Let’s see: women are being judged harshly because they are using their ‘feelings’ about wolves. Whereas men: Obama/Salazar etc. used their brains(?)not science, in delisting them from the ESA. Which is better?
Ijust want to say, that I have lived in the Northwest Wyoming area, on my ranch, for many years. My ranch location was in the center of 3 Elk Feed Grounds. Daily, I had wolves surrounding my ranch. Never once, did I ever have an incident with wolves. I have researched, photographed, and video wolves all over the country for over 25 years. I have had a refuge for wolves. I have lived with wolves. I have never experienced on encounter where I was afraid, where I was attacked, or could justify killing a wolf. The ELK population is strong around my ranch, and growing. It is very sad, that all those who have decided to choose the wolf as the target for cheap shots at an animal that hardly anyone who supports such, even has spent any time with. Anyone wants the TRUTH of wolves, contact me, and we will go to them and you can learn the truth!