Defenders of Wildlife Supports Killing Wolves: Livestock Win | Psychology Today

If the wolves were going to be killed even without Defenders of Wildlife’s blessing, why did they support it in state wolf meetings? They merely rolled over according to Marc Bekoff ;).  This has been witnessed time and time again. So Why is it they do not Join Research groups that they were invited to? Especially considering that they dont have the same types of research available?  It appears that the answer is quite simple in plain English they simply refuse to want to change the Status Quo.

So in a nutshell rather than appearing a hero in Cooke City with claiming to bring in Deterrents, they should have joined the Howl to create our proposed “Sacred Resource Protection Zone” and this killing of now “Spitfire” amongst the rest of our sacred species on the parks borders would and could have been stopped already.

Why has Defenders of Wildlife become Defenders of Livestock?

I’m always looking for news that could be wonderful topics for research in academic disciplines that focus on human-animal relationships. To the end, I just received an essay by David Kirby titled “Why Some Conservationists Approve the Killing of a Wolf Pack.” The subtitle of Mr. Kirby’s essay is “Washington state is set to eliminate an entire group of endangered gray wolves linked to livestock deaths.”

Who are Defenders of Wildlife defending? Why is killing a “necessary component” of conservation? 

Mr. Kirby’s entire essay is available online, however, I want to mention here the following text:

“Among the conservation groups approving the protocol was Defenders of Wildlife. ‘We have met and significantly exceeded that threshold,’ said Shawn Cantrell, northwest director of Defenders of Wildlife. ‘This is for us very sad and disappointing because we really hate to see any cows or any animals killed, [but] we do support the department moving forward at this time,’ he said.”

We also read:

“Another group that approved the protocol, Conservation Northwest, echoed Cantrell’s sentiments in a statement on its website.

‘Though it’s tremendously difficult to see wolves killed, we understand and accept this action as a necessary component of coexistence where people, wolves and livestock share territory,’ the group said.”

I was utterly shocked when I read this, as were many people who immediately emailed me about this decision. Indeed, Defenders of Wildlife and others are not defending wildlife, but rather, they are defending livestock. If there’s any other way to unpack this it’s eluding me and many many others. Why is killing a “necessary component” component of conservation?

What does “authorized removal” really mean?

Along these lines, in an essay by Jamie Rapport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife called “Defenders of Wildlife: Protecting and Recovering Wolves,” we read about their support for the “authorized removal” of the Profanity Peak pack.” (Please also see note 2 below.) Authorized removal” is a phrase used to sanitize what they sanctioned, namely, the outright killing of the wolves. It completely ignores the fact that wolves are highly emotional and sentient beings who care about what happens to themselves and to their family and friends. I wonder if she would use this dismissive phrase, one that objectifies wolves, to refer to the killing of dogs.

Conservation psychology, anthrozoology, and compassionate conservation to the rescue

While trying to figure out how this decision came about, I came to the conclusion that it is a gold mine of research for conservation psychologists and anthrozoologists who study human-animal relationships. Those people who are interested in the rapidly growing international field of compassionate conservation also should be able to provide important input. The guiding principles of compassionate conservation are “First do no harm” and the lives of all individuals matter (please see, for example, “Compassionate Conservation Meets Cecil the Slain Lion,” “Compassionate Conservation: More than ‘Welfarism Gone Wild’” and many links therein).

The vexing question that comes up in different forms basically is, “How can people claim to defend other animals and then allow them to be killed?” I really can’t say any more other than there are some serious inconsistencies that really need to be studied and explained, and I hope that conservation psychologists, anthrozoologists, and compassionate conservationists can help us along.

A few people have asked me the following question: If the wolves were going to be killed even without Defenders of Wildlife’s blessing, why did they support it?

Please ask every organization you can think of to post a formal statement against the killing — or as the Defenders of Wildlife President and CEO calls the “authorized removal” — of wolves. The killing is going to happen with or without the blessings of national wildlife or humane organizations, so there’s nothing to lose by their saying something like, “Stop the killing now.”

Source: Defenders of Wildlife Supports Killing Wolves: Livestock Win | Psychology Today