In case
you’re wondering where the thinking of some Westerners is—note, I am using the
adjective some here—you need look no
further than social media.
This week a
few citizens from the great state of Idaho informed me that I am a
bunny-loving, tree-hugging greenie who is anti-hunting, anti-predator-killing,
and an “anti-human snowflake libtard” who does not understand “western
culture.”
Actually, most
of those sentiments were expressed in more, shall we say, “colorful” language—words
my wife and I typically don’t use while sitting around the family dinner table
with our kids.
In their
Facebook valentines, the commenters let me know my brain is comprised of the
material that normally comes out a horse’s backside, and that my head itself
resides in that part of the anatomy where the sun doesn’t shine.
They made it
clear that nobody was going to tell them what to do, that they don’t have to
believe the statistical data related to bear spray if they don’t want to, and
that if they ever run into a grizzly, their way of resolving a perceived
conflict will be with a gun.
They said
that because I’ve raised questions over the years about the rationale for
trophy hunting of Greater Yellowstone grizzlies, the staging of
predator-shooting contests, and the government’s ongoing use of deadly cyanide
poison and aerial gunners to kill coyotes, wolves and other animals, that I am
“anti-hunting”, “anti-rancher” and “anti-western heritage”.
“You don’t F--KING
get it, do you?!!!!” one wrote, demonstrating a clear passion for exclamation
points and all caps. “Grizzlies are f—kin’
recovered and the Endangered Species Act says when animals are taken off the
list, then we F--KIN’ HUNT THEM, you stupid, worthless enviro LIBTARD!!!!! It’s
the law, you f—khead!!!! Predators are destroying our elk herds, bitch!!!!”
So, here’s
the thing. I acknowledge, humbly, that only a few of their assertions are inaccurate.
The
following are a couple of corrections (including the false claim I am
anti-hunting and anti-rancher): Nowhere in the language of the law—the federal
Endangered Species Act —does it state that once an animal is removed from the
list of imperiled species it shall be hunted.
The
Endangered Species Act was instrumental in bringing back bald eagles and
peregrine falcons from the brink. They are also “recovered” and they, too, are “predators”. So are golden eagles, osprey and red-tailed
hawks.
Like
grizzlies, humans don’t eat bald eagles and peregrine falcons. Somebody could
probably argue that they’d make great decorative stuffed trophies on the wall.
"Like grizzlies, humans don’t eat bald eagles and peregrine falcons. Somebody could probably argue that they’d make great decorative stuffed trophies on the wall."
Yet as a
civilized society we don’t hunt them, nor do we sponsor/allow eagle and
peregrine-killing derbies in which prizes are offered to those who bag the most
birds. We don’t trap them for their plumage and sell their feathers to
commercial buyers. We don’t have
wildlife management agencies claiming they need to balance budgets based on
revenue generated through the sale of bald eagle tags. Why is that?
Why do most Westerners
accept that bald eagles, even after removal from the Endangered Species Act, ought
not be hunted for sport?
Bald eagles, even after ESA delisting, remain
protected by federal laws. No one invokes “states’ rights” to say we should
kill them—save maybe outlaws who, nodding and winking, might declare that, by
God, they’re going to poach an eagle to get back at the government or practice
the so-called sacred rural code of “shoot, shovel and shut-up.”
Most Westerners
don’t scream bloody murder because they can’t legally wingshoot a golden eagle after
eagles kill young domestic sheep or pronghorn fawns, or demand varmint status for
osprey because they feast upon another huntable game species (trout), or argue
that peregrines need to be “managed” by sport hunters because they’re preying on
huntable revenue-generating waterfowl.
"Most Westerners don’t scream bloody murder because they can’t legally wingshoot a golden eagle after eagles kill young domestic sheep or pronghorn fawns, or demand varmint status for osprey because they feast upon another huntable game species (trout), or argue that peregrines need to be 'managed' by sport hunters because they’re preying on huntable revenue-generating waterfowl."
The Idahoans
are correct in their assertion that I struggle to find the logic both with using
cyanide to control coyotes and the staging of predator-killing contests for the
sheer fun of it. As for their assertion that wolves are destroying elk herds,
it is not supported by fact.
Official
information circulated by state game agencies in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho
shows that most elk hunting units are at, near, or above population objectives.
Hunter success is pretty high in most places—a fact trumpeted even by
outfitters and guides throughout the Rockies advertising pricey hunts to
prospective clients.
If you want
to know where the mythology of the old West still lives large, where facts and
truth exist as casualties in a parallel universe detached from reality, you’ll
find it on social media—and along with it, scriveners who are very fond of
using exclamation points.
About Todd Wilkinson
Todd Wilkinson, founder of Mountain Journal, is author of the book Ripple Effects: How to Save Yellowstone and American's Most Iconic Wildlife Ecosystem. Wilkinson has been writing about Greater Yellowstone for 35 years and is a correspondent to publications ranging from National Geographic to The Guardian. He is author of several books on topics as diverse as scientific whistleblowers and Ted Turner, and a book about the harrowing story of Jackson Hole grizzly mother 399, the most famous bear in the world which features photographs by Thomas Mangelsen. For more information on Wilkinson, click here. (Photo by David J Swift).
