A Response to Pro-Wolf Article by Chris Albert

by Rosemary Lowe
Veterinarian, Chris Albert, has written a thoughtful article. While people “can” live with wild non-humans like wolves, etc., thus far, our species’ history does not support the likelihood of our ever changing our Humanist perceptions about wild animals, because this species is, for the most part, afraid of Nature, and wild animals; and perhaps even jealous of them, and their “wildness.” We like to “domesticate” things, and we already have turned much of the Earth into a Domesticated Feed Lot.
Yes, some of us love, admire & try to protect  wild animals.  But, would most even consider what “living with” or “near them” would mean to our convenient- for- humans lifestyle? For instance, most humans will not tolerate, anywhere, a so-called “nuisance wild animal” for long, and we see evidence of that everywhere, with ranching, trapping & hunting.

—Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

—Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson

We live outside Santa Fe, on a former over-grazed ranch.The rancher trapped/poisoned coyotes, bobcat, prairie dogs, etc. Now, houses of about an acre and a half are here, and the wildlife here probably do better than before. Many of us in this community of about 5,000  are pleased  having the wildlife around: I have seen coyote in the day time, and there are some bobcat, quail, and an occasional pronghorn around. However, our AHA newsletter often has to remind residents that our covenants reflect an “appreciation”  of wildlife here, because invariably, there are those here who poison coyote, blaming them for every lost cat and dog, and they do not want wild animals near their kids.
People like to think that wildlife are “out there, somewhere,” but in reality, they would not tolerate any perceived inconvenience (or alleged harm) they might cause.
Human society was designed for humans, not nature, so nature must be pushed back, and that means wildlife & wild places.
Most of us on this blog think this is wrong. But, our human activities here and around the word prove that humans will not “co-exist” with wild animals, because we never really did. It was always an adversarial relationship, and it is not getting better, especially now with human population exploding: going on 7+ billion, to 8, 9 or more billion. What will be left for wildlife? Where will they live? Most wild animal populations are in severe decline around the world.
 Will caring humans (not the majority, I’m afraid) make the hard sacrifices necessary to make more room for surviving wildlife, especially in a world now affected by increasing climate change? Is our species capable of shedding our environmentally-destructive Humanist Ideologies in order to save what is left of Nature?
Rosemary Lowe
image
EARTH for Animals

Environmentalists Against Ranching, Trapping and Hunting

5 thoughts on “A Response to Pro-Wolf Article by Chris Albert

  1. ” Will caring humans (not the majority, I’m afraid) make the hard sacrifices necessary to make more room for surviving wildlife, especially in a world now affected by increasing climate change? ”

    What does she mean? I’d think the “caring humans” are about max’d out!

  2. We are a destructive species maybe unable to control ourselves. The way we (mankind) are going not sustainable. But why cannot we control ourselves? I think that a lot if not all the problem is that anti EPA, ESA, environmentalists have is one of two attitudes. They either do not care about the impact on wilderness of ranching or extraction industries, or/and they do not understand how little is left. There is only about 5.1% of true wilderness left in the US and the situation is the same world around, in the US about half of our 5% is in Alaska and half in the continental US. Of that Montana has 3% while CA has 15%. which probable surprises Montana. When Montanans look out at our wild lands and wildlife, it looks like a lot to them, like an abundance of both. However, encroachment continues incrementally and sometimes on leaps and bounds. Then there is global warming effects on wilderness and wildlife. The anti environmental-conservationists and associated laws crowd see us as eco-terrorists, tree huggers, left wing nuts; but we are just doing our best to hold the line on a hunter-rancher-extraction industry-development war on wildlife and wilderness that has been going on since the dawn of civilization; and we are down to remnants and a few corridors for wildlife between those remnants. The EPA and ESA and associated laws regarding forest management are there to protect us against ourselves, against our greed for a dollar at all costs; they are there to protect our health, the health of the environment, and the health of wilderness and wildlife and balanced wildlife ecology. These laws are here for that and so that maybe we can leave something for generations to come and not cause and be part of the the next great extinction, the Anthropocene Extinction which we are really already in as evidenced by environmental pollution, global warming, disappearance of half the worlds animals in the past 40 years. This recognition of the problem(s) is too abstract to many minds, and they are incapable of grasping the situation or they do not care and have a live for the day attitude. On the path they apparently want to take it would all be gone relatively soon. What we “eco-terrorists” want is, by these laws, and conservation efforts, is to ask how can we live with wilderness and wildlife while we exploit resources, and maybe even change some directions because what we are doing is not sustainable..However, we (conservationists) are often naive about human nature and the dark side of it. We are a destructive species and maybe cannot help ourselves. The overall evidence is that we cannot. Major elements of us are as barbaric as ever. Half of our political system denies global warming because efforts to curtail it may interfere with making a buck. It, what man is doing to the wildlife, the domestic animals, the environment, does show that major elements of the human population are, my opinion, subhuman. Looking at what humans are doing to animals around the world and to the environment points to the Anthropocine Extinction. Half the world’s mammals have disappeared in the past 40 years. Animal farming, aka ranching, continues encroachment at an alarming rate eating up more and more wilderness. It is an absurd concept that man has “created God” in his own image and elevates himself above the rest of the animals on earth and puts himself at the center of the universe. Mankind is a disease of the Earth. Man is special only in his own mind.

    One of my favorite movies is The Day the Earth Stood Still with Keanu Reeves wherein aliens come to Earth to save Earth from mankind.

  3. Unsustainable: Anthropocene Extinction Era

    Elk and deer do not need to be saved from wolves or other predators, they have millenniums of natural balance for mutual benefit. It is the blood sport killers(hunters and trappers) that are the additive problem. Humans kill 27 million animals daily for consumption, millions more yearly from hunting and”management” and this is not counting the sea life. Humans kill millions of sharks every year. Animal farming is one of the most damaging to the earth and cruelest things we do to the planet, the environment (land, sea and air); it is also eating up wilderness and forest and jungles, polluting rivers and streams, polluting the air, downdrawing stream levels Man is crueler than any alien so far imagined or presented in alien movies. Man is working himself toward extinction by animal farming, extraction industries, development, encroachment on the wild, destruction of biodiversity and is taking most everything else with him. We are 7 billion headed toward 10 billion by the middle to the end of the century. We may have the planet at a tipping point in global warming which also has disastrous effects on much land and sea animal life. The wolves and other predators are healthy factors in the wilderness ecology. Game farming for sports killing is not. We have several major species on the brink and hunters and poachers and farmer/ranchers, extraction industries, development and encroachment are still going at the the destruction. What humans are doing is not healthy for us or the planet or the other animals. We instituted agencies like the EPA and ESA and international and national conservation organizations to protect us from ourselves and the by products of seeking monetary gain at all costs then we try to politically undermine and gut those agencies. We are a destructive species and cannot seem to help ourselves. The direction we are going is not sustainable. For the health of ourselves, the planet, other life, biodiversity, we need to change the way we eat, stop human sprawl, preserve habitat, and basically learn to live with wildlife and healthy environment instead of against it.

  4. Yes we can live with wilderness and wildlife and we would all be better off if we did as would the planet. But we have to draw some lines in the sand, ask ourselves how we can live with wildlife and wilderness as we do our human things, set aside areas and corridors that are permanent and inviolate. The writer it correct, humans have declared a war on wildlife and wilderness from the dawn of civilization. Mankind is a disease upon the planet and we are apparently out of control. Conservationists, environmentalists can only try, try, try

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s