Wolf Nation

by Brenda Peterson

It wasn’t just angry birders who condemned the Malheur occupation. CNN security analyst Juliette Kayyem, a Harvard professor and former assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland Security, called the Oregon antigovernment occupiers “domestic terrorists.” Kayyem wrote, “They are dangerous, they are unforgiving, they are flouting federal law… they are clearly willing to use violence to get their way.” She reminded the occupying militia that “if a federal agent or public safety official is harmed or killed during any siege… they all will be accomplices to first-degree murder.” She advised the feds to wait out the occupiers who were, after all, in a snowy, remote area and having trouble even getting supplies from sympathizers. “We’re not in Iraq,” she concluded.

  After all the media coverage, there was very little public solidarity for these cowboy militants taking over a wildlife refuge. Oregon locals held town halls demanding that the antigovernment protesters at the wildlife refuge “Go home!” The majority consensus on the occupation was echoed in a Christian Science Monitor article on the Malheur occupation as “political theater that paints their fellow Westerners in a poor light and disregards—and even undermines—the approach favored by many who seek to reshape the West’s future without a revolution.” The article was sympathetic to small-town ranchers and farmers who are struggling, losing farms, and having trouble adapting to new economic trends.

  In fact, High Country News points out that since frontier days the American West has the highest suicide rates in the country among white males aged forty-five to sixty-four; most shoot themselves. That was the same age and ethnicity of the Malheur occupiers, many who fully expected they might die violently at the hand of the feds. These men feel disenfranchised by swift cultural and economic changes that leave them marginalized and powerless. Their armed takeover of a wildlife refuge and threatened violence was a kind of last stand for a way of life that is fading. Their outrage, entitlement, and violence reveal a kind of adaptive disorder, an inability to change. Many of the Malheur occupiers mistakenly believed that grazing on public lands was a right guaranteed in the Constitution, not a contract that required payment.

  When interviewed, the occupiers had neither a sense of this land’s history nor what might become of it and its wildlife if federal lands were divested to state and private owners. If that happens, the likely result would be a rapacious land rush and real takeover that would ruthlessly eliminate small farms, ranchers—and wildlife. After such a private and corporate land rush the federal government might be remembered as benign by comparison.

  Many white settlers were originally called to the West when the federal government granted free land for homesteading. “The fate of the West has, almost from the very beginning of the country, been tied to Washington.” So the irony that those who were once given free land by the feds and for over a century have been using our public lands for grazing are now raising a rebellion against the government is not lost on many westerners. An editorial, “Cowboy Nihilism,” in the Seattle Weekly reminded readers that it was Republican president Theodore Roosevelt who first created the Malheur reserve in 1908 to protect native bird populations devastated by plume hunters for feathers used in women’s hats. Roosevelt wrote that whenever he heard the phrase “destruction of species,” he “felt just as if all of the works of some great writer had perished.”

  The fact that wildlife conservationists played a big part in opposing the Malheur occupation is a vital sign of how important wildlife has become to the American public and our evolving identity. It wasn’t just environmentalists who decried the Malheur wildlife refuge takeover; many hunters and anglers “worry that their elk-hunting grounds and trout streams would be sold to private hands and developed,” notes the New York Times. “Unlike the federal government, many states require that their land be used as profitably as possible.” The Malheur occupation, in the tradition of the Sagebrush Insurgency before it, is significant because it is a highly visible drama that symbolizes the smoldering state vs. federal government tensions flaring up in the West like the record-setting summer wildfires.

  After about six weeks the Malheur occupiers were jailed with one death—a protester who resisted arrest at a stop sign. When the Malheur armed takeover was winding down in February 2016, troubling news broke of the “dark money” funneled by the American billionaire Koch brothers into other public-land-seizure efforts by some state politicians to wrest away control of national forests, monuments, and public lands and transfer them to states. This “land grab” movement, often called “Free the Lands,” is well funded by the Koch Brothers and “has forged an alliance with groups and individuals who have militia ties and share extreme antigovernment ideologies.” Unlike the small band of militants who took over the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, this showdown is a national and very robustly financed campaign to transfer public lands back to increasingly belligerent state officials who oppose federal protection of lands and wildlife, calling conservationists “pro-animal extremists.” In the federal trial, all of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupiers were acquitted—a verdict that shocked many conservationists. David Yarnold, president of the National Audubon Society, commented, “Wild lands belong to all of us, not the people who hold them at gunpoint.”

  Tracing the roots and often shadowy players in this state rebellion against federal protection of public lands and wildlife is important because it is the states that are now mainly calling the shots on wildlife in the United States. And in the West some of those states—especially the ones that are increasingly resistant to wolf recovery—are being run by legislators sympathetic to paramilitary uprisings against federal management of public lands. During the Malheur occupation several Republican House representatives from Utah and Oregon, active in a group calling themselves COWS (Coalition of Western States), visited the Malheur occupiers against the express request from the FBI and a local judge to keep away from the refuge stand-off. NPR covered the story and noted that the COWS visit “was the last step in an ongoing and organized campaign by these lawmakers, essentially the political arm of the militant movement, to make a once-radical political cause part of the mainstream.”

  That cause, proclaimed on the COWS website, is to “restore management of public lands to the States where it constitutionally belongs.” With press releases that declare “This is a war on rural America,” COWS found sympathy in a Republican-controlled Congress where several Utah representatives demanded that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the US Forest Service be stripped of their law enforcement authorities. In 2014 Texas senator Ted Cruz proposed “preventing the federal government from owning more than half of any state’s land.” Much of the West is under federal management. Population stats echo what my father once told us: “5 percent of westerners live, nearly alone, on half the West’s land.”

  After the Malheur occupation there were news reports that the ultra-right-wing Koch brothers—who inherited their fortunes from industries in chemicals, jet fuel, fertilizer, and electronics—had actually funded the Bundy land seizure movement through various lobbying groups. “Is this why efforts are continually blocked when trying to stop the brutal slaughter of our wolves, bison, wild horses and other imperiled species and places?” asked Examiner.com. “Could they also be covertly blocking endangered species designations or enforcement? Could they, in fact, be instrumental in facilitating the removal of America’s native wildlife from public lands, in favor of mining, drilling, logging, hunting and ranching interests?”

  High Country News, which covers the entire West, notes in a cover story, “Inside the Sagebrush Insurgency,” that both the Malheur occupiers and the Sagebrush Rebels who’ve been fighting the feds since the 1970s aren’t really that representative of ranchers and farmers. There were very few ranchers among the occupiers, and the Bundy family actually owns a truck-fleet business. Bundy told reporters that he was not only speaking out for “the ranchers, the loggers, and the farmers” but also “the auto industry, the health-care industry, and financial advi
sors.” That’s quite a large and more urban swath of Americana that has little to do with public lands or wildlife. The High Country News report points out that the states vs. feds struggle over public lands is “a nationwide confluence of right-wing and libertarian extremists. Many of them have little interest in grazing allotments, mining laws, or the Wilderness Act. It’s what these things symbolize that matters: A tyrannical federal government [that] activists can denounce, defy, and perhaps even engage in battle with.”

  The election of Donald J. Trump in 2016 dealt a serious blow to American wildlife, especially wolf recovery. This was an election characterized by an entire Republican party whose leading candidates denied climate change and consistently voted against ecosystem and wildlife protections. President Trump vows to cut funding for the EPA and has shown no sympathy for America’s wild lands or wildlife. Under his pro-business, anti-environment administration, the Endangered Species Act may finally be gutted by a Republican congress. And that would be bad news for wolves and all endangered species.

  AMERICA’S 640 MILLION ACRES of public lands are treasures and “our national commons,” writes author William DeBuys. These vast and diverse wild lands “spread unbroken over great enough distances to offer the connectedness that any plants and animals will require to adapt, to the extent possible, with a warming climate.” They offer, as Gretel Erlich reminds us, “the solace of open spaces.”

  In our evolving American politics and history of land disputes, symbols or symbolic acts have deep roots. For better or worse, the wild wolf has become a vivid symbol of our shifting and often contradictory American identity. What is the American character? Given enough land, we are strong willed and successful settlers of territory; we struggle all our lives for hierarchy and dominance. We are close-knit and loyal to our families; we are sometimes welcoming but more often exclusive and wary of outsiders. We are violent and playful and as yet untamed—like the wild wolf.

  There are as many facets to the American character as there are states. Whether it’s Mike, the sixty-something fisherman who accepts wolves but not too near his suburban Washington neighborhood; the Virginia cattle farmer, Elizabeth, who prides herself on her nonlethal alternatives to predator control; the Eastern Washington rancher Sam Kayser, who tolerates wolves on his ranch and aims for coexistence; the Millennial urban-dwelling social activist and wolf advocate Courtney who hopes her North Carolina red wolves will survive; or the antiwildlife and states’ rights militants who demand that the vast western public lands be managed first and foremost for big business like mining and fracking—these characters will define our national identity, but not without struggle. In a new century the Old West must change its identity to reflect New West realities and values—unless we want to see our wilderness auctioned off into nothing but farm and ranch land. An endless Kansas.

  10. WOLVES AT PLAY

  For those of us who work with wildlife conservation, there is often a kind of compassion fatigue that settles in amidst the seemingly endless political and legal battles to help save endangered species. One antidote to this malaise is the abiding friendships, the high-spirited play, and even the humor that animal people share. In their company I often find myself howling with laughter, uplifted by their camaraderie, their cooperation with other wolf-recovery organizations, and their generosity. I’m especially in awe of the conservation lawyers who every day fight valiantly for other species. With the relentless congressional efforts to gut the Endangered Species Act and renewed, intense wolf hunting, these lawyers would have the most reason of us all to succumb to despair. Yet they are some of the most buoyant and heroic of all animal people. One of these conservation warriors is Amaroq Weiss, who is based in the San Francisco Bay Area and is the West Coast wolf organizer for the international Center for Biological Diversity. In fact, her name, Amaroq, is Inuktitut for “wolf.”

  “My client is the wild wolf,” Amaroq says with a wide smile. With piercing eyes and jet-black hair woven with silvery strands, Amaroq, like many animal people or pet owners, resembles the animal to whom she has devoted her life, blending her background as a former attorney and biologist.

  This is the first time I’ve met Amaroq in person, although I’ve often corresponded with her about wolf issues. It’s a balmy, sunlit day, and we’re meeting at my waterfront studio. Behind us the tide is so high that its waves accompany our dialogue. At my kitchen table over tea she leans forward, literally rolling up her sleeves. “We are winning for the wolf. It just doesn’t look like it at times. When I was a defense attorney victories were few and far between. But victories for the wild wolf—when they happen—are really big.” She nods with pleasure and well-earned pride.

  Amaroq is here in Washington to attend the spring 2016 Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) meeting in Ellensburg. Created by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), WAG consists of representatives from the livestock industry, sports-hunting groups, and conservation groups and was convened by WDFW to help it implement the state wolf-conservation and management plan. Part of the state Wolf Plan’s objectives is to “minimize conflicts that may occur, recognizing that public acceptance is essential for wolf recovery to succeed.” Some of the key strategies and issues in the Wolf Plan that the WAG discusses and fleshes out include compensation for livestock lost to wolf predation and how to encourage livestock producers to “take proactive, preventative measures to decrease the risk of loss.” These WAG meetings are open to the public so that anyone who wants to understand how WDFW develops its wolf-management policies and practices can listen in and learn about what different stakeholders are advising in order to best live with wild wolves.

  The nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity is a leader in international conservation. It seeks legal protections for endangered animals, including Florida panthers, owls, jaguars, and black bears; fights against rampant fracking on public lands; and uses science, law, and creative media to engage people in saving biodiversity. Its mission statement says, “We want those who come after us to inherit a world where the wild is still alive.”

  Along with their many successful lawsuits on behalf of imperiled wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity has come up with some persuasive innovations, such as cell phone ringtones of Mexican wolves, Puerto Rican frogs, Hawaiian monk seals, Texas toads, or humpback whale lullabies, as well as condoms that link overpopulation with wildlife extinction. Each condom features a different animal with slogans like: “Fumbling in the dark? Think of the monarch” or “Before it gets any hotter, remember the sea otter” or my favorite, “When you’re feeling tender, think of the hellbender,” which features a drawing of a bright orange and slithering aquatic salamander.

  When I ask Amaroq about these delightful ways to involve people in conservation, she replies with a grin. “You know wolves find every opportunity to engage in play, yes?”

  “Yes, I’ve read that wolves initiate play about every thirty minutes,” I say, delighted we’ve landed on one of my favorite subjects. My decades with wild dolphins and whales have taught me that play is a powerful antidote to trauma in both humans and animals. Bonding and playing with animals often restores us body and soul. At the Lockwood Animal Rescue Center (LARC) in the Los Padres National Forest near Los Angeles there is a vibrant human-animal healing project. Veterans with PTSD struggling to reunite with their families and adapt to civilian life forge strong bonds with wolves rescued from abusive situations.

  “Combat veterans have been paid to be predators, much like wolves,” explains the LARC cofounder and ex-Navy man Matthew Simmons. “Many come home with this inner war inside them. They don’t know if they’re an infantryman or a husband.” The wolves, many of them wolf hybrids, are in turmoil because they are torn between their wolf and dog genetics. Partnering these soldiers with wolves at the center brings solace to both traumatized humans and animals.

  Together with his own partner, clinical psychologist Dr. Lorin Lindner, Simmons has designed an “eco-therapy program” to help
keep both human and wolf “safe, sane, and sober.” Many of the veterans are profoundly depressed, addicted, even suicidal after the trauma they’ve endured and witnessed in war. Like wolves, veterans often are misunderstood and exist at the fringes of our communities. “Some sort of cross-species communication goes on between them,” says Simmons, when a soldier and a wolf—often with similar physical and severe trauma troubles—bond together. “Our program heals veterans. The wolves get to live out their lives and maybe share it in a special way with another sentient being who’s also suffered. It’s magical and special.”

  A poignant fact for both humans and animals who have been severally traumatized is that they may never play again. For animals play is a survival skill, but it is also so much more. Among gorillas in the Congo researchers discovered that poachers had so emotionally damaged orphaned baby gorillas that they had to be taught how to play. When the orphaned gorillas ventured into play behavior at last, it was a major milestone in their recovery. Rehabilitated gorilla babies would play up to seven hours a day. Every day the Internet is awash with viral videos of wild animals—painting elephants, snow-awed playful pandas, gorillas talking in sign language, captive beluga whales blowing bubbles to amuse themselves and escape boredom. Domestic animals also play in viral videos on the Internet—cats trying to make friends with annoyed dogs, terriers playing pinball machines.

  Play is essential to evolution and change. If it were not, why would natural selection have preserved such unabashed, risky behavior? New research in Science Daily, “Gambling Wolves Take More Risks than Dogs,” notes that dogs, like humans, have an evolutionary preference for “playing it safe” and are “risk-aversive.” The study conducted at the Wolf Science Center in Ernsbrunn, Austria, raised dogs and wolves in natural settings. When offered two upside-down bowls, one hiding a predictable but stable “insipid food pellet” and the other offering sometimes just a stone and other times a tasty bite of meat, sausage, or chicken—59 percent of dogs most often chose the less risky food pellet bowl. But wolves chose the risky option of real food 89 percent of the time. The wolves’ risk-prone but more fulfilling choice is behavior that “seems to be innate,” said Sarah Marshall-Pescini, the study’s first author. Risk taking among wild wolves “is consistent with the hypothesis that risk preference evolves as a function of ecology.”