In order to save wolves, do we have to kill some of them?  Some thoughts below. I'm still grappling with this, so I welcome thoughts and ideas.

It is accepted in wildlife management circles that in order to 'manage' wolves, some wolves must be killed. This has always troubled me.  My head tells me that if so many of the smart scientists I respect--and who know a lot more about wildlife management than I do--believe that controlling populations by killing wolves is necessary for the survival of the species, I should bow to their expertise. But my heart balks at the killing of wolves in order to save wolves.

I had the opportunity to hear some wonderful lectures on wolf re-introduction and management at the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minnesota last year. Jim Hammill, a former wildlife biologist with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, was particular eloquent, and his talk formed much of my thinking. (Since I can't remember everything he said, I hope that I am not misstating his views.  I do want to give him credit for inspiration and apologize for any misrepresentation of his beliefs.)

Based on the terrific IWC talks, and a good deal of reading and thinking, this is where I've landed. For now.

In a better world, there would be sufficient wildlands for wolves to have the room they need to live, hunt and reproduce naturally, and we could let nature control wolf populations as it did for a long time before we meddled. The reality is that we do not live in that world (although I hope we can get there, see below). And the reality is also that wolves are highly politicized and the battle for their survival is as much about public relations as it is about biology.

Just as there are those of us dedicated to preserving wolves, there are people out there dedicated to obliterating them. Completely and forever. There are also people who, understandably, are undecided about the role of wolves and about whether or not they should be protected. Those who wish to eradicate wolves do everything they can to convince those who are uncertain that wolves are dangerous and that they threaten our "right" to use as much land as we want however we want to use it, and that wolves are vermin to be exterminated. When the public gets the impression that there are "too many" wolves, and that those wolves are a threat, people are more receptive to full-scale slaughter.

We need to take the time to educate people about the truth of wolf biology and behavior, and we need to provide more room for wolves to thrive. It is my hope that someday we will be able to give back more of the land to wolves and other wildlife, and to the trees and other plants we really do need to survive. I think doing so is important not just to the survival of wolves, but to our own well-being and that it is one of the most important things we can work toward.

But that's going to take time, and it would be much too easy for those who want to get rid of wolves to kill off enough of them to ensure that we cannot have a healthy population in the future. So as much as I hate it, I accept that in order to manage the people who hold the fate of wolves in their hands, wolf management, for the time being, does have to mean 'controlling' populations. So that when we do have the land and the knowledge to truly let wolves thrive, the wolves will still be there to enjoy it.

That being said, the wolf 'management' plans in the Rocky Mountain region are a disgrace. Please go to Defenders of Wildlife  or NRDC to learn how you can stop the unnecessary slaughter of wolves by getting the Rocky Mountain wolves re-listed as an endangered species and by calling for more stringent regulations against wolf kills.

I've been deep in my writing cave and thus a little slow to pick up on all of the news, so it's only recently that I read that Michael Vick is planning to star in a reality show. I've been thinking a lot about Michael Vick.

I am, obviously, a dog lover.  More than that, I think that our relationship with dogs is part of a sacred trust. When we take an animal into our homes, when we breed it to trust us and depend on us, we have a moral obligation to care for it as best we can. I think that the way we treat our dogs says a lot about who we are as people. And I think that people who throw dogs into a ring and make them fight to the death for "entertainment" should be stripped naked, dipped in chum, and tossed into a shark tank.  May the strongest animal prevail.

Vick has served his time and admitted his fault. That means he gets to go back to his job, even if that job pays him an obscene amount of money.  I get that. He is also working with the Humane Society to combat dogfighting.  So, is he for real?  Or is it all PR?  Should he be given a platform of any kind--other than the one above the shark tank?
 
To me, this comes down to two questions: the question of forgiveness and the question of influence.

There are many things that I forgive, but I find it difficult to forgive anyone who brutalizes the innocent for his own pleasure or profit. I find it difficult to forgive those who are strong and who abuse the vulnerable.  There is no way that Vick could have been ignorant of the suffering he was inflicting.  I believe in forgiveness.  But I have to say, I'm not there yet.

However.

Michael Vick can reach a lot of people that animal welfare proponents cannot. I would hazard that most people who read The Bark, or my novel about wolves, or who are on the ASPCA mailing list aren't the ones who are thinking of participating in dogfighting.  Vick can reach young people and can tell them that dogfighting is not cool.  He can, if he is truly committed, do a lot of good.

So I am willing to wait to see what kind of influence Vick has and how he uses it. He cannot undo the damage he has done. But, in the event that he means what he says, he could, perhaps, make some amends.

As for forgiveness?  Maybe if he throws a few million dollars of his reality show and football earnings to animal welfare organizations.  I'm sure they'd be happy to have it.

And I'm keeping the shark tank ready.

I originally planned to have ravens in one scene of Promise of the Wolves, and one scene only.  I just wanted to show readers the cool relationship between wolves and ravens and then get on with the rest of the book. But once Tlitoo got his beak into the story he wouldn't leave.  He became one of Kaala's best friends, the provider of comic relief, and one of the most important characters in the book.  He will have an even bigger role in Secrets of the Wolves. 

Here's the scoop on wolves and ravens:

The raven is sometimes known as "the wolf-bird." Ravens, like many other animals, scavenge at wolf kills, but there's more to it than that. Both wolves and ravens have the ability to form social attachments and they seem to have evolved over many years to form these attachments with each other, to both species' benefit. There are a couple of theories as to why wolves and ravens end up at the same carcasses.  One is that because ravens can fly, they are better at finding carcasses than wolves are. But they can't get to the food once they get there, because they can't open up the carcass. So they'll make a lot of noise, and then wolves will come and use their sharp teeth and strong jaws to make the food accessible not just to themselves, but also to the ravens. Ravens have also been observed circling a sick elk or moose and calling out, possibly alerting wolves to an easy kill.  The other theory is that ravens respond to the howls of wolves preparing to hunt (and, for that matter, to human hunters shooting guns). They find out where the wolves are going and following. Both theories may be correct.

Wolves and ravens also play. A raven will sneak up behind a wolf and yank its tail and the wolf will play back. Ravens sometimes respond to wolf howls with calls of their own, resulting in a concert of howls and calls.  

Sources: Mind of the Raven, Bernd Heinrich, The American Crow and the Common Raven, Lawrence Kilham

I'm going the wrong direction.  I'm trying to motivate myself by giving myself treats every time I hit a word count goal.  Was revising yesterday and LOST words. Drat.

I'm spending the morning going over my notes and trying to gather together scenes and moments so I know where they all are when I want them.  I just found a note that says:   

 

"VERY IMPORTANT:  MAJOR PLOT POINT:  the point at which someone wants to give up the bird."

 

I have no idea what that means.  I mean really, not even the foggiest.  What bird, and why would someone want to give it up?  Why is it so important to the plot? Oh dear.

The paperback of Promise of the Wolves releases today!  I realize that I'm biased because it's mine and I love it, but I think it's one of the best-lookin' books ever in the world.  See the pretty cover?




See an excerpt here:


I've been getting a lot of questions on the progress of Book Two, aka "Secrets of the Wolves."  After a very challenging time in my personal life, I'm now making great progress on it and having lots of fun.  There's a chapter from it in the paperback of Promise. Here's the first paragraph of the chapter:

     I caught the delicate scent of distant prey and stopped, digging my paws into the earth.  Lifting my muzzle to the wind, I inhaled, allowing the distinctive ice-and-hoof aroma to sink into the back of my throat.  Snow deer, in our territory and on the move.  All at once, the blood rushed to the sensitive spot just behind my ears.  My mouth began to water with the promise of the hunt, and every muscle in my body hungered for the chase.  Next to me, Ázzuen stood as still as I was, only his ears twitching.  Then his dark grey head began to sway a little, pulled between the lure of prey and our task.
     "We can't go after them," I said.  "We have to keep moving."
 

And I've just decided that both the wolves and ravens like to gamble. They place bets on all sorts of things.  The ravens are better at it than are the wolves.  Not sure what I'm going to do with this, but it amuses me greatly.

And I'm at last on Twitter:
 http://twitter.com/DorothyHearst

Verlyn Klinkenborg has written an excellent editorial in The New York Times about the delisting of the Rocky Mountain wolves. I wrote a letter in response which the Times has published.  Check it out, here.

So what's the big deal about the Rocky Mountain wolves?    

The Endangered Species Act exists to "protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems on which they depend."*    Being on the list is not an end in itself.  The whole point of putting a species or population on the list is to eventually get it off the list--to protect the species or population until it is healthy and stable enough to no longer be in danger of extinction. There are now about 1500-1600 wolves in the Rocky Mountain region, and by many measures, they are doing very well.  

So why all the hubbub?  Isn't it good news if the wolves have reached a point of recovery sufficient to delist them?  

There are two parts to this question (ok, I'm sure there are more, but there are two that come to mind now.)

Question One:  Are the Rocky Mountain wolves really sufficiently recovered to be removed from the list?

Many excellent, respected scientists who have dedicated their careers to the wolves and their conservation think so.  Others think not--that the genetic diversity is not sufficient and that the wolves don't have enough access to more diverse populations.  But it's debatable and both positions are defendable.  I really respect the scientists who say the population is recovered and would be willing to be swayed by their arguments.

However they, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, do not seem to be putting enough emphasis on the second question, the one so eloquently addressed by Mr. Klinkenborg:  

Are there enough protections in place to take care of the wolves after they are delisted?

The answer, as far as I can tell, is a resounding, "No."

More than 200,000 gray wolves once lived throughout the United States. Aggressive wolf killing campaigns led to the eradication of wolves in the lower 48 states by the 1930s.  The wolves were systematically killed with the specific intention of completely eradicating them.  

The problem is that in many places the attitudes that led people to deliberately drive the wolves to near extinction have not changed.  State governments already have aggressive wolf-killing plans in place and ready to go on May 4th, when the delisting goes into effect. In his editorial Klinkenborg  points out that Idaho Governor C.L. Otter has not only said that he wants to be the first in line for a wolf hunting license, he has also said he would like to reduce the wolf population in Idaho to 100, well below the number required by the state management plan. In the past, Montana's plans have also been very aggressive.

So until the wolves are truly protected from those who wish to see them gone for good, they need to remain on the Endangered Species list.

* from the US Fish And Wildlife Service Website

Coming up:  "Wolf Management" almost always means killing wolves. Does it have to be this way? It's an interesting discussion, and I'll address it in a posting soon.

Once again, the Rocky Mountain wolves are in danger of being taken off the endangered species list--in spite of the fact that many scientists do not consider their recovery complete, and in spite of the fact that overly aggressive wolf-killing programs will immediately be implemented upon the delisting.  As you may remember, in March of 2008, the federal government removed Endangered Species Act protection from the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population.  A coalition of nonprofit organizations filed a lawsuit to halt the delisting and was successful--for awhile. Now wolves are about to be delisted again--unless we can stop it from happening.  According to Defenders of Wildlife, under the delisting rule, as much as two-thirds of the current Northern Rockies wolf population can be killed.  

The National Resources Defense Council and Defenders of Wildlife are once again leading the charge to protect the wolves, and NRDC is launching the Big Howl campaign, seeking one million people to write messages to let Interior Secretary Ken Salazar know how we feel about protecting our wolves, and Defenders has an online letter for you to send to the Obama administration.  Defenders and NRDC can, of course, also use your financial support.

Here's an excerpt from NRDC's email to members:

"In just a few weeks, the mass killing of wolves could begin in Idaho and Montana -- and not even newborn wolf pups and their nursing mothers will be spared.

We cannot stand by while this slaughter unfolds. On May 4, the wolf's federal protection will be lifted, and government agents will be free to open fire. After that, the states will launch public hunts, targeting wolves.  We must act now to call off the guns!

That's why NRDC is launching The Big Howl campaign to mobilize Americans everywhere to protect wolves in the Northern Rockies from the crossfire. Add your voice now to our campaign. Tell Interior Secretary Salazar to reverse his decision to kick wolves off the endangered species list."

I encourage everyone to visit Defenders' and NRDC's websites to get more info and get the world out!

Ok, I realize I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but in case you didn’t already know it, Sarah Palin, McCain’s VP pick, is a big defender of the aerial hunting of wolves. That’s when people fly around in airplanes picking off as many wolves as they can. In order to encourage more wolf kills, she’s offered a $150 bounty for every left foreleg of a wolf brought in by wolf shooters in certain areas. (I won’t call them hunters—hunters have a code of ethics that seems to be completely lacking in these drive bys).

Palin is not only threat to wolves, but also a threat to the environment as a whole. Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, says that Palin:

“has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska’s coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science. As unbelievable as this may sound, this actually puts her to the right of the Bush administration.”

‘nuff said. You all know what another four years of Cheney-esque environmental policy will do to our world. But pass it along to anyone who might not.

So the two hundred or so storylines, themes, plot drivers and ideas are now more or less tamed into three major storylines. Very pleased about that because three major threads are ideal for me. Fewer than that, and I feel like the story is too flat. More than that, the story gets muddled. When you have three story threads, it makes it easier to weave everything together. So the book now looks like this:

Which is great because this morning it looked like this:

So definitely an improvement. I had three of my writing buddies over today for an impromptu write-in, and we all got a lot done. I forsook my computer and sat on the living room floor, moving little pieces of index cards around and scribbling on different sized sheets of paper. I have to remind myself that sometimes working with pen and paper is better for me than a keyboard and mouse. Sometimes computers are just too small, and my brain needs the expanse of a living room rug.

The wolves are getting a bit impatient with all this structure and are going to start chewing on my toes if I don’t let them run free soon. So a couple more days of plot-wrangling, and then I get to go back to actually writing.