stated in a 2011 media release

via the Sierra Club Prairie, “the
caribou have and will always be
the traditional food of our people.
Working to sustain the caribou is
critical for our culture, and way of
life.”

Where do these two animals
intersect? Historically, the caribou
cured the wolf’s hunger while
the wolf kept the caribou strong
by eating the weakest members
of the herd. However, with the
manipulation of ecosystems

that has been happening around
caribou migration routes, they
have not been able to stay strong.
Their numbers are dwindling and
although they remain a meal to
the predator, because of social
constructs and, perhaps,

guilt that humans feel for
allowing them to be in such

a situation, they have found
themselves as a priority

when it comes to protection.

Where does human

responsibility sit in all of this?

In western history, the idea of
humans removing themselves
from nature reaches as far back

as early human interpretations

of Genesis; some say it was

the unlocking of agricultural
capability that pushed people on
to a different plateau, taking a
step outside, and perhaps above,
the food chain. However, where
do morals and ethics fit in when

it comes to the killing of wolves

to fix damage caused by humans?
When the hunting and trapping
laws are opened right up under the
assumption that they are found
“non-detrimental” towards wolf
numbers, do we consider social
aspects within wolf packs? The
answer could easily be that even
if the numbers are sustainable,
there could be serious impacts

on the traditional structures of
wolf packs. Historically, reviving
threatened species has not been as
simple as graphs and calculations.
The BC government acknowledges
that even the “economic returns
have been low for decades,” so
what is killing a wolf worth besides
protecting the human ego from
taking responsibility for caribou
and other prey decline?

Wilde says, as a hunter, it might
be ethical to kill certain wolves

when the numbers become
unsustainable for survival.
However, he points out that the
idea of open season throughout

BC could be a little too sloppy,

and vague, considering packs are
not likely to be overpopulated in
every area. Shelley Black disagrees,
suggesting that deliberately killing
wolves is never necessary. She
points to a common myth that

most people
believe all
wolves

in the

pack are

of two-years in BC and a self-
identifying environmentalist,
agrees that it is not necessarily
a human’s job to control wolf
populations, but argues that if
humans can harvest a wolf in an
overpopulated pack and make
use of its’ hide and potentially
meat, without affecting the pack
in a negative way, then
perhaps it is not ethically,
nor theoretically
problematic. However,
he acknowledges gaps
in the current system
as to how hunters

“The Grey Wolf (Canis
lupus; hereafter wolf)
is a highly adaptable,
intelligent carnivore
that inhabits most of
British Columbia”

-Ministry of Environment
Government of British Columbia

breeding;

however,

that is not

the case, as

only the two alpha

wolves will breed. As she explains,
when there is not enough prey to
feed the pack, the wolves ostracize
certain members, and a lone wolf
only has about a 1/10 chance of
surviving. Black points out that the
population will go in five-seven
year cycles, and deems a wolf cull
to be ethically “ridiculous.” Black
also brings up that wolf anda
variety of prey, including deer,
moose, and caribou, have co-
existed for a long time, and says
that man is now using the wolf as a
scapegoat.

Markus Pollhammer, a new hunter

could really know exactly what
is going on in a timely fashion, in
regards to both wolf populations
and what other hunters are doing.
There is also very little done,
legally speaking,to monitor how
the animal is used after it has been
killed. Pollhammer points to the
provincial “Report All Poachers and
Polluters” program, but says that
much of it is based on the honour
system rather than solid policing,
and, after being reported to the
conservation officer, the officer
then has to go find proof of the
hunter misusing the animal he or
she killed. Generally, he reasons,
the monitoring of killing animals
is too loose to really know what is

11

going on.

Of course, wolves are not the

only species that shoulders

the consequences of human

misconduct. Another member

of the animal kingdom has also

been the bearer of much blame:

the pine beetle. By any standards,

the pine beetles’ effects on British

Columbia’s forest have been

absolutely tragic, both ecologically

and economically. However, the

pine beetle’s unexpected winter

survivals have often been claimed

to be due to the winters getting

warmer, which can be attributed

to climate change. Climate

change has been proven with

95% certainty to be man-made
by the “UN Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change’s fifth
assessment” which came out
in September 2013. In any case,
there is a potential pattern
here of people walking away
from their responsibilities
and putting them on another
species.

Lastly, many great thinkers and
psychologists from different
specialties have pointed out that
how we treat non-human living
beings reflects onto how we treat
each other, and what kind of people
we are. Gandhi once took it as far
as to say, “what we are doing
to the forests of the world is
but a mirror reflection of what
we are doing to ourselves and
to one another.” Shelley Black
says it is possible that we fear
wolves because of how similar they
are to us. Perhaps the violent and
sometimes barbaric ways we are
treating wolves is only one part of
a greater trend of the conscious
human separation from nature.
Perhaps part of dismantling this
myth is to shrink the space in
between nature and humans by
taking full responsibility in our
recovery plans, to modify our own
behaviour instead of the behaviour
of other species, and to be mindful
of the consequences to ecosystems
brought on by our actions. The
stance of killing certain species
to protect others is surely a
controversial, multi-faceted topic;
but could it be avoided altogether
with a new approach to how we
treat the planet?