Reboot Alberta

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Is Alberta Suspending the Poisoning Wolves Just Because it Looks Bad?


The Canwest story is not all good news. It says” “Provincial officials argue that wolves are the biggest threat to caribou populations and will continue to shoot the predators from helicopters in the Little Smokey caribou range, about 40 kilometres north of Hinton. But, they say, the three-year practice of laying bait laced with strychnine to kill wolves has been put on hold. Killing wolves is part of the province's plan to help the caribou population rebound.” (Emphasis added)

Suspending poisoning wolves is a step in the right direction but the disturbing context around why this “issue” is being handled the way it is seems very short-sighted, shallow and narrow. It seems top me the justification for the suspension is based on issue management more than concerns for species at risk.

The Canwest new story says “…a spokesman for the Sustainable Resource Development, said Minister Ted Morton wants more extensive research done to address ‘public concerns and misconceptions.’ ‘Our objective here is to make sure the minister has all the information he needs and to feel comfortable in dealing with any of the public's concerns about how we manage wildlife….’"

Is our government therefore suspending wolf poisoning mostly because it looks bad? Maybe I am just suffering from misconception. Perhaps I need to be better educated about why we must correct our first mistake of not preserving caribou habitat by making more mistakes. We presume we can control nature by imposing ourselves even more on nature’s balance. That way poisoning wolves is now a justifiable remediation for our first folly. Is that the misconception I am suffering from?

Speaking of “misconceptions,” wolves are a natural predator for caribou populations and therefore a “threat” by definition? They are hardly the “biggest threat” to caribou populations rebounding, as is claimed in the news story. Man deserves that credit don’t you think? Especially given the way we have fragmented the forest and intruded on wildlife habitat in our ever accelerating single-minded quest in pursuit of GDP measured “growth and progress.”

It seems to be we may do less harm by doing fewer and more intelligent habitat interventions in the first place. We should spend more time and resources fixing up the messes we have already made by actively reclaiming old seismic lines, and unnecessary old road to help restore wildlife habitat. Maybe we should also spend more time up front on being more enlightened and sensitive to the impact we have on other species when we tear up their terrain in the name of progress.

Or should we just continue to say “screw it” – and justify killing the bad wolves that we deem are the real culprits endangering the caribou. To every complex and intricate problem there is always a simple answer that is WRONG.

This all reminds me of the children’s song about the old lady who swallowed a fly and then swallowed a spider to catch the fly, then a frog to catch the spider. Do you remember it? It ends with “I guess she’ll die.” When will we ever learn?

5 comments:

  1. Anonymous9:18 pm

    This is a really good post, Ken.

    The issue about correcting public misconceptions rather than addressing real issues sure sounds a lot like Rob Renner's new mandate, too. The problem isn't ecological devestation, it's the public knowledge of the devastation...enter the new PR campaign.

    No comment on the Hancock story?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous11:04 pm

    Personally, I say "screw it". I want to maintain my lifestyle. I really don't care about caribou - does that make me a bad person? However, if you want to do something positive, all the power to ya.

    Ted Morton seems to be a competent minister and he will do a lot of thorough research on the issue and come to the right policy (without worrying too much about the political ramifications).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Regardless of Anon @11:04 pm attitude I see the GOA has extended the ban on grizzley bear hunting because they realy don't know how many animals we hstill ahve and what their health status is.

    Dr. Morton as the Minister responsible is proceeding incrementally and cautiously on wildlife issues. But he is moving in the right direction and in the right way. He is not doing more harm than good and indiciations are is that he gets it.

    The Land Use Framework process he is heading up will no doubt hear some feedback on habitat and reclamation concerns.

    That will be an opportunity for Dr. Morton to put some real muscle behind habitat concerns and not just negotiate a heirarchy of human uses. It is much more intricate an issue than that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9:59 am

    Excellent post, Ken. I share ch's concern that Alberta is developing an approach, with respect to environment, of shooting the messenger. Black marks on Alberta's environmental record - and there are a lot of them - are seen as occasions to ratchet up positive spin, rather than get down to the business of addressing the substantive problems.

    Because this approach is so transparent and shallow, it discredits the real progress which might be made through such initiatives as the Land Use Framework. The rest of the government could take a page out of the book of the LUF and engage in the broad open consultations on environment which that process has manifested. The we might actually start to build a consensus on how to clean up our dirty oil problem, not just our image.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous11:22 am

    The following is a rant/ strip off anon. at 11:04.... from one anon to another!

    Anon at 11:04pm "I want to maintain my lifestyle" attitude is one that requires a deep breath.

    If you want to maintain your lifestyle you better start getting a bit of GREEN going on in that life of yours... but be careful what you choose.

    Natural systems, which are the base of all economic systems, require abundance and resilency.... our human management systems, most notably our market systems, are largely based on scarcity.

    This creates conditions where there are two major (foundational) pieces of work challenging us 1. is how to salvage some resiliency in our natural systems, to allow for future abundance...(= potential for the continuation of economic or markets systems) AND 2. is how to meet the challenges of the interface between our human management systems and natural systems so that on the balance we ALL stay healthy.

    It is the old idea of "don't piss off mother nature" (not sure who said it first)... 'cause anon 11:04 mother nature kicking back will really interfer with your lifestyle.

    Hey anon think about this for a moment healthy caribou= healthy YOU; heathly wolves= healthy YOU... how that is achieved/ or not is what I think Ken is getting at.

    Now for Ken. Yes, it may have been better to not have made so many messes... BUT WE HAVE... the answer is not to stop making messes or to "protect" what we have left. that = slow death ... we need to reestablish connections, pathways etc. reconnections will allow a re-equlibrum that is acceptable to support human life + human health (said differently ... to support Anon. 11:04's lifestyle)

    SOOO if the gov't $$$ on media are being spent to spin well that is old school political stuff...ICK

    if the $$$ are being spent on awareness/ social marketing and other approaches that have successfully been used (Harvard campus comes to top of mind... yes I know they are a group of people that are REALLY INTO depravation as a part of lifestyle NOT!!!)... well maybe that is worth a try I am all for helping Anon 11:04 take a bit of free market personal responsibility for the continuation of his/her lifestyle...

    So yes we need to do different things regarding nature...but to do those things differently I think we need Anon. 11:04 to start to get it. If that takes some gov't media money... well.... that is the personal responsibility vs. gov't control... and personal responsibility is more my thing...

    Oh be sure to ask me about what happened when a bunch of Anon. 11:04's, for their lifestyle reasons, decided to PROTECT cute wildlife and running trails.....

    letting off steam is sooo good, better than an other coffee (is that fair trade?)
    greengirl

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments are discouraged. If you have something to say, the rest of us have to know who you are