Op-Ed: Opposites Attract Feeding the News Cycle

There’s nothing new about extremists running the news cycles. It’s been happening for centuries. These extremists live on the fringes of society as part of a group that is not very powerful or is more extreme than the leading group and does not include many of its members. The news cycles about gray wolves are prime examples of these fringe groups that grab the most dramatic headlines. Never mind if it is accurate or not. These headlines are all about evoking fear. “The wolves are eating all the deer.” News cycles tell that Deer harvest in Northern Wisconsin is currently behind by about 30% in 2023. Are the wolves to blame for the decline? Are the wolves eating all the deer, or are there other factors causing the decline? Could a decline in hunting license sales be the cause?
“We have seen the total days of effort of gun deer hunting in the northern forest decline by about 40% since the turn of the century.” More baby boomers are retiring their rifles, and fewer younger people are interested in hunting, causing an overall decline in the number of hunters, said Jeff Pritzl, a DNR deer program specialist.

These fringe hunters and politicians demand a population cap of 350 wolves and have legislation on the governor’s office because of unsubstantiated claims that wolves are harming White-tailed deer and livestock farmers. Again, these fringe groups grab the most dramatic headlines, pulling rabbits out of their caps.

They are not the only extremists running the news cycles. There’s the other side of the coin. On the other side of the coin, groups that are not very powerful or more extreme than the leading pro-wolf recovery groups do not include many of their members. On Friends of the Wisconsin Wolf and Wildlife, Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance blog, January 9, 2024, entitled A Clash of Values: Exploring the Perspective of Environmentalists vs. Hunters claims, they stated that there’s a running list of dirty names the “other side” has branded us with. It’s evident from that statement they are claiming to be victimized by the other side and looking for sensationalism rather than factual news. By that, they feed the news cycle. Even so, they filed a lawsuit against the Department of Natural Resources and The Natural Resources Board:
“In keeping with its pattern of elevating certain viewpoints over others in the wolf planning process, DNR and NRB held unlawful, secret meetings that clearly influenced changes to the final wolf management plan and permanent rules, rendering those plans and rules illegal. Great Lakes Wildlife Alliance (GLWA) asked the court to strike down the entire set of new policies, rules, and regulations and deliver a stern rebuke to the DNR and NRB for violating state statutes and their own policies and regulations.”

Many wolf advocates who were overwhelmingly in approval of the DNR’s Wolf Management Plan, which was unanimously endorsed by the NRB, are scratching their heads in disbelief that a lawsuit was brought against the plan by pro-wolf advocates. Time will tell how it turns out in the court. What will happen if the suit wins? After all, GLWA asked the court to strike down the entire set of new policies, rules, and regulations. What happens if Representative Tom Tiffany, who has vowed to remove wolves from the ESA, gets his wish? Where does that leave Wisconsin’s wolf without a current plan? Head-Shaking.

Please understand me: Discussing their organization’s stance on the Wolf Management Plan’s lawsuit doesn’t mean I support all of the components in the Wolf Management Plan that the NRB unanimously approved on October 25, 2023. Nor does it mean that I agree with their organization’s lawsuit against the DNR and the NRB. Their organization doesn’t represent my or all wolf advocates’ interests. It is evident to me that fringe elements are running the news cycles on both sides of the coin, and this is a prime example of grabbing the most dramatic headlines to fuel thier cause.

It’s baffling because most wolf advocates wanted the wolf population cap removed from the plan and replaced with an adaptive plan. The DNR did just that.

Randy Johnson, the Department of Natural Resources large carnivore specialist, told the state Senate’s sporting heritage committee that a lack of a hard limit gives the agency more flexibility to manage the species, allows local packs to fluctuate, and gives the population a better chance at maintaining wolf abundance for years to come.

“The plan recommends adjusting management actions in response to observed real-world conditions,” Johnson said.

Seems like a plan, but is that all there is to it? Yes, it is adaptive, but it still allows for hunting wolves. Which most advocates, myself included, and the tribes are against. The plan does contain areas that address wolf hunts. Sadly.

The DNR’s revised plan includes six updated wolf management zones that would set harvest quotas to maintain, grow, or decrease wolves within those zones when the wolf isn’t under federal protection. The plan also retains a proposal to reduce the time to register wolf kills from 24 hours to eight hours after harvest and issue zone-specific tags. The DNR would also add ways to address local concerns, including harvesting wolves near tribes’ reservations and focusing hunts in areas with problem wolves.

The controversial use of dogs in wolf hunts is still in the plan because of state law, and dog training is permitted during wolf hunting seasons. The law 2011 Act 169 ties the DNR’s hands. That’s a genuine concern for wolf recovery in Wisconsin.

Extremists live on the fringes of society as part of a group that is not very powerful or is more extreme than the leading group and does not include many of its members. The news cycles about gray wolves are prime examples of these fringe hunting and wolf advocacy that grab the most dramatic headlines, proving opposites do attract.

Is there a middle ground? Yes. They are not as loud.

Meanwhile, I don’t believe the anti-wolf argument that all the people living in wolf territory want them gone or hunted down to a population of 350.

Based on my experience, not everyone in wolf country hates & fears wolves. I track wolves in Douglas County, Wisconsin. 2004, I needed a plot map for tracking and went to the Douglas County forestry office to purchase one. While standing by the office counter, waiting for someone to wait on me, I saw several pictures of wolf puppies hanging above the counter. Clearly, those pictures show some appreciation wolves are back on the landscape.

What do I believe? My views evolved in my two-decade-long work as a volunteer wolf tracker, and I have interviewed those who have helped in wolf recoveries, such as scientists, ethical hunters, and tribal members. They told me stories of the wolves they had encountered and how they learned from them. Wolves are wild beings that deserve our respect. They have a place; we should learn from the Annishanabe people who have coexisted with them for centuries. I lean toward the same view as the Ojibwe’s Wolf plans because it is a Relationship Plan we all strive to achieve.

In conclusion, not all hunters want the wolf population capped at 350. Should we unquestioningly agree with all wolf advocate groups without checking facts? Both of these sides run nonprofits and need followers to fuel the donations, which explains why they need to run the news cycles. It’s been happening for centuries.

It’s never a good sign when extremism becomes the norm. ~Ari Melber