As a kid growing up, I always thought the idea of managinig wildlife was a good idea. Now I really understand what the “management” in “Wildlife Management” really means. In this blog entry, we’ll specifically look at Idaho Fish & Game Wolf Management.
According to Idaho Fish & Game’s website:
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has proposed asking the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for permission to reduce the wolf population by up to 43 wolves or about 75 percent in the Lolo elk management zone of the Clearwater Region. Fish and Game biologists say wolf predation is a significant contributor to the decline of elk numbers in the Lolo zone and may be preventing population recovery. The proposal is made under the revised 10(j) rule of the Endangered Species Act, which took effect in February 2005, and allows removal of wolves having an unacceptable effect on elk and deer populations.
Now let’s look at the word “management”, from dictionary.com:
man·age
v. man·aged, man·ag·ing, man·ag·es
v. tr.1. To direct or control the use of; handle: manage a complex machine tool.
2.
1. To exert control over: “Managing the news… is the oldest game in town” (James Reston). “A major crisis to be managed loomed on the horizon” (Time).
2. To make submissive to one’s authority, discipline, or persuasion.
3. To direct the affairs or interests of: manage a company; an agency that manages performers. See Synonyms at conduct.
4. To succeed in accomplishing or achieving, especially with difficulty; contrive or arrange: managed to get a promotion.v. intr.
1. To direct or conduct business affairs.
2. To continue to get along; carry on: learning how to manage on my own.
Okay, so it looks like the word deals with exerting control, and carrying out business. But wait, the Idaho Fish & Game are concerned about the livelihood of the Elk right? Take a moment and go to their website if you want, and you’ll see that they are really concerned about the Elk population.
here’s a chart they provide to show how bad wolves are for the Elk:
and here’s another that shows how well off the wolves have it:
Hey, wait a minute, does that chart say “Removal objective”? You see, by “removal objective”, they really mean “killing objective”. It’s true, because that’s what they’re planning on doing. They clearly state that that’s what they’re going to do so I had to wonder why they feel the need to candy-coat it using a cute bar graph. Oh, could it be that maybe they’re not the animal lover’s you’d think that a Fish & Wildlife agency would be?
A little while ago I started to look to see how the dwindling Elk population was doing in Idaho, and I found this:
If you love elk hunting then we have the hunting trip for you! There is no better area for elk hunting than the Bitterroot Mountains of Idaho and Clearwater National Park.
Keep in mind, this is the same Clearwater that the IF&G are considering killing wolves over in order to keep the Elk population at a decent level. Then I realized, it’s not called Idaho Fish and Wildlife (although there is a non-profit organization with that name, it is not related to the State agency), it is the Idaho Fish & GAME. And animals are only “game” when they’re hunted, which is really only a game for one of the parties involved.
Now, hunting only really bothers me when people use the unfair traps and high-tech rifles. What really irks me here is state santioned mass killing of animals that are indigenous to this country. And while the IF&G claim that its to protect the Elk, they’re really only protecting the Elk so that they can make money off of killing those same Elk. It’s game management in its truest form: managing animals as if they were a business, a commodity one had the right to excert control over.
In Boise Idaho, at a hearing concerning IF&G’s wolf-killing proposal, Nate Helm, executive director for Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, said the following:
Wolves, like all animals, should be managed. No one gets a free ride.
What? Is this guy for real? Did he really mean all animals, which would include humans? And since when do we consider animals living in the wild recieving a “free ride”? Do I hear the first hint at charging wild animals for rent?
Here’s more about Elk from an Elk hunting site:
At the turn of the century, commercial game hunters, hired riflemen and subsistence hunters had killed off most of the elk in the west. In1910, the U.S. Forest Service estimated that fewer than 1,000 elk remained in Colorado. The winters of 1897, 1909, 1911 and 1917, all coinciding with the loss of their traditional wintering grounds to cattle ranching, were also very tough on them.
So, who is actually to blame for dwindling populations of either Elk or Wolves…could it be…humans?
However, on the other hand, that and many other similar agencies do protect and preserve and lobby for the environment. I know it sounds ironic, but sometimes you have to choose the lesser of 2 evils.
Comment by Uncle Boodaddy — February 23, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
I really like this entry. I thnk that the discussion of the term “management” is particularly thoughtful. I hate to pull out Foucault, but he really speaks to this especially his discussions of the panopticon. We are, as humans, also being managed. There are many examples. One such example being the NYPD’s desperate attempts to manage CRITCAL MASS rides…
Comment by Johnny Palmetto — February 23, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
I’m not sure what you mean, Uncle Boodaddy. The point I really wanted to get across was that there exist institutions in the state whose purpose is ellusive, and whose names sound like something that they’re not. The problem doesn’t lie in the wolves in this example, its the way we live. There are ways that humans can live without decimating the animal population. So the fish and game is a state agency that acts on economic factors disregarding the needs of wildlife. One of its supposed roles is to manage wildlife, which only means to manage it in terms of economic interest for the state. Maybe everyone already knows this, but the more I find out about things like this, the more I get angry. Like Idaho Fish and Game, another agency I always thought beneficial to our environment is the National Forest Agency or whatever its called. One of the top state agency’s dealing with our nation’s forests, don’t really preserve or conserve, but decide which forests will be sold off to logging companies and for how much. I don’t know too much about it at the moment, but it is one thing I’m planning on looking into.
But Johnny’s right, the state “Manages” us as citizens. That’s what nation-states do, and that’s what they’ve always done. Once citizens begin acting in a way that is not economically beneficial for whoever is in power of the nation-state, that’s when criminalization occurs, that’s when state repression is sanctioned. but that’s a whole other story…
Comment by Lucy — February 23, 2006 @ 7:14 pm
It was a little off your subject, but I was just stating that a lot of those agencies do a lot for the environment, but at the same time do stuff like kill off Wolfs and thin out deer, etc. Not only state agencies, but private entities also. For example, Ducks Unlimited and its members do a lot to preserve wetlands, but at the same time are hunting the ducks they are preserving them for. Is it good or is it bad? Anyway, I was just adding to the subject overall.
Comment by Uncle Boodaddy — February 23, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
Oh now I get it. Yeah, what if all solidarity groups and charities, and think-tanks, all together ended up cancelling each other out to zero. That would certainly be a lot of work for nuttin’.
Comment by Lucy — February 24, 2006 @ 12:49 am