Annual Fundraising Appeal

The US Geological Survey recorded a minor earthquake this morning with its epicenter near Wasilla, Alaska, the probable result of Sarah Palin opening her mail box to find the latest issue of CounterPunch magazine we sent her. A few moments later she Instagrammed this startling comment…

Ayers

The lunatic Right certainly has plenty of problems. We’ve made it our business to not only expose these absurdities, but to challenge them directly. With another election cycle gaining steam, more rhetoric and vitriol will be directed at progressive issues. More hatred will be spewed at minorities, women, gays and the poor. There will be calls for more fracking and war. We won’t back down like the Democrats. We’ll continue to publish fact-based critiques and investigative reports on the shenanigans and evil of the Radical Right. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.

Day10

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
button-store2_19

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Delisting is a Recipe for Conflict Open Season on Wolves

Open Season on Wolves

by GEORGE WUERNTHER

Last week the wolf was delisted under the Endangered Species Act and state wildlife agencies were permitted to take over wolf management. Most state wildlife agencies profess a desire to minimize human-wolf conflicts. Yet their management plans are, without exception, guaranteed to create greater conflicts.

All state wildlife agencies are guilty of conveniently ignoring the socio-biological relationship of predators like the wolf which makes any indiscriminate killing of animals counter productive. Just as a hundred years of coyote persecution has failed to reduce rancher/coyote conflicts, so called wolf "management" by the states will have the same effect.

Indiscriminate killing of predators–and hunting by sportsmen and/or predator control by wildlife services is indiscriminate–disrupts wolf social relationships within packs, relations with other packs, as well as relations with other predators. Even if hunting/predator control worked–which it doesn’t–it is a blunt tool at best for resolving wolf-human conflicts.

First a hunted/persecuted population tends to have more fragmented smaller packs–usually consisting of two adults plus pups. Collectively 2-3 packs of this social organization may occupy the same territory as one pack with intact social organization that may have 3-6 adults. So instead of one wolf pack occupying X amount of territory, you get three with the same number of adults, but many more pups to feed. Just the odds that any pack will attack livestock goes up tremendously when you have more packs, so two or three different packs are far more likely to attack livestock than one pack.

Furthermore, when the wolf population becomes skewed towards younger animals, they breed earlier, and produce more pups. Young rapidly growing pups, just like my own teenagers, eat a lot of food. If you have a pack that consists of two adults with 5-8 pups, they need more food per capita than a pack with 4-5 adults and 2-5 pups (which is what you are more likely to get with wolves living at near capacity and not suffering continual persecution). Consequently even if the "total" number of wolves is the same, the predation effect is greater. Packs composed primarily of young animals are more likely to require more elk and deer–even if they resist the temptation to kill livestock. Raising a young family requires more food for sustaining a pack than a more socially stable pack with older pack members–not too much different than from us humans.

Finally hunting and persecution of wolves can often lead to higher numbers of other predators like bears and lions. For instance, in Yellowstone, bears take more elk calves than wolves. In other places, lions may benefit from persecution of wolves with increased numbers, and of course higher predation on elk and deer.

The unfortunate fact is that all three states are managing wolves using 19th Century attitudes and science, and ignoring 21st Century socio-ecological insights. Hunting of predators–other than the surgical removal of an occasional offending animal–is a process for conflict.

It is a self full-filling process where by wolf-killing begets a demand for even more wolf-killing in a never ending cycle that ultimately satisfies no one. In the end everyone loses. Ranchers lose by suffering more predator losses than necessary. Hunters lose in two ways–bad press for hunters by killing an animal that a majority of people do not want shot, and secondarily by increasing the predation on elk and deer over and above what would otherwise occur. Finally, wolves lose by garnering a bad reputation they don’t deserve.

George Wuerthner is an ecologist, writer and photographer with 34 published books, including Wild Fire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy and Montana, Magnificent Wilderness and, most recently, Thrillcraft: the Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation.