“When Protection Vanishes”

Editorial: Published in The New York Times on 05 April 2008.

At midnight on March 28, the gray wolves in Wyoming slipped out of the protection of the Endangered Species Act and became other kinds of creatures: trophy game animals to be hunted in the state’s northwest corner and predators to be shot on sight elsewhere.

The nature of the wolf didn’t change, only the restraints imposed on humans. In the next three days, three wolves were killed, two by hunters and one by a rancher, all in the predator zone where the only restriction is the obligation to report a kill within 10 days. Environmental groups plan to sue to reverse the lifting of these protections, but they are barred from doing so for 30 days — plenty of time for more wolves to die.

It is tempting to adduce an ancestral hostility between man and wolf. But this is a problem in economics. Wolves kill a small number of livestock, and compensating ranchers’ losses is a price worth paying. What this is really about is a competition between two top predators — man and wolf — for elk. Elk-hunting generates revenue, and wolves cannot pay for the elk they take.

Gray wolves in the Rocky Mountains were eradicated in the early 20th century, so it is easy to think of them as a special case. They were reintroduced by humans — a legally mandated intervention — and they will be killed by humans because of another legal intervention. Their survival is wholly a matter of our intent. And yet you might say the same thing about every other species, every other ecosystem on this planet.

The more we think about it, the more we believe the only nature that matters anymore is human nature. This is not a happy thought. The answer to every important environmental question ultimately depends on human self-restraint. The simple ethical fact seems to be that humans cannot restrain themselves, not without laws and incentives that are only as solid as our weakest intentions. The laws change, and overnight all that good work is threatened by gun smoke.