Historical attitudes and images and the implications on carnivore survival. (Opinions).

Abstract

This paper examines how mythological images and historical attitudes emerge and influence our interactions with different predator species, such as the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), cougar (Puma concolor), lynx (Lynx canadensis), wolf (Canis lupus), coyote (Canis latrans), and raven (Corvus corax). The author will compare the relationship between humans and carnivores, and how attitudes and beliefs have impacted different predator species. Do people regard certain carnivores as more fierce, dangerous, or problematic ? Is there more animosity and disparate levels of hostility or tolerance toward the different carnivores? Have these attitudes influenced concepts and ethics applied to wildlife management? How is the value of predators measured, considered or applied? Can understanding the different perceptions help resolve complicated issues, such as reintroduction, critical habitat, depredation conflicts, animal damage control, and management? The author believes scientific knowledge is not enough to achieve acceptance of carnivores. The purpose of this inquiry will be to discover if knowledge and education can develop understanding and tolerance of all predators, and thus enhance the commitment to co-exist with carnivore species

Mythical images and historical attitudes may still influence human interactions with carnivores such as the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), cougar (Puma concolor), lynx (Lynx canadensis), wolf (Canis lupus), coyote (Canis latrans), and raven (Corvus corax). The earliest historic records, creation stories, and fables were examined. Notably, at the advent of agriculture, Akkadian literature delineates the split between humans and nature, and the god Ea predicts that from this time forward, nature will be hostile to man. He asserts that lion, wolf, famine and plague will not be removed from humankind's dilemmas, but provided "to rise up and cut the people low" (Gardner 1984). This division between wilderness and the tamed domestic lands that humans seek does seem to have taken place, and remains a current conflict among predators, wilderness advocates, and ranchers.

Historical attitudes and cultural beliefs have impacted many different predator species. From Viking bearskin wearers to the arrival of humans in the New World, most carnivores continued to meet the same fate. Most of the legends revolve around the fear of wilderness, the idea of good and bad animals, and the need to remove all that stands in the way of progress. Species with fang and claw that hunted the good prey (which humans wanted for themselves) are traditionally described as the bad animals. The predator is reduced to the status of marauder and thief, and hence subjected to extermination.

Do people regard certain carnivores as more fierce, dangerous, or problematic? Some species have been described with more vivid hostile imagery that did not reflect actual biological evidence of their threat to humans, but had more to do with deeply rooted bias and mythological symbolism.

The cougar is commonly described as the coward. Theodore Roosevelt described a cougar he had treed as "the big horse-killing cat, the destroyer of the deer, the lord of stealthy murder, facing his doom with a heart both craven and cruel" (Danz 1999; Worster 1977; Roosevelt 1913). The cougar is repeatedly described as a cunning, merciless, and sneaky cat. The portrayal is made with little concern that a trait like stealth is a necessary ability to survive as a cougar, and has little to do with intentions of mere cruelty for cruelty's sake. Predation is often perceived as murder, not as a pursuit of food.

The bear, however, is characterized more in terms of admiration, combining descriptions of its savageness with the animal's almost human dignity. Descriptions such as "unbelievable size of the brute" and "lordly intelligence" (Young 1980) serve as examples of the bear's more dignified status among the carnivores. The name Old Ephraim, taken from the Biblical patriarch of noble lineage, is honorably bestowed upon the bear.

Other cultures, such as the Native Americans, viewed bears as half human, for the bear walked the same trails, fished for the same salmon, dug for roots, harvested berries, seeds, and nuts, caught meat, and could stand upright like humans. While the grizzly bear was feared as dangerous, it was considered a powerful shaman of the animal world. The depiction of the bear is not infamous, though it was considered dangerous for humans to encounter. Keith Johnson, a master guide, actually admires the alleged viciousness of the bear, saying, "A grizz or a brown is a bear, but a black is a dog. They don't even belong in the same category. I don't have much respect for a black bear as a vicious animal" (Kaniut 1983).

Native Americans admired the perseverance and hunting prowess of the wolf. These traits were despised by wolf hunters who consistently describe the wolf as ruthless, treacherous, and a cruel demon that exists in spite of man's will. Myths also accuses the wolf of not only devouring human bodies, but also devouring the soul for the devil. The "yellow eyes as the lamps of the devil" is apparently still an image that persists (Berg unpublished manuscript). A Minnesota state legislator recently exclaimed, "wolves are serial killers" (McAuliffe 1999), and a sign held at hearings at declared, "Pedophiles and wolves kill children" (Sandstrom 1998)

The coyote is described as a tenacious varmint (the last of the outlaws), detested for its intelligence, and defined as crafty or the mythological Trickster. As prophesied for the wolf, fears are exaggerated about predators, and people proclaim that it is only a matter of time before a coyote is going to jump onto someone's deck, grab their child, and run off. (Interestingly, a proposed black bear hunt in New Jersey was canceled after wildlife organizations protested. But there was minimal outcry over the coyote hunt that was also proposed.) People see the bear as a cuddly animal worth protecting because of their teddy bear experience. Conversely people fear the wolf and coyote because of the negative childhood stories about these canines. Unfortunately the Teddy Bear image causes problems because people feel they can treat real black bears as the cute stuffed bear they have at home. This ultimately puts the people and bears in danger.

Mythical depiction has not spared any of these species. Even the lordly bears or monarchy of the big cats were considered killers in the way of progress. The value of a varmint has traditionally been calculated as being worthless. The historic, negative attitudes prevail; throughout history, humans have not progressed, learned from mistakes, improved methods, nor become enlightened on the value of predators. Unfortunately, predator programs and proposals of the year 2000 are not much improved from those of the past. Society seems to be in an era of rational compromise that may be headed in reverse.

Perhaps it has been forgotten that conservation evolved from the progressive political movement which valued nature, lands, trees, and wildlife as a commodity to be used for human economic success. The movement set forth the goals of more efficient management and maximum utilization of natural resources, not conservation or the preservation of biodiversity. Between 1901 and 1909, as the progressive ideology developed, it soon included an extensive program designed to exterminate predators and make America safe from their thieving presence. The rescue of nature from these killers would no longer be carried out just by pioneers, ranchers, and lone wolf hunters. The new Bureau of the Biological Survey (BBS), as part of the Department of Agriculture, would now reinforce the ferocity against predators. Thus, a major focus of conservation in the early years was the well-funded, staunch effort to deliberately eradicate predators. Today, this practical technique of killing any creature that does not suit humans has been renamed flexible management.

It is important to remember that the tremendous loss of our nation's predators was not an accidental byproduct of progress, but a well-organized extermination. The BBS was also a center for state bounty information, which published pamphlets on the habits of predators, and bulletins about the best trapping scents and poisons with which to kill the animals. In 1915, Congress appropriated $125,000 directly to fund this war on predators. This amount kept increasing; thus in 1950, $1,098,00 was allocated, and by 1970, $3,267,000 (Advisory Committee on Predator Control 1972). The program was defined by Jenks Cameron of the BBS as "suppressive warfare against undesirable, injurious wildlife," and "the protection and encouragement of wildlife in its desirable and beneficial forms" (Worster 1977).

In these modern times, most of us have thought that the idea of poison, especially 1080, would not loom again over wildlife, or that bounties--repeatedly proven to be ineffective, fraudulent, and wasteful --would not be promoted. However, Wyoming recently proposed a $1000 bounty, fortunately vetoed by the governor. But in Minnesota, Governor Jesse Ventura just signed a law that includes a $150 bounty, now called a predator payment. The new management law also allows discretionary killing by ranchers.

People are familiar with legislators' negative views on predators, but what about the modern scientists? Have their data redefined the value of the varmint by its ecological place in the ecosystem? It is quite disappointing to see recent scientific papers calculating monetary formulae to promote the view that it is cost efficient to only maintain a population of 1400 wolves in the wilderness and semi-wilderness of Minnesota (e.g., Mech 1998). The average annual cost, according to these calculations, would be $86 per wolf of 1438 wolves living primarily in the wilderness, and an additional $197 per wolf outside the designated area (surplus animals, dismissed as unnecessary extras).

Unfortunately, this study wrongly assumed the cost of the compensation program were payments made to verified wolf depredation cases only. In fact, the compensation granted by state conservation officers is not based on scientific verification, and often conflicts with the Federal examination findings. Considerable payments were made to cases that were not wolf-related or verified, and some were documented by the Federal program as outright fraud.

The thesis also wrongly assumes that most or all wolves outside of the designated area contribute to depredation. Current wolf plans appear to be determined by how many wolves humans can kill and get away with, rather then how few wolves create problems and need to be removed. The study wrongly excludes the savings that could occur with good, preventative husbandry methods, set in place with non-lethal advancements.

However, is the only measure of their existence based on a bargain price value system? E.O. Wilson says it is prudent "to judge every scrap of biodiversity as priceless" (Wilson 1992). What is the real cost if wolves are not allowed to exist?

It is most distressing that a biologist should calculate the economic value of wolves, rather than focusing on their ecological value, by saying that "wolves inhabiting wilderness cost little to society" (Wilson 1992). Wilson's words seem to fit this sad situation: "If a price can be put on something, that something can be devalued, sold and discarded" (Wilson 1992).

The study ponders an even more disturbing premise by noting that trapping and hunting would not be efficient methods of wolf control. The following question is raised: Without using poison or substantial financial incentives, would the Minnesota wolf population be controllable in 2005? It is proposed that the sooner controls begin, the easier and less costly it will be.

Sadly, society seems to have entered a monumental era derived from the philosophy of Descartes. Apparently, all nonhuman animals are machines, and nature (as a giant mathematical mechanism) is to be measured, counted, computerized, and placed on a GIS map, with a statistical and monetary formula to determine how many specimens are profitable and thus allowed to survive. It seems that humans have yet to find what Aldo Leopold called ecological conscience (Leopold 1949). As long as predator control is based on the bullet as the cheapest method, there will be no earnest attempt to initiate preventative, non-lethal, and humane management programs.

Fear is a force still working against predators. Although some carnivores are capable of attacking people, these are rare encounters. Education has to include not only how to avoid predator encounters, but also teaching a willingness to give them space. It has been clearly demonstrated that modern technologies that decimate nature are adequate. Society needs to strive and find ways for living successfully in association with our native fauna and flora. Do people want wilderness, or Disney areas with just enough species to entertain from a safe distance? Is a wilderness experience a mob howling adventure? Do carnivores need to fit into approved behaviors? Are people willing to not intrude some habitats, or at least enter with knowledge and respect? Do carnivores have an intrinsic right to exist without directly helping humanity?

The majority of Americans support protection of large predators and restoration of a diverse, natural ecosystem. They do not support the abuse and over-utilization of public lands, nor the destruction of wild animals, wild lands, and natural resources for private interest groups. Humans have a responsibility to protect other species, even if it is inconvenient. Species should not be removed from protection for short term political favors to special interest groups. The stakeholders of our lands have been narrowly defined as consumptive users for too long. More importantly, future generations and wild creatures are the most vulnerable to today's actions. What legacy will society leave for future generations?

Carnivore recovery should be based on ecological principles, not political pandering. Recovery must ensure the long-term survival of the species, and also restore functional ecosystems that will benefit the full range of wildlife and human communities that depend on them.

Coexistence with large predators requires tolerance and education. The future of carnivores is still threatened by hostile attitudes. Wild carnivores are a part of American culture and heritage; their preservation cannot be neglected. Responsible stewards need to be on a path of coexistence, not returning to the sanctioned destruction of America's predators.

Literature cited

Advisory Committee on Predator Control. 1972. 1971 Predator control report to the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of the Interior. Institute for Environmental Quality and United States Department of the Interior University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Berg, K. 1983. Wolves and Humans History. Unpublished manuscript.

Berg, C. 1999 Minnesota Senate wolf Hearings, St Paul. Minnesota

Danz, H.P. 1999. Cougar. Swallow Press/ Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio.

Gardner, J. and J. Maier. 1984. Gilgamesh. Alfred Knopf, New York.

Kaniut, L. 1983. Alaska BEAR Tales. Alaska Northwest Books, Anchorage, Alaska.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, New York.

McAuliffe, B. 1999. Wolf bill may be dead. Minneapolis Star Tribune, April 15. Minneapolis, MN.

Mech, L.D. 1998. Estimated costs of maintaining a recovered wolf population in agricultural regions of Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(4):817-822.

Roosevelt, T. 1913. A cougar hunt on the rim of the Grand Canyon. Outlook 105: 259-266.

Wilson, E.O. 1992. Diversity of Life. Belknap/Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Worster, D. 1977. Nature's Economy. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.

Young, F.M. 1980. Encounters of Lewis and Clark to Modern Times: Man Meets Grizzly. Houghton Mifflin Publishers, Boston.

Karlyn Atkinson Berg
Wolf Consultant, Humane Society of the United States, 44781 Bittner
Point Road, Bovey, MN 55709; [phone]; [e-mail]