Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control

Abstract

A basic tool of scholarly ethics is argument analysis—the process of evaluating the soundness of the premises and the validity of arguments that underlie a particular ethical claim. We apply that technique to the controversial
concern about the appropriateness of hunting wolves. Advocates of wolf hunting offer a variety of reasons that it is appropriate. We inspect the quality of these reasons using the principles of argument analysis. Our application of this technique indicates that wolf hunting in the coterminous United States is inappropriate. A value of argument analysis for public discourse is its transparency. If we have misapplied the principles of argument analysis, critics will readily be able to identify our error. While this particular application of argument analysis is contingent on details particular to wolves and the desire to hunt them, this essay has the addition value of illustrating one of the basic tools used in scholarly ethics.

Full text

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 1 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxford Uni versity Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidu al user may pri nt out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Oxford University Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 July 2014
Subject: PoliticalScie nce,Co mparativePolitics, PoliticalTheory
OnlinePublication Date: Jul
2014
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199927142.013.007
WolfHuntingandtheEthicsofPredatorControl
JohnVucetichandMichaelP.Nelson
OxfordHandbooksOnline
AbstractandKeywords
Abasictoolofscholarlyethicsisargumentanalysis—theprocessofevaluatingthesoundnessofthepremisesand
thevalidityofargumentsthatunderlieaparticularethic alclaim.Weapplythattechniquetothecontroversial
conc ernabouttheappropriatenessofhuntingwolves.Advoc atesofwolfhuntingofferavarietyofreasonsthatitis
appropriate.Weinspectthequalityofthesereasonsusingtheprinciplesofargumentanalysis.Ourapplic ationof
thistechniqueindicatesthatwolfhuntinginthecoterminousUnitedStatesisinappropriate.Avalueofargument
analysisforpublicdiscourseisitstransparency.Ifwehavemisappliedtheprinciplesofargumentanalysis,critics
willreadilybeabletoidentifyourerror.Whilethispartic ularapplicationofargumentanalysisiscontingenton
detailsparticulartowolvesandthedesiretohuntthem,thisessayhastheadditionvalueofillustratingoneofthe
basictoolsusedinsc holarlyethics.
Keywor ds:ani malwelfare, con servation, criticalth ink ing,env ironmentalethics,h un tin g,wolves
Introduction
Theethicsofhuntingarecomplicated.Evenardentsupportersofhuntingdisagreeamongthemselves,for
example,overtheappropriatenessofhuntingmethodsthatmaximiz ethepossibilityofacleankill(tominimize
suffering)andtheappropriatenessofmethodsthatemphasizefairchase. Amorebasicethicalconcernis,Under
whatc onditionsishuntingappropriate?Thatquestionrests,inturn,onanevenmorebasicquestion,Whatcounts
asanadequatereasontokillasentientc reature?Somethoughtfulpeoplebelievethathuntingisgenerallywrong
forthesamereasonseatingmeatiswrong.Otherthoughtfulpeoplebelievethathuntingismorallyacceptable,
evenvirtuous,foranyonewhocanreasonablyconcludethateatingmeatismorallyacceptable. These
perspectivesofferasenseoftheissuesconcerningtheethicsofhuntingsuchspec iesasdeerandelkwhenthe
hunter,herfamily,andherfriendswilleattheanimalbeinghunted.
Inthischapter,wefocusonthedesireofsomehumanstohuntavarietyofpredatorswhosefleshhumansdonot
eat—speciessuchasc oyotes,cougars,lynx,tigers,lions,cormorants,seals,andwolves. Theconsiderations
thatariseinaddressingsuchconcernsvarygreatlywithc ontext,andinc ludethepartic ularspeciesofpredatorto
behuntedandthereasonsforwantingtodoso.Assuch,wefocusourassessmentonthedesiretohuntwolvesin
theconterminousUnitedStates.Withoutsuchafocus,anassessmentoftheethic sofhuntingpredatorsislimitedto
generalitiesthatoverlookcriticalspecificitiesthatplayalargeroleinunderstandingtheappropriatenessofhunting
apredator.Nevertheless,fromadetailedandfocusedassessmentsuchasthatofferedhere,onecanreadily
antic ipatetheassessmentofotherspecificcases.
Weapproachthisassessmentfromtheperspectiveofappliedethicsasanac ademicdiscipline.Theaimofapplied
ethicsis,inlargepart,tounderstandthereasonsweoughttobehaveonewayoranother.Aparticularlypowerful
toolforsuchunderstandinginvolvestheanalyzingofethicalarguments.Anethicalargumentisonewhose
conc lusioncanbeexpressedintheformsWeshould…orWeshouldnot….Anethic alargument,likeanykindof
argument,issoundandvalidwhenallitspremisesaretrueorappropriateandwhenitcontainsnomistaken
1
2
3
4
5

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 2 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxfor d U niversity Press, 2014. All Rig hts
Reserved. Und er the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidual user may pri nt out a PDF of a si ngl e chapter of a title i n Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscr iber: Oxfor d U niversity Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 Jul y 2014
inferences. Wethereforedescribeandassessargumentsthatarecommonlyinvokedindiscussionsaboutwolf
hunting.
Wolves
PriortothearrivalofEuropeans,wolveslivedthroughoutmostofwhatisnowthec onterminousUnitedStates.That
populationofwolveslikelycomprisedapproximatelyahalfmillionindividuals. Butbythemid-twentiethcentury,
wolvesintheconterminousUnitedStateshadbeenexterminated,exc eptforafewdozenwholivedinnorthern
Minnesota.Wolveswereexterminatedbecausetoomanyhumanshatedthem.Thishatredwasrelatedtowolves’
killingoflivestockandcompetingwithhumansfordeer,elk,andmoose,anditfueledandwasfueledby
exaggeratedclaimsaboutwolves’capac ityforkillingandfalsebeliefsaboutthethreattheyposetohumans.
Beginningin1973,wolvescameundertheprotectionoftheEndangeredSpeciesAct.By2012,approximately5000
wolvesinhabitedtheconterminousUnitedStates,aremarkableimprovementcomparedtotheirnumbersin1950,
butalsohardlyworthnotingcomparedtotheirnumbersbeforehumansbegantheirattemptedgenocideofwolves.
Today,mostwolvesliveintwopopulations,oneinthewesternGreatLakesarea(northernMinnesota,northern
Wisconsin,andUpperMic higan)andtheotherintheNorthernRockyMountainarea(westernMontana,western
Wyoming,andnorthernIdaho).Butin2012,wolveswerealsoremovedfromthelistofUSendangeredspecies,
exceptfortheMexicanwolfsubspecies(Canislupusbaileyi),representedinthewildbyapopulationoffewerthan
60wolveslivinginthedesertsouthwest.By2013,allsixstateswithestablishedwolfpopulationshadbegunto
allowwolfhunting.Thedelistingandsubsequenthuntingofwolveshasbeencontroversial.
Humanshaveatendency,forbetterorworse,tosymbolizeelementsoftheworldinwhichtheylive.Tosome,
wolvesareasymbolofmuchofwhatweloveaboutnature;whereastootherswolvesareasymbolofour
adversarialrelationshipwithnature.Aspowerfulsymbolsofnature,ourtreatmentofwolvesisacriticalindicatorof
ourrelationshipwiththerestofnature.
CanandOught
Anumberofwolfbiologistsbelieve,withoutqualification,thatwehavethetec hnicalabilitytohuntwolveswithout
compromisingthehealthoftheirpopulationsortheecosystemfunctionstheyprovide.Awolfhuntwithoutthose
negativeimpactsc ouldbeaccomplishedbyhuntingonlyasmallpercentageofthepopulationeac hyear.
Nevertheless,otherqualifiedwolfbiologistsdonotbelievethatwecandothisreliably,andtheycanciteexamples
tosupportthatbelief.
Thegovernmentsoffiveofthesixstatesthatallowwolfhunting(Idaho,Montana,Wyoming,Minnesota,Wisconsin)
havebeguntoimplementhuntingplansthataimforconsiderablereductionsinwolfabundance.Suchreductions
areunlikelytothreatentheshort-termriskofextinctionforthesepopulations.Theyare,however,likelytoimpair
geneticprocessesandtheec osystemfunctionsthatwolvesprovide,andleadtosocialdisruptionsinthewolf
population.Theseeffectsarecertainlydetrimentaltopopulationhealthandecosystemhealth.Whilewehavethe
technicalabilitytoimplementaharvestthatdoesnotcausethoseharms,weappearnottohaveaninteresttodo
so.
Notwithstandingthosecriticalshortcomings,thereisvalueinatleastmomentarilygrantingtheabilityand
willingnesstohuntwolveswithoutharmingwolfpopulationsortheecosystemstheyinhabit.Doingsoraisesavery
basicprincipleinmakingmoraljudgments.Thatis,candoesnotimplyought.Havingtheabilitytodosomethingis
notevidencethatweoughtto.ThisprinciplehasbeenacornerstoneofthinkinginWesternjurisprudenceand
ethicsfor2500years.ThatIcaruspossessedtheabilitytoflytowardthesundidnotmeanthatheshouldhave
doneso,andneithershouldtheBabylonianshavebuiltatowerjustbecausetheycould.
Asecondbasicandrelevantprincipleisthatkillingasentientcreatureisaseriousmatterbecausesentient
creaturesdeserveatleastsomedirectmoralconsideration.Tousesimplerlanguage,itiswrongtokillasentient
creaturewithoutanadequatereason.Thisprincipleissupportedbyrobustrationalconsiderationsthathavebeen
articulatedbyeverysc holarlyandtraditionalperspectiveinenvironmentalethics,includinganimalLiberation,
animalrights, bioc entrism, extendedindividualism, universalconsideration, deepecology and
ecoc entrism. Sociologic alresearchalsosuggeststhatmost(atleastnonsociopathic)humansattributedirect
5
6
7
8 9 10 11 12
13
14

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 3 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxfor d U niversity Press, 2014. All Rig hts
Reserved. Und er the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidual user may pri nt out a PDF of a si ngl e chapter of a title i n Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscr iber: Oxfor d U niversity Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 Jul y 2014
moralstandingtosentientcreatures. Thisbeliefisalsoheldbythehuntingcommunityitself,someofwhose
membershaveprovidedconvincingandbeautifulexpressionsabouttheseriousnessofkillingalivingorganism.
Thesetwoprinciples(DonotkillwithoutanadequatereasonandCandoesnotimplyought)leadtothe
conc lusionthatoneshouldrefrainfromwolfhuntinguntiladequatereasonhasbeenprovidedfordoingso.With
thatinescapableburdenofproof,advocatesofwolfhuntinghavemoralobligationstoprovideadequatereasons
fortheirinterestandtorefrainfromwolfhuntingunlessadequatereasonshavebeenprovided.Whilehunting
advocateshavecertainlyofferedreasonstohuntwolves,thequestioniswhich,ifany,areadequatereasons.To
date,noonehasdetailedoranalyzedthemostimportantargumentsforwhyweshouldhuntwolves.
ArgumentAnalysis
Beforeanalyzingtheargumentsforwolfhunting,itwillbevaluabletoreviewthetwobasicstepsofargument
analysis. Thefirstisconvertingareasonintoaformalargument,whichrequiresdiscoveringandstatingallthe
premisesthatwouldhavetobetruefortheargumenttohaveavalidlogicalform.Thesecondisevaluatingthe
truthorappropriatenessofeachpremise.Thissecondstepisimportantbecauseanargumentisunsoundifjust
onepremiseisfalseorinappropriate.Thatanargumentisunsoundorinvalidisnotdefinitiveproofthata
conc lusioniswrong,butitdoesmeanthatthegivenargumentfailstojustifytheconclusion.
Wolves-Kill-UngulatesArgument
Acommonreasonofferedforwhyweshouldallowwolfhuntingisthatwolvesreducetheabundanceofthe
ungulatesthathumansliketohunt. Forthesakeofpedagogy,wetransformthisreasonintoaformalargumentin
severalsteps,withtheintentionofconveyingasenseofthethoughtprocessassociatedwithconvertingareason
intoaformalargument.Thefirststepintransformingthisreasonistoidentifythec onclusion(C)andthekey
premise(s)(P)thatcharacterizethisreason:
P1.Wolvesreduceungulateabundance.
C.Wolvesshouldbehunted.
Theconclusion(C)doesnotlogicallyfollowfrompremiseP1alone.Additionalpremisesarerequired.Inparticular:
P1.Wolvesreduceungulateabundance.
P2.Wolfhuntingreduceswolfabundance.
P3.Reducingwolfabundanceincreasesungulateabundance.
P4.Increasedungulateabundanceleadstoincreasedhuntersuccess.
C.Weshouldbeallowedtohuntwolves.
Premises1through4tracethesequenceofspecificecologic alprocessesthathavetobetrueiftheconclusionis
tobesupported.Whilethesepremisesarenecessary,theyarenotenough.Ethicalarguments(whoseconclusion
canbeexpressedasWeshould…)requiremorethanpremisesthatdescribetheconditionoftheworld.Ethical
argumentsmustcontainatleastonedesc riptivepremise(describinghowtheworldis)andatleastoneethical
premise(prescribingthebasicmoralobligationsthatpertaintotheconclusion).Anethicalargumentwithoutan
ethicalpremiseisassuredlyaninvalidargument.Forthisargument,therelevantethic alpremisesare:
P5.Itiswrongtokillalivingcreaturewithoutanadequatereason.
P6.Increasinghunterreturnsisanadequatereasontokillwolves.
Theargumentislikelystillincomplete.Ifwetakeforgrantedlawsthatrequiremaintainingthepopulationviabilityof
wolvesandabasicconcernforecosystemhealth, thenpremisesP2andP3shouldberevised:
P2.Wolfhuntingreduceswolfabundancewithoutcompromisingthehealthofthewolfpopulationorthe
ecosystemtowhichtheybelong.
14
15
16
17
18

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 4 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxfor d U niversity Press, 2014. All Rig hts
Reserved. Und er the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidual user may pri nt out a PDF of a si ngl e chapter of a title i n Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscr iber: Oxfor d U niversity Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 Jul y 2014
P3.Reducingwolfabundanceincreasesungulateabundancewithoutcompromisingthehealthofthewolf
populationortheecosystemtowhichtheybelong.
Thecompletenessofanargumentisalwaysprovisionalandcontingent.Inprinciple,amissingpremisecouldbe
discoveredatanypointintime.Judginganargumenttobevalid(i.e.,havingnomissingpremises)dependslargely
onthehumanswithaninterestintheissuesurroundingtheargument.
Letussupposethisargumentissufficientlycompleteandthatwecanbeginevaluatingthetruthand
appropriatenessofeachpremise.Sometimesamissingpremiseisdiscoveredduringtheprocessofevaluatingthe
truthofpremises.Butbearinmindthatthec onclusionofanargumentisasreliableasitsweakestpremise.Tobe
“veryconfident”abouttheappropriatenessofaconclusion,wehavetobe“veryconfident”aboutthetruthor
appropriatenessofeachpremise.
Premise1.Askinganecologisthowpredationaffectspreyabundanceisnotunlikeaskingaphysicisthowgravity
works.Predationiscomplicatedandhasbeenafocusofecologists’attentionforacentury.Whilemuchisknown,
muc hremainsunknown.Becauseecologicalphenomena,ingeneral,arethecomplicatedresultofmany
interactingcauses,isolatingtheeffectofasinglecauseinrealecosystemsisnotoriouslydifficult.
Withthoselimitations,thebestavailablescienceindicatesthatP1issometimetrueandsometimesnottrue.
Ecologistsarealsounabletoreliablypredictwhenorunderwhatc ircumstancesP1wouldbetrue. Ecologists
cannotevenalwaysagreeonwhetherwolvescausedanungulatepopulationtodecline,evenafterthedecline
hasocc urredandthecircumstancessurroundingithavebeenwell-documented.
Finally,trendsinungulateabundancesuggestthatP1iswrong.Forexample,ac rosstheNorthernRockies,some
elkpopulationshaveincreasedandothershavedeclined.Thatkindofvariationisnormalandoccursregardlessof
wolves.Notwithstandingthosevariations,elknumbersacrosstheregionappeartohaveincreasedbyabout16
percentduringtheperiod1994–2012,whichiswhenmostoftheincreaseinwolfabundanceocc urred. In
Wisconsin,deerabundancetendedtoincreasethroughoutthepasttwodecades andremainsgreaterthan
targetlevelsestablishedbytheWisconsinDepartmentofNaturalResources,whichmeasuresthedetrimental
impactofdeeroverabundance. InUpperMichigan,deerabundancetendedtodeclineinthefirstdecadeofthe
twenty-firstc entury.However,thattrendappearstobetheresultofapatternthathasexistedforatleastthepast
50years,wherebyeachyear’sdeerabundanceislargelyinfluencedbytheintensityofloggingduringthatyear.
Premise2.Theeffectofhuntingonwolfabundancedependsontherateofhunting(i.e.,proportionofwolves
huntedeac hyear).Lowratesareunlikelytoreduceabundance,andhighratesarelikelytodoso.Theeffectof
intermediateratesonabundanceisveryuncertain. IfreducingabundanceweretheonlyconcernofP2,then
onecouldbereasonablyconfidentaboutthetruthofthatpremisebyrevisingit:“Highratesofhuntingwillreduce
wolfabundance.”
However,theconcernisthatP2requiressatisfyingthreerequirements:reduceabundanceand,atthesametime,
maintainpopulationhealthandmaintainecosystemhealth.Alowrateofhuntingwouldmaintainpopulationhealth
andecosystemhealth,butwouldnotreduceabundance;ahighratewouldreduceabundance,butriskpopulation
healthandecosystemhealth,dependingonhowtheterms“populationhealth”and“ecosystemhealth”are
defined.
Ifpopulationhealthincludessuchelementsassocialstructureanddispersal,thenratesofhuntingthatreduce
abundancewouldlikelyharmpopulationhealth.Ifpopulationhealthentailsonlythelegalrequirementtoavoid
relistingwolvesundertheEndangeredSpeciesAct,thenmoderatelyhighratesofharvestforsomeperiodoftime
areunlikelytoharmpopulationhealth.
Wolvescontributetoecosystemhealthbyaffectingtheabundanceofprey;agestructureofpreypopulations;
evolutionarypressuresonpreypopulations;andbehaviorsofprey,suchaswhen,where,andhowtheyfeedon
vegetation.Themostplausibleassumptionisthatwolvesfulfilltheirecosystemfunctionswhenwolfabundanceis
determinedprimarilybytheabundanceandconditionofprey,andnotbyratesofhuntingbyhumans.
Ultimately,thetruthofP2iscontingentonthemeaningofpopulationviabilityandecosystemhealth.Whilethetruth
ofP2isfarfromcertainforreasonableorwidelyagreedupondefinitionsofpopulationhealthandecosystem
health,P2islikelytruewithrespecttoeachstate’slegalobligationstomaintainpopulationhealthandecosystem
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 5 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxfor d U niversity Press, 2014. All Rig hts
Reserved. Und er the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidual user may pri nt out a PDF of a si ngl e chapter of a title i n Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscr iber: Oxfor d U niversity Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 Jul y 2014
health.
Premise3.IfP3weresimply,“Reducingwolfabundanceincreasesungulateabundance,”thenP3’struthwould
bedoubtfulforthesamereasonthatP1isdoubtful.FurtherdoubtsarisefromthestipulationinP3thatungulate
abundanceincreaseswithoutharmingecosystemhealth.Maintainingecosystemhealthgenerallyrequiresthat
ungulateabundancebecontrolledbypredation. Insomecases,ungulateabundancec anbelimitedbyhuman
hunting, butoftentherearetoofewhunterstohavethateffect.
Premise4.P4isparticularlyimportantbecauseitspeaksdirectlytotheultimatec oncernofthisargument.Hunter
succ esscanbemeasuredinavarietyofways.Thetwomostimportantmeasuresaretheproportionofsuccessful
huntersandthetotalnumberofsuccessfulhunters.Howeversuccessismeasured,thetruthofP4isdoubtful.For
example,thenumberofsuccessfulelkhuntersandthepercentageofelkhunterswhoweresucc essfulinthe
NorthernRockiesdidnotdeclineduringtheperiod1994–2008,whichisthetimewhenwolfabundanceincreased
themost. Whileitisappropriatetoexpectreductionsinhuntersuccessinthepresenceofawolfpopulation,
thisappearsnottohavebeenthecircumstanc e.
Moregenerally,huntersuccessisaffectedbynotonlyungulateabundancebutalsoungulatebehaviorandthe
skillandbehaviorofhunters.Thepresenceofrelativelyfewwolvesonthelandscapemayresultinbehavioral
changesthataffecthunters’succ ess. Assuch,maintaininghunters’suc cess(orhunters’perceptionsof
succ ess)throughreductionsinwolfabundancecouldeasilyrequirereducingwolfabundancetolevelsthatare
precludedbyfederalpolicy. P4alsoraisesconcernsabouthowhighhuntersuccessoughttobe,andaboutthe
responsibilityhuntershaveforchangingbehaviorsandimprovingtheirskillstomaintaintheirchancesofsuccess.
Weaddresstheseconcernsbelow.
Premises5and6.TheappropriatenessofP5isneitherdoubtfulnorcontroversial(seethesection“Canand
Ought,”above).OneapproachinevaluatingP6istobeginbyrecallingthatalltheecologicalpremises(P1through
P4)aredoubtful.Assuch,huntingwolvesinvolvesincurringanethicalcost(killingwolves)withconsiderableriskof
notrealizingtheintendedoutc omeofthatkilling(increasedhuntersuc cess).Todosoistokillwithoutgoodreason
andtoviolateone’sethicalcommitmenttoP5.
Additionally,onecouldgrantthetruthofP1throughP4andconsidertheappropriatenessofP6directly.Todoso,
suppose,atleastmomentarily,thatthewelfareofahumanismoreimportantthanthewelfareofanon-human
mammal.Andalsorecognizethateatingwildungulatesisavitalneedforwolvesandanon-vitalinterestfor
humanswhohuntungulatesintheconterminousUnitedStates.Giventhoseconsiderations,judgingthe
appropriatenessofP6dependsonjudgingwhetherthevitalneedofanon-humanoutweighsthenon-vitalinterest
ofahuman.Insomecases,thatjudgmentcouldbedifficult.Passingjudgmentinthiscase,however,seems
straightforwardafterthefollowingarerecognized:(1)nooneisaskinghunterstogiveuphunting;theyareonly
beingaskedtoshareungulateswithwolves;and(2)today’swolfpopulationcomprisesonlyapproximately2
percentofthewolvesthatwouldhaveinhabitedtheconterminousUnitedStatesatthetimewhenhumansbegan
theirattemptedgenocideagainstwolves.
Asidefromthoseperspectives,theremightbeoc casionforentertainingspiriteddebateovertheappropriateness
ofP6ifalltheotherpremisesoftheargumentwerecertainlytrue.Butthisisnotthecase.Moreover,becauseP6is
anethicalpremise,notasociologicalpremise,itsappropriatenessdoesnotdependsimplyonmajorityopinion.
Majorityviewsaresometimesindicativeofthatwhichismoral,andothertimesnot.
Whilewolfhuntingisanethicalconcern,itisnominorinsighttorecognizethatthegreatestweaknessesofthis
argumentarenotitsethicalpremisesbutitsscientific premises.Thiscircumstanceislikelymorecommonthanis
generallyappreciatedandiscertainlycharacteristicofotherintereststokillpredators,suchascormorantsand
seals.
TheHunt-’em-to-Conserve-’emArgument
Anotherimportantreasonofferedforallowingwolfhuntingisthathuntingthemwouldpromotewolfconservation.
Theformalargumentassociatedwiththisreasonis:
P1.Wolfconservationrequiresthatac riticalminimumnumberofcitiz enshavepositiveattitudesaboutand
28
29 3 0
31 3 2
33
34
35
36
37

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 6 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxfor d U niversity Press, 2014. All Rig hts
Reserved. Und er the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidual user may pri nt out a PDF of a si ngl e chapter of a title i n Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscr iber: Oxfor d U niversity Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 Jul y 2014
behaviorstowardwolves.
P2.Wolfhuntingwouldpositivelyaffectattitudesandbehaviorsofmanywhohatewolves.
P3.Weoughttopromotewolfconservation.
C.Therefore,weoughttohuntwolves.
Thisgeneralargumentrepresentstwodistinct,butrelated,arguments.Oneversionisparticulartocitiz ens’
attitudes,andtheotherversionisparticulartobehaviors.Thebehavioralversionoftheargumentis:
P1.Wolfconservationrequiresthatac riticalminimumnumberofcitiz ensbehavefavorablytowardwolves,
especiallybynotkillingthem.
P2.Toallowwolfhuntingwouldpreventanotherwiseinevitablepublicbacklashagainstwolvesthatwould
resultinhigherratesofpoachingandlossofpoliticalsupportthatwouldthreatentheviabilityofwolf
populations.
P3.Weoughttopromotewolfconservation.
P4.Itiswrongtokillalivingcreaturewithoutanadequatereason.
P5.Conservingwolfpopulationsisanadequatereasontokillindividualwolves.
C.Therefore,weoughttoallowwolfhunting.
Inthisbehavioralargument,P1,P3,andP4areappropriateanduncontroversial.Moreover,poachingisa
potentiallyseriousconc ernandshouldbeguardedagainst,butthereisnoevidencetosuggestthatpoachinghas
preventedwolfpopulationsfromexpandinginthewesternGreatLakesorNorthernRockies.Ifpoachingwerenot
anactualthreat,thentheneedforhunting,assupposedbythisargument,wouldseemabsent.
Moreover,thebestavailablesciencesuggeststhatprovisionsforkillingwolvesdonottendtopromotetolerance
forwolves.Inpartic ular,arecentreviewfoundnoevidencefortheclaimthatallowinghigherquotasoflegal
harvestresultedinreducedratesofpoaching. Also,attitudestendedtobemorenegativeduringaperiodoftime
whenlegallethalcontrolhadbeenallowedthanwhenwolveshadbeenfullyprotected. Moreover,preliminary
resultsfromastudycommissionedbytheUSFishandWildlifeServicefailstosupportthiscontention. Deep-
rootedsocialidentityislikelythemostimportantdeterminantofattitudesaboutwolves, notallowancesforkilling
them.
Inadditiontothoseempiricalproblems,thisargumentisalsoethicallydeficient.Poachingisawrong,notonly
becauseofitspotentialtothreatenpopulationviability,butalsobecauseitcanbeawrongagainsttheindividual
whowaskilled.Manyinstancesofwolfpoac hing,inparticular,arewrongbecausetheyareprimarilymotivatedby
ahatredofwolves.Theseinstancesofpoachingqualifyaswrongfuldeaths,ifnothatecrimes.Tolegalizesuch
killingdoesnotmakethemanylesswrong.Moreover,peoplewhothreatentopoachwolvesunlesswolfkillingis
legalized areengaginginakindofecologicalblackmailbythreateningharmagainstindividualorganismsand
ecosystemsunlesstheirdemandstokillaremet.Peoplewhoadvocateforthisargument,evenwithoutaninterest
inkillingwolvesthemselves,unwittinglyabetthisblackmail.Ifpoachingiswrongbecauseitrepresentsan
adequatereasontokill,thenitisnotmaderightsimplybylegalizingthekillingofwolves.Thatwouldbeanalogous
tosolvingtheproblemofillegalpaymentsforsexbylegalizingprostitution.
Theattitudinalversionofthehunt-’em-to-conserve-’emargumentis:
P1.Wolfconservationrequiresacritic almassofpeoplewhorespectwolves.
P2.Thereisariskoflosingthatcriticalmass.
P3.Manypeoplewhodonotrespectwolvesdesiretohuntthem.
P4.Huntingananimalgeneratesrespectforthatanimal.
38
39
40
41
42

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 7 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxfor d U niversity Press, 2014. All Rig hts
Reserved. Und er the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidual user may pri nt out a PDF of a si ngl e chapter of a title i n Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscr iber: Oxfor d U niversity Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 Jul y 2014
C1.Allowingpeopletohuntwolvesisnecessaryforwolfconservation.
P5.Weoughttopromotewolfconservation.
P6.Itiswrongtokillalivingcreaturewithoutanadequatereason.
P7.Conservingwolfpopulationsisanadequatereasontokillindividualwolves.
C2.Weoughttoallowwolfhunting.
Inthisargument,C1isaconclusionrisingfromP1throughP4.C1thenservesasthefirstpremiseinanargument
thatalsoincludesP5,P6,P7,andC2.
P4isaperversemisinterpretationoftherelationshipbetweenrespectandhunting.Huntingreinforcesordeepens
respectforthedeerbecausethehunterknowsthedeersac rificedhislifeforthesustenanceofthehunter.Inthis
relationship,respectexistsbeforethehunting;thehuntingdidnotgeneraterespectexnihilo.Inotherwords,the
hunterrespectsthedeerinspiteofkillinghim,notbecauseshekilledhim.Thewolf-hater’saprioriattitude,by
contrast,ishatred,notrespect.Herkillingthewolfisthusanexerciseofhatred—shewouldlikelycelebratethe
killing.Withoutmoralconcernforthewolf,thewolf’ssacrificecannotberecognized.Forhunters,recognitionof
sacrificeisnecessaryfortherealizationofrespect.Moreover,therehavebeenepisodesinconservationhistory
duringwhic hhunting(orfishing)wasimportantforpromotingconservationinvolvedspeciesofwaterfowl,white-
taileddeer,wildturkeys,sandhillcranes,andbrooktroutwhowererespected,nothated.
Forahater,P4couldpossiblybetrueinrareandparticularcircumstances.Thatis,hatredissometimesdissolved
whenthehaterbecomesfamiliarwithhisvictim,andhuntingprovidesanopportunitytobecomefamiliarwiththe
victim.However,ifP4werecommonlytrue,killingwouldbeacommonlyprescribedtherapyforunjustifiedhatred.It
isnot.Finally,sociologicalevidencealsosuggeststhatP4isfalse.
Anotherconc ernwiththisargumentisthatthetruthofP2isimpossibletoevaluate.Nooneknowshowmany
peoplerepresentacriticalmassorhowthecriticalmassisaffectedbytheintensityofhatredamongwolfhaters.
Nevertheless,c oncernforthetruthofP2cannotbecompletelydismissed.Forexample,theproportionofpeople
reportingnegativeattitudesaboutwolveshasincreasedinatleastonearea. However,attitudesarea
notoriouslypoorpredictorofhowpeoplewillbehave,especiallywhenthebehaviorinquestion,thatis,poaching
requiresnontrivialeffortandisaccompaniedbytheriskofconsiderablepunishment.
ThereisalsoreasontothinkthatthetruthofP2isunlikely.Inparticular,ifintoleranceisjudgedbytheactof
poaching,ratherthanbyattitudesthatareverballyexpressedinsurveys, thentherearereasonstobelieve
intolerancewilldecline.Thisintoleranceiscausedbytheriskthatsomeperceiveinwolves.Considerable
evidencesuggeststhatperceivedrisktendstodeclineashumansbecomeincreasinglyfamiliarwiththesourceof
theperceivedrisk. Also,wolfintoleranceislikelynotdistinctfromotherirrationalintolerances(suc hasracismor
sexism).Thatis,nooneexpectsindividualwolfhaterstoc hangetheirattitudes.Instead,overtimetheirbehaviors
becomelesstolerated,andtheirattitudesbecomelesscommonasthepeopleholdingthempassaway.To
paraphraseMartinLutherKing,thelongarcofhistorybendstowardjustice.Thestrengthofthisargumentmightbe
difficulttoevaluateifP2weretheonlyweakness.Itisnot.P2onlyaddstotheargument’sweakness.
Finally,P7isworthhighlighting.Itstruthshouldnotbetakenforgranted.Thispremiserepresentsaninc reasingly
importantandunresolvedconflictbetweentwoofthegreatestethicaldevelopmentsofthetwentiethcentury,
conservationethic sandanimalwelfareethics.Someardentadvocatesofwolfhuntingtendtobehostiletojustified
conc ernsforanimalwelfare. Othersadvocatesofwolfhuntingaresensitivetothevalueofconservation.The
conservationtraditionanditsprofessiontendsnottobeverysensitivetooradeptathandlingthisconflict.
FeelingcomfortablewiththisargumentwouldrequirethatsomeoneexplaintheappropriatenessofP7.That
explanationhasnotyetbeenmade.
TheRecreationandTraditionArgument
Anotherimportantreasonofferedforwhywolfhuntingshouldbeallowedis:
P1.Wolfhuntingisvaluableasatraditionandformofrecreation.
43
44
45
46
47
48

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 8 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxfor d U niversity Press, 2014. All Rig hts
Reserved. Und er the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidual user may pri nt out a PDF of a si ngl e chapter of a title i n Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscr iber: Oxfor d U niversity Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 Jul y 2014
P2.Wolfhuntingcanbemanagedwithoutthreateningpopulationviabilityorecosystemhealth.
P3.Itiswrongtokillalivingcreaturewithoutanadequatereason.
P4.Traditionandrecreationareadequatereasonstohuntwolves.
C.Weoughttoallowwolfhunting.
Ifthehonorabletraditionofhuntingisdifferentfromattemptedgenocide,thenwolfhuntingisnotatraditioninthe
conterminousUnitedStates.Noonealivetodayhaseverspokentoapersonwhohashuntedawolfinthe
conterminousUnitedStates,exceptaspartofanearlysuccessfulprogramtoexterminatewolves.Evenifwolf
huntingwereatradition,soalsowereslavery,childlabor,anddenyingwomentherighttovote.Defendingthe
moralityofabehaviorongroundsthatitistraditionissowidelyknowntobefallaciousthatlogicianshave
memorializedthisparticularkindoflogicalfallacybynamingitargumentumadantiquitatem.
Ifwolfhuntingisnottraditional,coulditbeanacceptableformofrecreation?Rec reationhasacommonmeaning
(i.e.,“refreshmentofone’smindorbodyafterworkthroughactivitythatamusesorstimulates” )andadeeper
meaningreflectedbytheetymologyoftheword(re-create).There-creativevalueofdeerhuntingdoesnotliein
killingthedeer.Itsre-creativevalueliesinthehunter’sappreciationofthesacrificethedeermadesothatthe
huntercouldsustainhimorherself.Whensustenanceisnotthecentralreasonforhunting,itsdistinctivevalueis
simplyanactofkilling,orworse,anopportunitytomanifesthatred. Toconsidersuchanactivityrec reationis
grotesque.
ArelatedversionofthisargumentwouldreplaceP1with:
P1.Wolfhuntingisvaluablebecausethewolfpeltthatcomeswithkillingawolfhasvalueasatrophyoran
economiccommodity.
Atrophyisakindofprize,memento,orsymbolofsomekindofsucc ess.Tokillasentientcreatureforthepurpose
ofusingitsbodyorpartofitasatrophyisessentiallykillingforfunorasacelebrationofviolence.And,although
therewasonceatimewhentrappingwolvesfortheirpeltsmighthavebeenarespectablemeansofmakingaliving
becausewolfpeltswerethenareasonablewaytomakewarmclothing,wenolongerliveinthattime.
OtherArgumentsforWolfHunting
Somearguethatweshouldallowwolfhuntingbecausereducingthewolfpopulationwillreducethethreattohuman
safety.Argumentstothiseffectdependonapremiselike“wolvesthreatenhumansafety.”Thesearguments
crumblebecausesuchpremisesarealmostuniversallyfalse.Manywhodonotlikewolvesgrosslyexaggeratethe
threatthatwolvesrepresenttohumansafety.Intheveryrareinstanceswhenhumansafetyisthreatened,that
problemneedstobedealtwithimmediately,thoroughly,andprecisely.Wolfhuntinghasnoneofthoseproperties.
Forexample,ifaparticularwolfthreatenshumansafetyinsay,July,theproblemcannotwaituntiltheupcoming
huntingseasoninthehopethatsomehunterwillhavethe“goodfortune”tokilltheoffendingwolf.The
inappropriatenessoftheargumentunderlyingthisreasonhasbeendiscussedindetailelsewhere.
Someassertthatweshouldallowwolfhuntingbecausereducingthewolfpopulationwillreducethethreatthat
wolvesposetolivestock.Thechallengesofraisinglivestockshouldbeofconcerntoanyonewhoeatsmeat.
Nevertheless,severalconsiderationssuggestthatprotectionoflivestockisapoorreasontohuntwolves.First,the
lossoflivestocktowolvesisabsolutelytrivialfromanindustry-wideperspective. Wherelossesoc cur,non-lethal
methodsarefeasibleandinmanyc aseseffectiveinreducingoreliminatinglivestocklosses. Fromthe
perspectiveofanindividualowner,livestocklossesandthec ostofnon-lethalcontrolcanbenon-trivial.
Nevertheless,asawealthynation,wearemorethancapableofmeetingthosecostsinafairmanner.Finally,the
preventionoflivestocklossesrequiresaddressingtheparticularwolfassociatedwiththeproblemandaddressing
thatwolfattheparticularlocationandtimeofthoseproblems.Ageneralrecreationalhuntisnotanappropriatetool
fordealingwithsuchaspecificproblemandcouldevenexacerbateit. Therearesensiblewaystodealwith
livestocklosses,butwolfhuntingisnotoneofthem.
Finally,someassertthatweshouldallowwolfhuntingbecausehuntingthemisnecessarytopreventwolvesfrom
growing“outofcontrol.”“Outofcontrol”issometimesaeuphemismfortheideathatwolvescancreate
49
50
51
52
53
54
55

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 9 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxfor d U niversity Press, 2014. All Rig hts
Reserved. Und er the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidual user may pri nt out a PDF of a si ngl e chapter of a title i n Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscr iber: Oxfor d U niversity Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 Jul y 2014
challengesforsomehumanswholiveinareasalsoinhabitedbywolves(e.g.,killinglivestock).“Outofcontrol”is
alsosometimesaeuphemismforanobsessionwith“c ontrolling”nature,nottoachieveanyotherobjective,butas
anendinitself.Thatobsessionrepresentsapathologicalrelationshipwithnature;itliesatthecoreofmany
conservationproblems,anditshouldberesisted. Satisfyingthatobsessionincursanethicalcostinadditionto
theethic alcostofkillingasentientcreature.
Eachofthesethreereasonsforhuntingwolvesdeservemoreattentionthanweareabletoprovidehere.There
wouldbevalueinbuildingandanalyz ingtheargumentsassociatedwitheac hreason.Whilespacelimitations
precludeourprovidingsuchatreatmenthere,wehaveneverthelesscontributedthebasicelementsthatwouldgo
intobuildingthosearguments.
Co nclusion
Thedetailsassociatedwithkillingpredatorsvaryconsiderablywiththespeciesofpredator,reasonsforwantingto
kill,andsociologicalandecologicalcontextssurroundinganyparticularinteresttokill.Theanalysispresented
hererequiredcarefulattentiontothosedetailsastheypertaintohuntingwolvesintheconterminousUnitedStates.
Despitetheimportanceofdetails,thebasicthemesassociatedwithhuntinganypredatorwouldbesimilartothose
presentedhere.
Becausewolves(andotherpredators)arelivingcreatures,themoralityofkillingwolves(andotherpredators)
dependsonbeingabletoprovideagoodreasontodoso.Theanalysespresentedhereandelsewhere suggest
thatgoodreasonshavenotbeenoffered.Theresultsofargumentanalyses,areliketheresultsthatemergefrom
thescientificprocess;theyareneverdefinitive.Theyarealwaysprovisionalinthesensethatitmaybe
conc eivablethatsomeone,atsometimeinthefuture,willprovideagoodreasontohuntwolves.Untilthattime,
however,onewouldbelogic allyboundtotheconclusionthatwolfhuntingintheconterminousUnitedStatesis
wrong.
Thisconclusionmayraisethequestion,Whogetstojudgewhatcountsasagoodreason?Thatquestionis
misplaced.Inafreesociety,everycitizenisfreetojudgewhatcountsasagoodreason.Thecriticalquestionis
not,whogetstojudge,butrather,Bywhatrulesandstandardsisoneobligatedinjudgingwhatcountsasagood
reason?Theruleandstandardisthatreasoningbesoundandvalid;thatis,aconclusionmustbesupportedbyan
argumentwithnomistakenpremisesormissingpremises(i.e.,withoutgapsinlogic ).
Thisstandardemergesdirectlyfrombasicprinciplesofjustice.Justiceiswidelyunderstoodtodependonanidea
thatcanbeexpressedasathoughtexperimentwherebythemembersofasocietyarerequiredtoagreeonthe
principlesofgovernanceandsocialinteractionsbeforeanyoneknowstheirpositioninsociety(i.e.,theirwealth,
abilities,aesthetic preferences,etc.). Oneoftherequiredprinciplestoemergefromsuchaprocesswould
certainlybethatsocialdecision-makingshouldbebasedonsoundandvalidreasoning.
Soundandvalidreasoningisnotasilverbullet.Argumentanalysiscanbemanipulatedbythosemoreconc erned
withwinningpoliticaldisputesthanunderstandingwhatisgoodorright.Somepremisesaredifficulttodiscover,
andothersaredifficulttoevaluate.Soundandvalidreasoningdoesnotcompletelyclearallthefogassociatedwith
judgingtheappropriatenessofnormativepremises.Anumberofcontroversiesaregenuinelyperniciousandnot
easilysolved(though,asweshowhere,huntingwolvesisnotoneofthem).Consequently,argumentanalysisis
notsufficient,butitisanabsolutelynecessaryfeatureofajustdemocracy.
Somemayreactwithconcern,thinkingthatmajorityofcitiz ensarenotcapableengaginginargumentanalysis.
Almostcertainly,thisistrue.Nevertheless,oneshouldatleastexpectgovernmenttechnocratsworkingonsuch
problemsintheinterestsofcitiz enstohavethiscapacity.Sadly,alargeportionofthesetechnocratsdoesnot
possessthiscapacity.Whatexactlyisthecapacityofwhichwespeak?Inthisanalysis,wehaveonlyapplied
somebasicfacts tosomebasicprinciplescoveredineverycritical-thinkingtextbookthathaseverbeen
published. Anyonegraduatingwithabachelor’sdegreeshouldbeexpectedtohavearudimentarycapacityfor
soundandvalidreasoning.However,thenatureofthepublicdiscourseaboutwolfhunting,predatorcontrol,and
dozensofothercontroversialissuesclearlyindicatesthatwedonothavethiscapac ity.Thisincapacitymaybe
thegreatestfailureofuniversityprofessorsandadministrators.
56
57
58
59
60
61

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 10 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxfor d U niversity Press, 2014. All Rig hts
Reserved. Und er the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidual user may pri nt out a PDF of a si ngl e chapter of a title i n Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscr iber: Oxfor d U niversity Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 Jul y 2014
Althoughacitiz enrycanbecomecapableofsoundandvalidreasoningatarudimentarylevel,thiskindof
reasoningisneverthelessgenuinelychallenging.Consequently,mostofusarecontentwithourintuitionsabout
whatisrightandwrongformanyparticularcases,andweliveaccordingtosuchintuitions.Intuitivemoral
reasoningisfineandnormal,solongasonebearsinmindthatone’sconfidenceaboutsuchintuitionsasthey
applytoc omplicatedissuesshouldcorrespondtothedegreetowhichonehasstudiedthatjudgmentwiththe
rigorsofsoundandvalidreasoning.
FurtherReading
Foranaccessibleoverviewoftheimportanceoftopcarnivorestoec osystemhealth,CristinaEisenberg,The
Wolf’sTooth:KeystonePredators,TrophicCascades,andBiodiversity(Washington,DC:IslandPress,2011).For
anoverviewofwolfecology,L.D.MechandL.Boitani,(eds.),Wolves:Behavior,Ecology,andConservation
(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2007).
ForanoverviewofwolfconservationintheUnitedStates,MartinA.Nie,BeyondWolves:ThePoliticsofWolf
RecoveryandManagement(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2003).
Forabroadandacc essibleoverviewofargumentanalysis,PegTittle,CriticalThinking:AnAppealtoReason(New
York: Routledge,2011).Foranoverviewofbasicthemesinenvironmentalethics,PaulPojmanandLouisPojman,
(eds),EnvironmentalEthics:ReadingsinTheoryandApplication(Andover,MA:CengageLearning,2011).
Notes:
( )Theconflictbetweenthosetwoprinciples,forexample,underliesconcernsabouttheappropriatenessofbow
huntingandhuntingoverbaitpiles.
( )Reasonsforbeingvegetarianorveganarevaried.Moreover,apersonmightconcludethateatingmeatis
appropriateinsomecircumstancesbutnotothers.Forexample,apersonmightthinkeatingmeatiswrongin
generalbutacceptableforNativeAlaskanInuits,whosewelfarewouldseemtodependoneatinganimalflesh.
Whilethatkindofcomplexityisimportant,itdoesnotobviatethecentralpoint,whichisademandtoconfrontthe
question,Whatcountsasanadequatereasontokillasentientcreature?Thehuntingcommunityhaslong
recognizedthevalueofthisquestionforunderstandingtheconditionsunderwhichvariouskindsofhuntingis
appropriate.SeealsoTovarCerulli,TheMindfulCarnivore:AVegetarian’sHuntforSustenance(NewYork:
Pegasus,2012);LilyR.Mc Caulou,CalloftheMild:LearningtoHuntMyOwnDinner(NewYork:GrandCentral
Publishing,2012).
( )Foramoredetailedaccountsoftheseissues,seeDavidPeterson,(ed.),AHunter’sHeart:HonestEssayson
BloodSport(NewYork:Holt,1997);JimPosewitz ,BeyondFairChase:TheEthicsandTraditionofHunting(Helena,
MT:Falcon,2002);JoseOrtegayGassett,MeditationsonHunting(Belgrade,MT:WildernessAdventuresPress,
2007);NathanKowalsky,Hunting—PhilosophyforEveryone:InSearchoftheWildLife.(Oxford,UK:Wiley-
Blackwell,2010);AllenJones,AQuietPlaceofViolence:HuntingandEthicsintheMissouriRiverBreaks
(Bozeman,MT:Bangtail,2012).
( )“Hunting”isnotthebesttermtodescribetherelationshipbetweenhumansandsomeofthesecreatures.For
example,therelationshipwithsealsintheNorthAtlanticisbetterdescribedas“predatorcontrol,”becausethe
primarypurposeofkillingsealsistoreducetheirabundanceinordertoincreasetheabundanceoftheirprey,
whicharefishthathumansharvest.Therelationshipwithwolvesinthec onterminousUnitedStatesbetween1850
and1950mightbebestdescribedas“attemptedgenocide,”sincethegoalhadbeencompleteextermination.
Moreover,inmanycases,predatorsarekilledbytrapping,ratherthanbyshooting.Whiletheabove-mentioned
distinctionsarecriticallyimportant,ourmaininterestisinthebasicquestion,Whatcountsasagoodreasontokilla
sentientcreature?So,despiteitsshortcomings,weusetheterm“hunting”torefertoalloftheserelationships.
( )IrvingM.Copi,CarlCohen,andKennethMcMahon,IntroductiontoLogic,14thedition(NewYork:Pearson,
2010).
( )J.A.Leonard,C.Vila,andR.K.Wayne,“LegacyLost:GeneticVariabilityandPopulationSizeofExtirpatedUS
1
2
3
4
5
6

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 11 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxfor d U niversity Press, 2014. All Rig hts
Reserved. Und er the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidual user may pri nt out a PDF of a si ngl e chapter of a title i n Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscr iber: Oxfor d U niversity Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 Jul y 2014
GreyWolves(CanisLupus),”MolecularEcology14(2005): 9–17.
( )PeterSinger,AnimalLiberation,2ndedition,ModernClassics(NewYork:HarperPerennial,1990).
( )TomRegan,TheCaseforAnimalRights(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1983).
( )P.W.Taylor,RespectforNature:ATheoryofEnvironmentalEthics(Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress,
1986).
( )Lawrence.EJohnson,AMorallyDeepWorld:AnEssayonMoralSignificanceandEnvironmentalEthics
(Cambridge,MA:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991).
( )T.H.Birch,“MoralConsiderabilityandUniversalConsideration,”EnvironmentalEthics15(1993):313–332.
( )ArneNaess,Ecology,CommunityandLifestyle(Cambridge,MA:CambridgeUniversityPress,1989).
( )J.BairdCallicott,InDefenseoftheLandEthic:EssaysinEnvironmentalPhilosophy(Albany:StateUniversity
ofNewYorkPress,1989);J.BairdCallicott,BeyondtheLandEthic:MoreEssaysinEnvironmentalPhilosophy
(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1999);HolmesRolston,ConservingNaturalValue(NewYork:
ColumbiaUniversityPress,1994).
( )Forexample,S.Kellert,“TheBiologicalBasisforHumanValuesofNature,”inTheBiophiliaHypothesis,ed.S.
R.KellertandE.O.Wilson(Washington,DC:IslandPress,1993),42–69;R.E.Manning,“SocialClimateChange:A
SociologyofEnvironmentalPhilosophy,”inReconstructingConservation:FindingCommonGround,ed.B.A.
MinteerandR.E.Manning(Washington,DC:IslandPress,2003),207–222.
( )Forexample,PaulShepard,TheTenderCarnivoreandtheSacredGame(NewYork:Scribners,1973);David
Peterson,(ed.),AHunter’sHeart:HonestEssaysonBloodSport(NewYork:Holt,1997);Gassett,Meditationson
Hunting.
( )JohnA.VucetichandMichaelP.Nelson,AHandbookofConservationandSustainabilityEthics.CEG
OccasionalPaperSeries,issue1,2012,www.conservationethics.org(accessedJuly15,2013).Thisdocumentalso
providesanaccessibleoverviewoftheapplicationofargumentanalysistoconservation.SeealsoMic haelP.
NelsonandJohnVucetich,“EnvironmentalEthicsforWildlifeManagement,”inHumanDimensionsofWildlife
Management,ed.,D.J.Decker,ShawnJ.Riley,WilliamSiemeretal.(Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,
2012),223–237.
( )“Ungulate”isageneraltermthatincludesspecieslikedeer,elk,moose,caribou,andbison.
( )Insomecases,aconcernmaybethatalaworpolicyisunjustandimmoral.Ifso,thenitwouldbe
inappropriatetotakesuchlawsorpoliciesforgranted.Instead,theremaybeaneedtodevelopanargumentto
assesswhetherthelaworpolicyisappropriate.Whethersuchissuesshouldbetakenforgrantedordemonstrated
dependslargelyonthejudgmentofthehumanswithaninterestintheissuesurroundingtheargument.
( )Forexample,C.C.Wilmers,E.Post,R.O.Petersonetal.,“PredatorDiseaseOut-breakModulatesTop-down,
Bottom-upandClimatic EffectsonHerbivorePopulationDynamics,”EcologyLetters9(2006):383–389.
( )OswaldJ.Schmitz,ResolvingEcosystemComplexity(Princeton,NJ:Princ etonUniversityPress,2010).
( )CompareJ.A.Vucetich,D.W.Smith,andD.R.Stahler,“InfluenceofHarvest,ClimateandWolfPredationon
YellowstoneElk,1961–2004,”Oikos111(2005):259–270,withP.J.WhiteandR.A.Garrott,“Yellowstone’s
UngulatesafterWolves:Expectations,Realiz ations,andPredictions,”BiologicalConservation125(2005):141–
152,andR.Garrott,P.J.White,andJ.Rotella,“TheMadisonHeadwatersElkHerd:TransitioningfromBottomUp
RegulationtoTopDownLimitation,”inTheEcologyofLargeMammalsinCentralYellowstone,ed.RGarrott,P.J.
White,andF.G.R.Watson(SanDiego,CA:Elsevier,2009),489–517.
( )Anonymous,“WolvesbytheNumbers,”Bugle,Sept./Oct.2009,p.84,
http://switc hboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mskoglund/elk%20numbers.pdf(acc essedJuly7,2013).
( )1990–2012,theperiodoftimewhenwolfabundanceincreasedfromapproximately30wolvesto
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 12 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxfor d U niversity Press, 2014. All Rig hts
Reserved. Und er the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidual user may pri nt out a PDF of a si ngl e chapter of a title i n Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscr iber: Oxfor d U niversity Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 Jul y 2014
approximately800wolves.
( )DeerPopulationGoals,WisconsinDepartmentofNaturalResources,2013,
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/popgoal.html(accessedJuly15,2013).
( )R.Doepker,MichiganDepartmentofNaturalResources,unpublisheddata.Aftertreesareloggedand
removed,thetreetopsareleftbehindontheforestfloor.Thetwigsonthosetreetopsareanimportantsourceof
winterfood.Between1957and2005,thenumberofcordsofpulpwoodharvestedinUpperMichiganexplained67
percentofthevariationinanindexofdeerabundance(i.e.,themeandensityofpelletgroups[fecalmaterial]
countedontransectsacrossUpperMichigan).
( )JohnA.Vucetich,“TheInfluenceofAnthropogenicMortalityonWolfPopulationDynamicswithSpecial
ReferencetoCreelAndRotella(2010)andGudeetal.(2011),”in“FinalPeerReviewofFourDocumentsAmending
andClarifyingtheWyomingGrayWolfManagementPlan,”UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService,2012,pp.78–95,
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-
prairie/species/mammals/wolf/WY_Wolf_Peer_Review_of_Revised_Statutes_and_Plan_Addendumt2012_0508.pdf
(acc essedJuly15,2013).http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/
( )Eachstategovernmentislegallyrequired,underpoliciessetinacc ordancewiththeUSEndangeredSpecies
Act(1973),tomaintainaminimumnumberofwolves.Forexample,Wisconsinhasapproximately800wolvesbut
maybelegallyobligatedtohaveonlyontheorderof100wolves.ThestateofWisconsinhasforsometimesaid
thatitwillaimtohave350wolves.“WisconsinWolfManagementPlan,”WisconsinDepartmentofNatural
Resources.,1999,http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ER/ER0099.pdf)(ac cessedJuly15,2013).
( )See,forexample,B.Miller,B.Dugelby,D.Foremanetal.,“TheImportanceofLargeCarnivorestoHealthy
Ecosystems,EndangeredSpeciesUPDATE18(2001):202–210;R.L.BeschtaandW.J.Ripple,“LargePredators
andTrophicCascadesinTerrestrialEcosystemsoftheWesternUnitedStates,”BiologicalConservation142
(2009):2401–2414;J.A.Estes,J.Terborgh,J.S.Brasharesetal.,“TrophicDowngradingofPlanetEarth,”Science
333(2011):301–306.
( )J.Vucetich,D.W.Smith,andD.R.Stahler,“InfluenceofHarvest,Climate,andWolfPredationonYellowstone
Elk,1961–2004,”Oikos111(2005):259–270.
( )B.G.GilesandC.S.Findlay,“Effec tivenessofaSelectiveHarvestSysteminRegulatingDeerPopulationsin
Ontario,”JournalOfWildlifeManagement68(2004):266–277.
( )Anonymous,“WolvesbytheNumbers,”.Bugle,Sept/Oct.2009,p.83,
http://switc hboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mskoglund/elk%20numbers.pdf(acc essedJuly7,2013).SeealsoStevenHazen,
“TheImpactofWolvesonElkHuntinginMontana”(MSthesis,MontanaStateUniversity,2012).
( )E.B.Nilsen,T.Pettersen,H.Gundersenetal.,“MooseHarvestingStrategies,”in“ThePresenceofWolves,”
JournalofAppliedEcology42(2005):389–399.
( )J.A.Winnie,“PredationRisk,Elk,andAspen:TestsofaBehaviorallyMediatedTrophicCascadeintheGreater
YellowstoneEcosystem,”Ecology93(2012):2600–2614.
( )Failuretorecognizetheseprinc iplesisaparticularlyweakaspectoftherationaleforhuntingwolvesasstated
inVucetic h,“InfluenceofAnthropogenicMortality,’2012.
( )Thiscircumstance(i.e.,killingwithlittleornochanceofrealizingtheintendedoutcomeofthatkilling)
characterizesmanyeffortstorestoreecosystemsthathavebeenaffectedbyexoticandinvasivespecies;see,for
example,J.H.Myers,D.Simberloff,A.M.Kurisetal.,“EradicationRevisited:DealingwithExotic Species,”Trends
inEcology&Evolution15(2000):316–320;J.VucetichandM.P.Nelson,“WhatAre60WarblersWorth?Killingin
theNameofConservation,”Oikos116(2007):1267–1278;D.K.Rosenberg,D.G.Vesely,andJ.A.Gervais,
“MaximizingEndangeredSpeciesResearch,”Science337(2012):799.
( )Whenthemajoritydonotbelievewhatcanreasonablybeshowntobeethic al,thereisaproblem.Butthat
problemisnotsomuchanethicalproblem(inthesenseofnotknowinghowweoughttobehave)butisinsteada
behavioralproblem,wherebythechallengeistobehaveasweknowweoughtto.Thisperspectivedoesnot
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 13 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxfor d U niversity Press, 2014. All Rig hts
Reserved. Und er the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidual user may pri nt out a PDF of a si ngl e chapter of a title i n Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscr iber: Oxfor d U niversity Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 Jul y 2014
addressthemorecomplicatedconcernofwhohastheprivilegeofjudgingwhatc ountsasa“reasonable”
explanation.Althoughstandardsexistformakingsuchjudgments,discussionofthosestandardsisbeyondthe
scopeofthischapter.See,forexample,JohnRawls,ATheoryofJustice(Cambridge,MA:BelknapPress,1971);
AmartyaSen,TheIdeaofJustice(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2009).
( )P.Yodz is,“CullingPredatorstoProtectFisheries:ACaseofAccumulatingUncertainties,”TrendsinEcology
andEvolution16(2001):282–283;J.S.Diana,S.Maruca,andB.Low,“DoIncreasingCormorantPopulations
ThreatenSportfishesintheGreatLakes?ACaseAtudyinLakeHuron,”JournalofGreatLakesResearch32(2006):
306–320;R.J.King,“ToKillaCormorant,”NaturalHistory,March2009,
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/0309/0309_feature.html(accessedJuly15,2013).
( )H.Andrén,J.D.C.Linnell,O.Libergetal.,“SurvivalRatesandCausesofMortalityinEurasianLynx(Lynxlynx)
inMulti-useLandscapes,”BiologicalConservation131(2006):23–32;A.Treves,“HuntingforLargeCarnivore
Conservation,”JournalofAppliedEcology46(2009):1350–1356.
( )A.Treves,L.Naughton-Treves,andV.Shelley,“LongitudinalAnalysisofAttitudesTowardWolves,”
ConservationBiology27(2013):315–323.
( )C.Browne-Nunez,A.Treves,D.MacFarland,andZ.Voyles,“TheInfluenceofOfficialLethalControlonIllegal
Take,SocialTolerance,andSubsequentDepredations?TheCaseofWisconsinGrayWolves(Canislupus),”
http://fac ulty.nelson.wisc.edu/treves/wolves/wolfhuman.php(accessedMarch7th2014).
( )L.Naughton-Treves,R.Grossberg,andA.Treves,“PayingforTolerance:RuralCitizens’AttitudestowardWolf
DepredationandCompensation,”ConservationBiology17(2003):1500–1511.
( )Forexample,in2005,“afederaljudgestruckdownaBushadministrationrulethatloweredEndangered
SpeciesAct(ESA)protectionforwolvesthataremigratingoutofstrongholdsintheNorthernRockiesandGreat
Lakesintoneighboringstates…SharonBeck,anEasternOregonrancherandformerpresidentoftheOregon
Cattlemen’sAssociation,saidtherulingleavesrancherslittlerecoursebuttobreakthelaw—knownaroundthe
Westasʻshoot,shovelandshutupʼ—whenwolvesmoveintotheirareas.”SeeJ.Barnard,“RulingHalts
DowngradedWolfProtections,”AssociatedPress,February9,,2005,
www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/artic les02/ruling_halts_downgraded_wolf_pro.htm(accessedJuly15,2013).
( )A.TrevesandK.A.Martin,“HuntersasStewardsofWolvesinWisconsinandtheNorthernRockyMountains,
USA,”SocietyandNaturalResources24(2011):984–994.
( )Trevesetal.,“LongitudinalAnalysis,”315–323.
( )SuchasthesurveydescribedinTrevesetal.,“LongitudinalAnalysis,”315–323.
( )L.Sjoberg,“FactorsinRiskPerception,”RiskAnalysis20(2000):1–11;P.Slovic,“PerceptionofRisk:
ReflectionsonthePsychometricParadigm,”inSocialTheoriesofRisk,ed.S.KrimskyandD.Golding(NewYork:
Praeger,1992),117–152.
( )MichiganUnitedConservationClubs,“Out-of-StateAnimalRightsExtremistsatItAgain,”July2,2013,
http://www.mucc.org/2013/07/mucc -statement-on-anti-hunting-initiative-regarding-wolf-management/(accessed15
July2013).
( )Vucetich,“WhatAre60WarblersWorth?”1267–1278;J.VucetichandM.P.Nelson,“TheInfirmEthical
FoundationsofConservation,”inIgnoringNatureNoMore:TheCaseforCompassionateConservation,ed.Marc
Bekoff(Chic ago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2013),9–26;C.DraperandM.Bekoff,“AnimalWelfareandthe
ImportanceofCompassionateConservation:ACommentonMcmahonetal.(2012),”BiologicalConservation158
(2013):422–423.
( )AmericanHeritageDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage,4thedition(Boston:HoughtonMifflinCompany,2000).
( )Huntinghasotherincidentalvalues,suchasprovidinganopportunitytospendtimeoutdoorsandbetter
understandnature.Notonlyarethesevaluesincidental,theycanalsobeaccomplishedwithoutkilling.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 14 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxfor d U niversity Press, 2014. All Rig hts
Reserved. Und er the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidual user may pri nt out a PDF of a si ngl e chapter of a title i n Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscr iber: Oxfor d U niversity Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 Jul y 2014
( )J.VucetichandR.O.Peterson.“UsingBasicPrinciplesofWildlifeManagementtoEvaluatetheProspectsfora
PublicWolfHarvestinMic higan”(writtentestimonytotheMichiganNaturalResourcesCommission,May1,2013).
( )Wolvesaccountfor0.2%ofallcausesofprematuredeathincattle.Themostcommoncausesarevarious
kindsofhealthissues,manyofwhic hcouldbemitigatedbybetterhusbandry.Abouttwiceasmanycattleare
stoleneachyearthanarekilledbywolves.Evenamongmammaliancarnivores,wolvesonlyaccountfor2%ofkills
(domesticdogsaccountfor12%).See“CattleDeathLosses”(reportbytheUnitedStatesDepartmentof
Agriculture,May12,2011),http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CattDeath/(accessedJuly15,2013).
CattDeath-05-12-2011.pdf
( )E.Bangs,M.Jimenez ,C.Niemeyeretal.,“Non-lethalandLethalToolstoManageWolf-LivestockConflictinthe
NorthwesternUnitedStates,”inProceedingsofthe22ndVertebratePestConference,ed.R.M.TimmandJ.M.
O’Brien(Davis:UniversityofCaliforniaDavis,2006),7–16,alsoavailableat
www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/06pubs/shivik067.pdf.
( )Fordetails,seeVucetich,“UsingBasicPrinciples.”Moreover,harvestingcouldexacerbatelossestolivestock.
Thisconcernrises,inpart,fromthelikelyeffectthataharvestwillincreasethenumberofdispersingwolvesin
areaswherelivestockareraised.Dispersingwolvesthathavenotbeenacculturatedtolivinginareaswith
livestockmaybemorelikelytokilllivestock.SeeE.E.BangsandJ.Shivik,“ManagingWolfConflictwithLivestockin
theNorthwesternUnitedStates,”CarnivoreDamagePreventionNews3(2001):2–5;A.TrevesandL.Naughton-
Treves,“EvaluatingLethalControlintheManagementofHuman-WildlifeConflict,”inPeopleandWildlife:Conflict
orCoexistence?ed.R.Woodroffe,S.Thirgood,andA.Rabinowitz (London:CambridgeUniversity,2005),86–106.
( )Insomecases,lethalcontrolisthemosteffectivewaytostoplivestocklosses.Lethalcontrolisdifferentfrom
huntingandreferstothetargetedkillingaparticularwolfattheparticulartimeandplaceassociatedwitha
problem.Evaluatingtheappropriatenessoflethalcontrolrequirestheanalysisofdifferentarguments.Important
questionsinevaluatinglethalcontrolinclude,Havealterativemethodsforsolvingtheproblembeentriedand
showntohavefailed?Istheproblembeingcausedseriousenoughtomerittheuseoflethalcontrol?
( )FreyaMatthews,TheEcologicalSelf(London:Routledge,1991).
( )Forexample,Vucetich,“UsingBasicPrinc iples.”
( )Toreiterate,wearenotsayingthatlethalcontrolofwolvesisneverappropriate.Seefootnote18.
( )Variousexpressionsofthisideaexist,includingthe“veilofignorance”;seeJohnRawls,ATheoryofJustice
(Cambridge,MA:BelknapPress,1971)and“theimpartialspectator”(AdamSmith,TheoryofMoralSentiments
(NewYork:Empire,1759/2011).ImpartialitywasalsocentraltoImmanuelKant’sphilosophy.Foranacc essible
treatmentoftheseideas,seeAmartyaSen,TheIdeaofJustice(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2009).
( )Noneofthepremisesintheprecedingargumentsareoverlycomplicatedorparticularlydiffic ulttoevaluate.
( )See,forexample,IrvingM.Copi,CarlCohen,andKennethMcMahon,IntroductiontoLogic,14thedition(New
York: Pearson,2010).
JohnVuc etich
Jo hnVucetichisAssociateProfessor,Scho olofForestResourcesandEnvironme ntalScience,MichiganTechn ologicalUniversity.
MichaelP.Nelson
MichaelP.Nelson isRuthH.SpaniolCh airofRenewableResou rcesandLeadPrinci palInvestigatorfortheHJAndrews
ExperimentalForestatOregonStateUniversity;andSeniorFellowwiththeSpringCreekProjectforIdeas, Nature, andtheWritten
Word.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61

Wolf Hunting and the Ethics of Predator Control
Page 15 of 15
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HAN DBOOKS ONLIN E ( www.oxford handbooks.com) . (c) Oxfor d U niversity Press, 2014. All Rig hts
Reserved. Und er the terms of the licence agreement, an indi vidual user may pri nt out a PDF of a si ngl e chapter of a title i n Oxford
Hand books Onl ine for personal use (for detail s see Privacy Policy).
Subscr iber: Oxfor d U niversity Press - Master Gratis Access; date: 11 Jul y 2014