The Emotional Lives of Wild Neighbors and Why They Matter

This post was written by Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., and Delia Malone.

Reintroduction programs in which individuals of different species are taken from one area where they currently live to other locations where others of their species once lived are becoming increasingly popular. This means, of course, that the individuals who are moved around have not had any lived experience in the habitats where they are to be repatriated or with the nonhumans or humans with whom they are going to share space. Clearly, there are many slippery slopes to negotiate, and what the animals themselves feel must be factored into these projects.

Wolves in the hood: A case study that applies to many other new and resident wild neighbors

The presence of new wolves who were shipped to Colorado's magnificent landscapes has generated a good deal of support, along with what seems to be even more criticism and concern. It's easy to understand why those who favor the presence of wolves and those who don't, including those whose food animals live on public lands, will be at odds. However, science shows that killing these magnificent keystone animals and interfering in their lives does not work for them or for us.

Here, using available data, we highlight why biology, psychology, and ethics show that it's essential to develop a mindset for peaceful coexistence by using transformative conservation—specifically compassionate conservation—to inform us on what we must do to coexist with live wolves. Many of these factors apply to other wild neighbors.

• Science shows that killing in the name of coexistence doesn't work. If CPW [Colorado Parks and Wildlife] truly followed the science as they claim they do, they would stop lethal management. CPW needs to listen to the scientific and ethical concerns of critics who also want live wolves thriving on Colorado's landscapes.
• Nonlethal coexistence tools work to prevent conflict between carnivores and livestock, but only if used proactively and properly. There is no requirement in Colorado that ranchers use nonlethal coexistence methods to prevent conflict between wolves and livestock.
• Lethal management of carnivores can exacerbate conflict.
• Killing wolf family members destroys pack structure that enables them to take down their native prey—elk.
• Wolves are prudent predators who recognize who's an easy take. Like other predators, wolves want to feel safe and save energy when hunting. What could be better than unprotected prey animals—a form of "room service"—whose defenses have been selectively bred out of them to make them ideal food for humans?
• When cows and their calves are turned out onto public lands to graze, range riders trained to keep cows “mothered up” with their calves and keep the herd together while moving across the landscape are proven to successfully prevent conflict and loss of livestock to wolves, cougars, and bears.
• There is no evidence to support the myth that once a wolf (or other animal) kills livestock, they will always kill livestock. In fact, evidence shows that wolves who have killed livestock go back to preying on wild ungulates when livestock is protected with nonlethal tools (range riders, herders, guardian dogs, fladry, fox lights, etc.).

A mindset of compassionate coexistence respects the life of every individual

Compassionate conservation, according to which the life of every individual matters, offers an ethical path toward coexisting with the natural world. It is a major advance on archaic conservation practices, such as those that follow the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, in which killing is business as usual, and even encouraged as a tool to “manage” wildlife.

Just like humans, wolves and other wild animals have hopes and dreams and experience happiness, sadness, and grief. Family is everything to a wolf, and each family member is valued and necessary. When CPW killed yearling wolf 2405, the mother lost a son, and his siblings lost a brother. Would you treat your dog this way?

The only viable solution for solving wolf-human conflict is for CPW and others to say killing is off the table. This is not a “radical” move but rather one that respects the life of every single wolf. An Idaho rancher has learned to live with wolves with no loss of cattle, and there's no reason Colorado ranchers can't do the same by changing the culture of killing.

CPW director Jeff Davis claims, “We have great respect for these animals." If CPW truly understood and respected wild wolves and paid attention to solid science, they would not have killed wolf 2405 or attempted to relocate the original Copper Creek pack to please some ranchers, in which process the father died after being trapped and the mother and all but one of their children were put in a cage and released later on. They would have left them alone. Playing the middle from both ends is reckless, and potentially fatal to the wolves and other animals.

Science shows that killing in the name of conservation or coexistence doesn't work

Our concerns and suggestions are extremely timely and apply to many other wild animals. As we write this post, the possibility that CPW will decide to kill all or some of the new misnamed Copper Creek pack, including pups who have not killed any livestock, is currently on the table.¹ At CPW's recent special meeting on July 7, this possibility was discussed in some detail, and some individuals were all for doing this. CPW will meet again on July 17-18.

Animal Behavior Essential Reads

Fish Are Smarter Than You Think

Mental Health in Animals: What's a Good Life or a Bad Life?

We find even the consideration of continually killing wolves to be unscientific and ethically indefensible. Already, 9 of the original 25 (40 percent) of the reintroduced wolves have died. Killing off the DNA for future wolves is not the way to form a sustainable future population. Would you go to work or to the store if you had only a 60 percent chance of getting there? Of course, the wolves had no say in the matter.

These numbers argue against the ability to develop a sustainable population of wolves.² Additionally, hundreds of cows have been rustled in the past year, many more than have been killed by wolves, according to Colorado Parks and Wildlife.³ Other predators also feed on these animals.⁴

CPW would benefit by reversing its close-minded persistence that they have to kill wolves to enable people to coexist with them. So would the wolves. Not only is this ridiculously illogical, but it is also unscientific and heartless. Why bring wolves here, betray them, and allow them to be killed?

Killing in the name of coexistence or conservation doesn't work. If it did, why do problems repeatedly arise? We need a new data-driven science-based psychological framework—conservation deeply rooted in compassion—that shifts from misguided anthropocentric micro-management to concern, empathy, and respect for the lives of every individual animal.

This isn’t an easy road to travel, but that’s what Colorado’s new wolves and other wild neighbors need and fully deserve. Their emotional lives matter to them, and they must matter to us.