With Minnesota’s wolf hunting season due to begin this Saturday, protesters of the hunt are planning to rally the same day in Ely’s Whiteside Park. The two events are symbolic of diverse sides of an ongoing controversy over wolf management now that wolves in Minnesota and other states have been delisted from the Endangered Species Act and are being managed by the states.

It was interesting in Duluth earlier this month to hear experts debate issues of wolf recovery in a three-day symposium that encouraged respectful dialogue on hunting and other key controversial topics. I was invited to moderate a debate on the subject of wolf recovery at the International Wolf Center’s Wolves and Humans at the Crossroads event that featured 100 presentations and attracted more than 450 participants and wolf experts from 18 countries.

The three experts debating were renowned for their experience in wolf recovery and management. Mike Phillips had led the efforts to restore red wolves to the southeast and gray wolves to the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. He’d served on every Mexican wolf recovery team and currently directs the Turner Endangered Species Fund.

Ed Bangs was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s gray wolf recovery coordinator for the northwestern U.S. and was involved with the recovery and management of wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. He led the interagency program to reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.

Larry Voyles is the Director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, which has about 650 employees, a $100 million budget and owns or manages about 274,000 acres, a portion of which supports a population of recovered and still-federally-protected Mexican wolves.

While they expressed wide-ranging opinions on the success of the Endangered Species Act and the work yet to be done for the recovery of wolf populations, their stances on both the role of science and social-political decision-making on state management issues like wolf hunting were remarkably similar.

Noted for his pragmatic approach, Bangs said, “Science is only one small part of conservation. If you look at wildlife conservation across the globe, it’s about people. It’s about what we do and how we act and how we conduct our activities. It’s politics. It’s stakeholder building. Science does not answer the difficult social questions.

“We said from day one the purpose of wolf recovery and wolf reintroduction was to get a viable population and delist them, turn them over to the states, so they could be plugged into the management that is used to manage mountain lions, black bears, deer, elk, antelope, turkeys, a whole host of other species. Some of the most successful wildlife restoration and conservation programs in North America happened under the states and with guidance and help and money from sportsmen. I think wolf hunting is a sign that we were really successful. I think that this is the best way for wolves to gain local public tolerance, for wolves to start paying their own way. I think that’s a long-term positive for wolves.”

Voyles referred to the minimum number of wolves needed for a viable population and the maximum number that could be sustained in an area. “Any decision between minimum viable and maximum sustainable is a social decision. You are managing to social outcome. I don’t think its really derogatory to a state agency to say that it involved a political-social decision in their process when, in fact, it’s essential to everything we do, and we do it with ungulate populations all the time.”

Phillips noted, “Life is politics. I think the states do a great job day in and day out managing the tension between competing interests that express themselves politically.”

What does the public need to better understand about wolf recovery?

Bangs said we need patience. “People started talking about putting wolves in Yellowstone Park in the 60’s. We need persistence. It took 30 or 40 years and a lot of effort and persistence to have that happen. And it would behoove us to listen to the other side a little bit more, from both sides. And realize that ranchers and hunters have legitimate concerns about wolf restoration. People who like to view wolves or see wolves in the wild or just like to know that they are there have legitimate…perceptions about what wildlife in North America should be, and they should be heard about that. Stick with it. Don’t be afraid to fight for your values. Show persistence, understanding, and a little bit of patience.”

Phillips suggested that people need to understand the complexity of recovery, that it is not simply the prevention of extinction and must include viable populations that are widely distributed.

Economics cannot be a factor, he noted. “Recovery is based on the needs of the species in question,” he said. “There was an attempt during the Reagan administration to set recovery against the economics of it. If you set recovery against the economics of it, most of these species will lose. They cannot compete against the almighty buck. They have no economic value. Sometimes the almighty buck sits in the back seat. Sometimes the innate right of an organism to exist is what’s most important.”

Voyles advised people that, “In conservation work you’d better be in it for the long haul. Sound bites and immediate satisfaction in conservation is a naïve undertaking at best. After less than 20 years in the Mexican wolf recovery effort, people claim it’s a failure. But we have 75 wild wolves on the ground where less than two decades ago we had zero. That’s a huge turning point in any recovery effort, and when people announce that’s a failure I look at the individual and I think they either have an agenda or they are incredibly naïve or unsophisticated in conservation work.

“Most important is to understand the vitriolic nature of the conversation about conservation in the world today. Conservation is at the crossroads. You look at the House-proposed budget that slashes state wildlife grants, that devastates all the conservation portions of the farm bill, that cuts or guts the funding for all of our national conservation organizations, and you realize that we have to change this vitriolic discussion. We need to reframe our dialogue about how we bring people together to create a 21st century of conservation that has all the systematic structures it takes to be successful 100 years out, not just getting the wolf on the ground tomorrow.”

The group applauded Voyles’ statement that, “A simple, calm rational discussion needs to take place. People like this in this room will have to be the ambassadors that bring everyone together constructively for conservation.”