Protecting the Predators

by Mary McCarthy

The 23,208 wolves and coyotes destroyed by American ranchers, farmers, hunters, and Forest Service agents during the single year of 1907 is a staggering representation of the mass slaughter of predatory animals condoned by the Bureau of Biological Survey (Vernon Bailey, “Destruction of Wolves and Coyotes: Results Obtained During 1907,” Bureau of Biological Survey, Circular no. 63, 1908). By the mid 1920s, however, some ecologists began to question the wisdom of completely exterminating animals whose important ecological roles were starting to be recognized. Charles C. Adams was one of the early voices for protecting the predatory animals of the United States. His article, “The Conservation of Predatory Mammals,” outlines possible management strategies and justifies the protection of “predacious animals” due to their “great scientific, educational, recreational and economic value to society” (Charles Adams, “The Conservation of Predatory Mammals,” Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 6, 1925, 94). Even more revolutionary was Adams’ call for public park and forest lands to be used as sanctuaries for all types of wild animals, not just the game animals that dominated contemporary management concerns: “As, however, public forests are primarily intended for the public good, the public has a right to decide how these areas should be used. Because of their huge acreage…they have without question areas naturally suitable for the preservation of all kinds of predators, large and small, but not of course in unlimited numbers” (Adams, 91). At that time, the Bureau of Biological Survey was still supporting the extermination of “vermin” on National Park land, a concept that seems very far removed from our current ideology of parkland as a refuge for wild animals.

“The Conservation of Predatory Mammals” remains relevant today, especially regarding current efforts to reintroduce predators to areas where the extermination programs were successful. The Mexican grey wolf, once found in small areas of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, was completely eliminated from the Southwestern United States, thanks in part to the efforts of the Bureau of Biological Survey. Adams’ evaluation of predators as having important scientific and ecological value is similar to the guiding principles of the Mexican grey wolf reintroduction programs that aim to reestablish wild wolf populations in the Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila National Forests. Though government organizations may have officially abandoned extermination in favor of conservation, and embraced the idea of public lands as refuges rather than killing grounds, the reintroduction of predators remains a highly controversial topic, especially to ranchers and farmers. Adams’ writing serves as a reminder that these predators, despite their many human enemies, should still have a place of sanctuary, “that these animals are worth preservation, somewhere” (Adams, 86). Thus, as the political battle wages over wolf reintroduction, let us remember Adams’ conclusions that the value of a predator comes in many forms; we would be scientifically, socially, and ecologically poor without these valuable animals.