Pages

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

The Wolf Wars

Everybody knows that dogs are supposed to be "man's best friend." Used once for hunting and herding livestock, the dog has transitioned into a household animal around the globe. However, our domesticated canine has a well-known relative that is not nearly as worshiped as Lassie or Shiloh - the wolf.

When Europeans settled present-day North America, they brought with them their religions, values and beliefs from the Old World. Inspired by fairy tales, such as those of Brother Grimm's, many Europeans arrived to America with the perception that wolves were evil and should be feared and destroyed. In fact, just ten years after the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620, the Massachusetts Bay Colony began offering bounty for every wolf that was killed [1]. Colonists were able to earn a month’s salary for a single wolf kill [2]. In the 19th century, the fur trade sprung to life. In addition to trapping and hunting beavers and mink, wolf pelts were added to the list of desirable fur, and a greater number of wolves were killed each year to support the economic demand.

Over time, colonists spread outward and encroached farther into the wilderness where the wolves roamed. As deer were hunted by humans for food, forests were destroyed for logging, and farms became more common, domestic livestock replaced the white-tailed deer as the wolf’s primary prey. In retaliation, a large anti-wolf campaign swept through America, and in just a quarter of a century, hunters killed over 80,000 wolves in Montana alone [1]. Due to this overhunting and habitat destruction, wolves disappeared from New York State around 1900 [3].

Yet, this has not always been the case. Native Americans believed that wolves were closely linked to their spirituality, and thought them to have mystical powers. Even in ancient times, wolves carried an element of respect. As Roman legend has it, Ancient Rome was founded by two twin brothers who had been abandoned as infants and raised by a she-wolf until a farmer found them.

In recent decades, scientists have also put greater effort into researching and understanding wolves, and now realize how dependent ecosystems are on their primary predators. With the absence of wolves in the Adirondacks, populations of white tailed deer and other species that wolves would prey on have increased unchecked. Herbivores, like deer, have overgrazed grassy regions, depleting vegetation, which has strong impacts on local water quality and the ecosystem [2]. Additionally, coyotes have become more prominent in the park, killing cats and endangering livestock [4].


In response to the work of ecologists, wildlife groups around New York State have been advocating for the reintroduction of wolves in the Adirondack State Park. In addition to the ecological benefits, some push for the reintroduction of wolves simply to return the park to its natural, pre-human state. However, there has been pushback from farmers stating that the reintroduction of wolves to the park will create further economic distress, as wolves will cause more livestock loss. What is the right answer? Should we mess with nature more and reintroduce wolves to the Adirondack Park? Or are we morally obligated to do so, since we humans were the ones who eliminated wolves from the park not long ago?

Sources:
[2]: http://www.adirondack.net/adirondack-advocacy/2015/09/rewilding-the-adirondacks-the-influence-of-wolves.html
[4]: http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/brochure/coyote/coyote.htm

Proposition Five revisited


In 2013, six different amendments were proposed to the New York constitution. The most recent in New York’s history, the amendments ranged from the retirement age of Judges to authorizing casino gambling. One in particular, however, has drawn controversy as recently as last month due to its impact on the Adirondacks. Proposition Five proposed to:

 “Authorize the Legislature to convey forest preserve land located in the town of Lewis, Essex
County, to NYCO Minerals, a private company that plans on expanding an existing mine
that adjoins the forest preserve land. In exchange, NYCO Minerals would give the State
at least the same amount of land of at least the same value, with a minimum assessed
value of $1 million, to be added to the forest preserve. When NYCO Minerals finishes
mining, it would restore the condition of the land and return it to the forest preserve.”

In essence, the proposal gives 200 acres of the Park to the mining company, NYCO, in exchange for 1,500 acres of land and the return of the 200 acres once the company is finished. Governor Andrew Cuomo praised the amendment as an opportunity to both safeguard local economies (through the mining company) and simultaneously “protect the integrity” of the park. At the time, even the New York Times editorial board supported the proposition, arguing that the deal with NYCO was a win-win situation (getting an arguably better area, and larger, in return for land that would be given back eventually anyways).

So where’s the controversy? Initially, there was little, although the amendment passed relatively narrowly: election results in the state show 1,276,592 for Yes and 1,122,055 for No. One of the groups in opposition, Protect the Adirondacks!, however, has recently accused state officials of unconstitutionally passing the bill.  NYCO argues that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) acted unconstitutionally by using State funds in a partisan effort to sway the amendment in favor of passing. The State government, as of January 31, has officially challenged the inquiry by Protect the Adirondacks! and refused their request for investigation.

Proposition Five is a highly controversial topic, as one of only 15 amendments ever to Article XIV (“Forever Wild”) of the New York Constitution. It remains to be seen if opposition has enough evidence that the DEC acted unconstitutionally. Either way, it is in the interest of the future of the park that this issue at least stays in the press; constitutional or not, such unprecedented change deserves persistent scrutiny.