Killing for the common good? The (bio)politics of wolf management in Washington State

Abstract

Washington State has been rocked by conflict over wolves, whose return to rural landscapes after their extirpation a century ago has brought them into new, often violent relations with human society. I interpret this emblematic instance of human–wildlife conflict as fundamentally a human–human conflict and a manifestation of different deep-seated sociocultural norms and values toward wolves. This social conflict hinges on two competing, underacknowledged forms of commoning—wildlife as a public trust and grazing access to public lands—that already intertwine the economy of the rural Western United States. Amid these tensions, wildlife managers seek to reduce conflict through the targeted killing (“lethal removal”) of wolves that repeatedly prey on livestock. I draw on ethnographic research examining the ongoing debate over lethal removal policy in Washington’s “Wolf Advisory Group,” an advisory committee aimed at transforming Washington’s wolf conflict through collaborative governance. Drawing together the theoretical frameworks of commoning and conservation environmentality, I frame these debates as an effort to produce shared social norms regarding wolf life and death. In this context, lethal removal of wolves functions as a biopolitical intervention targeted to affect social values, producing “social tolerance” for wolves in Washington’s rural landscapes. The paradox of wolf conservation governance is that achieving the social tolerance necessary for long-term recovery requires that the state kill wolves in the name of shared common interest and responsibility.

Generalization of threats attributed to large carnivores in areas of high human–wildlife conflict

“…In high‐income countries, community involvement has a firm place in conservation, apart from strong legislation (Woolaston et al., 2021 ). Such strategies have successfully lessened people's anger about depredation by wolves and helped people perceive conflict as a managerial lacuna in Washington (Anderson, 2021 )…”

Wolf Conservation and Management in Spain, An Open Debate

“…Large carnivores and their management are controversial worldwide, as illustrated by the long-term wolf delisting process in USA (Bergstrom et al, 2009;Barber-Meyer et al, 2021;Treves et al, 2021). Lethal control of wolves is often used as a "biopolitical" action to affect social values, supposedly producing social tolerance for wolves (Anderson, 2021). Yet, granting wolf hunting does not necessarily favor wolf acceptance (Pepin et al, 2017).…”

Efficacy and ethics of intensive predator management to save endangered caribou

“…The efficacy and ethics of predator management have been discussed by conservation and management professionals for decades, yet we are no closer in finding consensus on the acceptability of such practices (Anderson, 2021; Clark & Hebblewhite, 2021; National Research Council, 1997; Slagle et al, 2017). Justifications such as “wolves are nowhere near endangered or threatened in Canada” or “there is a long history of predator (and prey) reduction to recover endangered species” (Serrouya et al, 2019; 6184) are not compelling arguments for those who find many of the methods of control as inhumane or that have deep philosophical objections to killing one species to save another (Brook et al, 2015; Fox & Bekoff, 2011).…”