It all looks a bit awkward. On the Swedish island of Djurhamm, an hour’s drive from Stockholm, hundreds of scientists and conservationists working on wolves gathered this month. From India and Ethiopia to Siberia and the Netherlands, a newcomer to wolf country. “There is now one expert here for every two wolves in the Netherlands,” the Dutch conference attendees joked to each other.
The non-agreed dress code of the conference – outdoor clothing with checkered blouses – shows that the population is not used to listening to presentations sitting for days on end. John Vucetich (51) of the University of Michigan also prefers to spend his days outside. Flying over the island of Isle Royale in Lake Superior, for example, where his research group has been studying the behavior of wolves and the moose that feed them for sixty years. Vucetich has been involved in this research for the past thirty years.
In his book Restore the balance he argues in favor of looking at wolves not only in an ecological way, but also in a philosophical way. “Whenever I spoke publicly about wolves, people had only one question: Should we hunt them? I always answered that as a scientist I was not about that. At some point I got tired of giving that answer over and over again. I decided to study ethics.”
In the Netherlands, where there are now about 35 wolves, the discussion about the animal is in full swing. With every signaling of the animal, the debate between supporters and opponents flares up again. And with the wolf-critical BoerBurger Movement in power in many provinces, this question also arises – to hunt or not? – back on the table. Deputies of the provinces of Friesland, Overijssel and Drenthe have asked nature minister Van der Wal (VVD) to reconsider the protected status that the animal still has.
In the meantime you are not only a biologist but also an ethicist. Do you now have an answer to the question whether you can hunt wolves?
“First of all, you have to establish: wolves are sentient beings who, like other beings, have their own interests. In that respect, they are not necessarily different from dogs that you keep as pets. You wouldn’t want to hurt them either. Since wolves don’t have a voice of their own, they need humans to represent their voice. But, people who suffer from wolves also have a voice. And it’s just as legit. And that’s where the discussion gets complicated.”
How can ethics break open that discussion?
“In the public debate it quickly becomes very clear: you are for or against killing wolves. But if you raise the statement in a discussion that you should not kill wolves without good reason, farmers and nature managers suddenly appear to be in complete agreement. I’ve never met anyone who disagrees. And then suddenly you have another conversation: what are good reasons to kill a wolf, and what are not? Then it is about values, instead of interests.”
But those values are very different. One believes that man rules over nature, while the other believes that nature should be allowed to take its course unhindered as much as possible. Doesn’t the conversation become more complicated if you involve values?
“As a society we are not very good at talking about values, that is true. It seems safer, or easier, to discuss interests or perceptions. But if we want the conversation about wolves to be more peaceful, we’ll have to. It forces both camps in the conversation to put their cards on the table. To talk about why we think what we think.”
Wolves don’t always do what you as a human being think is in their best interest. In that too, they are just people
What does such a conversation about values look like?
“I think discussions about wild nature lend themselves well to ‘deliberative democracy’. Think of citizens’ meetings and panels. You then select representatives from different value groups, give them a briefing with some basic information about the subject and let them talk. You can then ask them to put themselves in the shoes of the other person. Can you empathize with someone who is concerned about their livestock? Or, for someone who really likes wolves? In the first instance, this should be a conversation in which no decision is made. Simply, an exchange of views. Then you let them advise together as a kind of jury on the type of management that fits in a certain area. What measures are needed to meet all the concerns of both supporters and opponents? Because that management is necessary, everyone in the wolf debate agrees on that.”
Yet there seems to be more going on in this discussion than clashing values. It is just as much about a group – livestock farmers – who actually say: who do these townspeople think they are? We live with the consequences.
“For starters, city people are just as much of a stakeholder as people who live directly with wolves. As a society, we share one space with each other. Moreover, wolves do not care much about the distinction between urban and rural areas. Living in the city has disadvantages, such as a higher crime rate and heavy traffic. Wolves can be seen as one of the disadvantages of living in the countryside. What is striking: if you ask people in sociological research to name and rank their problems themselves, the wolf is nowhere the biggest theme. For a country resident, the wolf seems to be something tangible: you can shoot the animal and then the problem is gone. As if you immediately tackle other problems with it. While the other disadvantages of rural life – such as poor accessibility, financial insecurity or shrinkage – are still there when you have killed a wolf. The trick is to take the discussion away from the wolf and let it be about these themes. In that case, rural residents will find many city residents on their side.”
For the time being in the Netherlands, humans are more dangerous to wolves than the other way around. Seventeen wolves have already been killed. Is it still ethical anyway to let the wolf live in the Netherlands?
“As the wolf returns to some of the most densely populated areas in the world – think India – that is one of the most important questions to ask. And the honest answer is: I’m not sure yet. You can of course say: the wolf decides for itself where it does and does not want to live. Conservationists often use that argument too. But with the possibilities we have as humans to admit or deter wolves, there is also a responsibility. Can you do it to wolves to live in a country where the risk of suffering is so great? Doesn’t protecting wolves mean that you sometimes have to lead them to a different habitat? I am inclined to say: suffering and danger are part of life in a sense and you have to take it for granted. This applies to humans, but also to other living beings. If you wait for a world in which no living creature has anything to fear from another, you can keep waiting. Then there is nowhere for carnivores.”
You have been observing a pack of wolves on an island for thirty years. What did those wolves teach you?
“Sometimes they do things you don’t expect at all. That makes ecology really different from, say, chemistry or physics. You can express a certain expectation and then determine whether it will come true or not. Wolves are much more erratic and don’t always do what you as a human being think is in their best interest. They are just people in that too.”
A version of this article also appeared in the newspaper of May 23, 2023.