If you’re in the wolf world, chances are you’ve seen this photo floating around the internet. What’s also making the rounds is a lot of misinformation about this particular wolf, including claims about where it was killed and the circumstances surrounding its death.
I like to think whether it's conservation groups, individual conservationists or large organizations that each is working with the wolf’s best interest in mind. But when I see misinformation being spread, about where this wolf was killed or claims of it being killed in excess of the allotted quota it really makes me question their credibility and the weight of these voices. And, if it’s making me question, then I certainly know I’m not the only one.
The way I see it, there are really three “sides” in the wolf conversation. We have what we call the pro-wolf side, the middle of the road folk and the anti-wolf side. And because I can never resist a hypothetical, let’s consider what happens when these perspectives collide.
What happens when the “anti-wolf” side sees misinformation being spread by the “pro-wolf” side about somebody that legally hunted a wolf? To me, that would deepen the divide, and reinforce the perception that the other side is sensationalizing the issue and willing to bend the facts to support its own narrative. And I think the same can be said for the “pro-wolf.” Either way, either side it further erodes trust and reinforces existing assumptions.
Unfortunately, for the wolves, I see both of these hypotheticals play out every single day.
Whether we agree with it or not, wolf hunting is a part of the wolf's story in the western US, and it has been for quite some time. Now, do I love seeing images of a wolf with its tongue hanging out of its mouth and blood on it’s fur? Of course not. But I do understand that wolf hunting is legal in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, and I don’t really see it going away anytime soon. That’s a pill that I’ve swallowed a long time ago. Would I prefer wolves to be able to live their lives without the pressure of trophy hunting? Absolutely. But wishing things were different doesn’t change the reality we’re working within. And if we want to make meaningful progress for wolves, we have to be willing to engage with that reality, even when it’s uncomfortable.
Until we can come to the table and really have constructive conversations around wolves and what we want for the future of wolves in the West we’ll just be talking in echo chambers. We will sit at the same tables, with the same people, saying the same things, reinforcing our individual beliefs. At that point, you can forget progress.
Compromise doesn’t mean abandoning your values or giving up on what you believe is best for “your side.” It means recognizing that progress often requires engaging with people who see things differently, and that credibility matters if we want those conversations to lead somewhere.
So, instead of beginning every conversation by pointing fingers at the other side, what if we started by looking for common ground? What if we prioritized accuracy, acknowledged the realities we disagree on, and focused on the things we can actually change? Because at the end of the day that’s what’s going to move the needle, not being the loudest voice in the room trying to further your own narrative.
