Letters
From Our Readers

WHO’S AFRAID OF THE BIG, BAD WOLF?

I couldn’t believe that someone selected the two pictures of wolves on pages 50-51 of the May-June issue to go with an article that is so pro-wolf [Incite, “Back Off!”]! When I was teaching a unit on maligned animals in environmental science in senior high school, my students and I agreed that many people fear (and perhaps hate) wolves in large part because of their appearance: their size, those yellow eyes, the sharp fangs, etc. Why in the world were those two frightening pictures chosen?

Ann Klingaman
Columbia, MD

Even though Idaho is one of the most conservative states in the union, the opinions and attitudes of the populace regarding nature and the environment are not necessarily reflected through our legislature, our governor, or the extremist anti-wolf groups out there. Some call for removal of all wolves, but most people in the state simply want them managed exactly like big game trophy animals.

As Williams pointed out, Idaho’s wolves were to be considered completely recovered when it had 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs. Idaho’s current population is estimated at 673 wolves. The state has clearly achieved the recovery goal. The overriding reason for the distrust of outsiders is aptly summed up in Peggy Struhsacker’s (of the National Wildlife Federation) off-the-cuff answer to Williams’s question about whether the wolves should be delisted: “No!” It obviously doesn’t matter that the goal has been met.

It is not difficult to see why so many Idahoans do not share Ted’s sentiment that the NWF is “eminently rational and restrained.”

Richard A. Nau
Emmett, ID

Ted Williams responds: Meeting the recovery goal isn’t enough. For delisting to occur, states must also convince the Fish and Wildlife Service that they won’t let the population slip below the goal. Idaho succeeded, but by the barest of margins and only after the service rejected 16 drafts of its management plan. So I’m sure Mr. Nau can appreciate why all NGOs working for wolf recovery distrust Idaho’s intentions, particularly in light of rhetoric issuing from the state’s politicians and sportsmen. Finally, if public attitudes in Idaho aren’t “reflected through” actions and statements of elected officials, how do they get elected?

I am an avid elk and deer hunter, a member of Audubon, and an avowed enemy of wolves. Ted Williams obviously observed his wolves on a dude ranch. I have hunted elk and deer in the Frank Church Wilderness for seven consecutive seasons and have witnessed wolves tearing elk and deer apart while their victims were still alive! The grizzly and cougar are admired by most hunters, not only for their beauty but also for the fact they hunt alone and kill their prey instantly. The wolf is nothing but a feral dog and needs to be eradicated once again! The only portion of the May-June Audubon that addresses the problem properly is the cover: “Taking Aim at Wolves.” It coincides with the actions of many wilderness hunters whose slogan is “Shoot, shovel, and shut up!”

John Sauter
Sierra Vista, AZ

Ted Williams responds: We led into the piece with this: “All that stands in the way of the biggest success story in the history of the Endangered Species Act is ignorance and superstition.” I thank Mr. Sauter for illustrating that fact more graphically than I was able to in the text.

THE HUMAN TOUCH

In “Packing Up the Planet” [“Field Notes,” March-April], Bob Grant writes about a “moon-based repository” of frozen DNA of all the earth’s species for the purpose of repopulating in case of an environmental disaster on earth. Since an environmental disaster is most likely to be caused by the most intelligent species on earth—that is, humankind—I suggest the future of earth and its galaxy would do better to move forward without humans. We have our chance, and if we blow it, we don’t deserve another.

Anita Bayley
Feura Bush, NY

SOUNDING THE ALARM

Re: “Sound Check” [May-June]: The current situation in Long Island Sound has a long history. My grandfather was an oysterman. He was one of 12 children; most of the males in his family made their living from the waters of the sound. Eventually my grandfather reverted to fishing simply for family and friends. During those years, our family enjoyed the small beach near where his boats were anchored, and we have happy memories of fun in the water there. The thought of pollution never crossed our minds—that is, until the day local politicians, in their infinite wisdom, decided to put a new sewage disposal plant up at the very end of this small estuary. Few people realized what was going on, and landowners along the smaller waterway did not have enough money or political clout to stop it. Shortly after the plant opened, pollution occurred, and our private water hole was no more. This plant no longer exists, I am happy to say. While this small estuary was what might be considered the dividing line between Riverside and Old Greenwich, it is obviously only one small example of what was happening all along our Connecticut shores.

Elizabeth Palmer Platts
Colorado Springs, CO

Send letters via postage-saving e-mail to editor@audubon.org, or by mail to Editor, Audubon, 225 Varick St. 7th Floor, New York, NY 10014. Please include your full name, city, and state.