Rodger Schlickeisen: defending America's wilder ways - interview with Defenders of Wildlife member - Interview

E: The Environmental Magazine, March-April, 1998 by Tracey C. Rembert

Dr. Rodger Schlickeisen, at the helm of the 50-year-old Defenders of Wildlife since 1991, has by now grown accustomed to controversy in his work defending some of America's biggest predators - including grizzly bears, wolves and the elusive lynx.

In 1995 and 1996, Defenders scored a triumph by negotiating legal entanglements and vociferous local opposition to help government agents reintroduce gray wolves into the Northern Rockies. But last December, Defenders' efforts were set back when U.S. District Judge William Dowries ruled that the reintroduction was illegal because the "experimental" population was not adequately protected. He then ordered the removal of all 90 wolves from the park and another 73 evicted from the Frank Church/River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho. Defenders immediately announced an appeal, and it's highly unlikely that the now very popular wolf plan will actually be overturned.

Originally setting out with 1,500 members to end steel-jawed leg-hold traps and the poisoning of coyotes, Defenders can now boast of having over 230,000 members (it has doubled its membership in the last three years), with enthusiastic predator proponents in every corner of the U.S.

Schlickeisen, a former chief of staff to U.S. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), has recently steered the group's efforts towards building public support for the wolf's return to Washington State, New York and the Southwest. At present, he's concentrating on getting Dowries' decision reversed, and building citizen, rancher and timber industry acceptance for the return of the grizzly bear into the economically challenged Bitterroot ecosystem in Idaho.

E: Did the decision to take wolves back out of Yellowstone surprise you?

SCHLICKEISEN: It was a disastrous ruling. It depended on the judge reaching an interpretation, not only of the law, but of congressional intent on the way they worded the provision. I can't even imagine how he got to that point. The remedy he proposes is preposterous. This has been the most successful endangered species reintroduction in the history of the country - and the most popular. And the idea that after nearly three years, agents would remove over 150 wolves, is nothing short of bizarre.

And it would be costly - an incredible waste. The judge doesn't disagree. But he came to the conclusion that one aspect of the law was illegal. We don't agree with him. We asked him to reconsider. He didn't, so on December 30 we appealed. The 10th Circuit, where the case resides, is not friendly to conservation causes. It's not impossible that if this keeps going, it could wind up in the Supreme Court. But there is no way we or the public are going to permit those wolves to be taken out of there. The public loves them.

People seem to really emotionally respond to predators like wolves, big cats and bears. Do you think it's because we psychologically need these animals in our lives?

Yes, I think that's true. Edward O. Wilson, the eminent evolutionary biologist at Harvard, has pointed out that through all but the last minor portion of our existence, we've been so intimately connected to nature that we retain in us an innate need for it. In an increasingly urbanized society, it becomes more and more difficult to satisfy this need. It also has to do with the fact that some of these species, especially the wolf, our signature species, is, more than any other single creature in North America, a symbol of wild nature.

But even that's not all of it, because in the case of the wolf, what we know and what we're ashamed of is the fact that since our country's founding, the wolf has been demonized, and a conscious government-sponsored effort was made to exterminate it across the land. Approaches they used were fairly ghastly - like denning, where they would pull wolf pups out of their dens and bludgeon them ruthlessly, or lasso them and tear them apart. Cowboys would do this too - besides shooting them and trapping them and poisoning them and setting them on fire.

There's quite a bit to be ashamed about. Especially once you get the facts about what wolves are really like, and what their contributions are to ecology. So, there's some satisfaction the public gains from making amends.

The biggest predator issue right now, besides the Yellowstone wolves, is the proposed reintroduction of grizzlies into Idaho's Bitterroot ecosystem. The recovery plan Defenders supports says that boars would be categorized as "experimental, non-essential," just as the Yellowstone wolves were. Why is this so controversial?

It's a long story. It's basically to help calm the public and assure them that this is an experiment, and if something goes wrong, it's not something people have to live with forever.

I don't disagree with the heartfelt sentiments of people who prefer to see the grizzly reintroduced into the Bitterroot simply as an endangered species, without the "experimental" designation. The fact of the matter is that there's too much controversy surrounding this species. Grizzly bears are more dangerous than wolves. Anybody who tells you that's not true is misleading you. We'll be lucky to get the bears in even with this designation. It's not going to happen otherwise.