This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]On: 15 November 2014, At: 10:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Applied Environmental Education &CommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueec20

Wolf Wars: Online Information AboutWolves in the Northern Rocky MountainsKaren F. Dajani aa Communication Department , Chatham University , Pittsburgh ,Pennsylvania , USAPublished online: 28 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Karen F. Dajani (2013) Wolf Wars: Online Information About Wolves in theNorthern Rocky Mountains, Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 12:1, 46-54, DOI:10.1080/1533015X.2013.796190

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2013.796190

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 12:46–54, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1533-015X print / 1533-0389 onlineDOI: 10.1080/1533015X.2013.796190

Wolf Wars: Online Information About Wolves

in the Northern Rocky Mountains

Karen F. Dajani, Communication Department, Chatham University, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania, USA

Wolves were protected under the Endangered Species Act from 1995, when theywere reintroduced to the United States, until 2009. The law did not protect themfrom controversy. This study examines sources of online information about wolfmanagement in the northern Rockies available between August 5, 2010, whenwolves were relisted by a U.S. District Judge, and March 18, 2011, when asettlement on wolf recovery was reached. Findings indicate that rhetoric and dataappear to be contradictory and highlight the ongoing controversy over how manywolves are enough to sustain their population.

BACKGROUND

After years of being shot, trapped, and poi-soned, wolves were eliminated from the West-ern states of the United States by the 1930s(Young, 1944). Wolves naturally recolonizedNorthwest Montana in the early 1980s (Ream,Fairchild, Boyd, & Blakesley, 1989). Then in1995 and 1996 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice captured wolves in Canada and releasedthem into Yellowstone National Park (FWS,1999). These wolves were protected by law, theEndangered Species Act (ESA) of 1972, butthat law did not protect them from public con-troversy.

The reintroduction of wolves into thenorthern Rocky Mountains stirred up excite-

Address correspondence to Karen F. Dajani,Communication Department, ChathamUniversity, Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA E-mail:dajani@chatham.edu

ment, hopes, concerns, and fears. Touristswho travel to see wildlife increased in num-bers (Clifford, 2009). Scientists were hope-ful that the ecological changes resulting fromthe reintroduction of the predator wolf wouldmake wilderness areas more stable and biologi-cally diverse. Hunters resented the competitionfrom wolves for elk and deer. Ranchers fearedpredation of their livestock. Land owners anddevelopers were concerned about land usage.Residents feared for their own safety and that oftheir children and pets. In any event, the wolvesthrived and their populations grew.

On May 4, 2009 the U.S. Wildlife Ser-vice handed management of wolves over to theStates of Montana and Idaho, saying that wolveswere recovered in the northern Rocky Moun-tains (FWS, 2009). While this sounds like a suc-cessful ending to an Endangered Species Act,it was the beginning of an ongoing struggleover states rights and appropriate state legis-lation. In 2009 a coalition of environmentaland animal protection agencies sued the fed-eral government (Department of the Interior)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:43

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

WOLF WARS 47

to relist all wolves as endangered until the West-ern states could develop a regional conserva-tion strategy (Chadwick, 2010). Tensions overwho should handle wolf management, the stateor federal government, escalated when, on Au-gust 5, 2010, U.S. District Judge Donald Mol-loy, relisted wolves as an endangered species(MFWP, 2010).

Historically the western states had soughtto simply get rid of wolves. The question isno longer how to eliminate them, but how tolive with them. Yet this logistical situation is avery emotional one. According to Craig Jour-donnais, the state game department’s wildlifebiologist for Montana’s Bitterroot Valley, “I’vebeen on the job 30 years, and I’ve never workedwith any critter that raised so much emo-tion” (Chadwick, 2010). The reintroduction ofwolves has affected the biological as well as thesociopolitical environment. Wildlife managersare subject to pressures from hunters, ranch-ers, tourists, and conservationists, who have un-equal influence.

Some of the issues raised are factually and sociallystraightforward and can be resolved with limited addi-tional effort and resources. Many others will continueto challenge wildlife managers, policy makers and citi-zens for generations to come as landscapes, human at-titudes and values evolve. (Smith & Sime, 2007, p. 401)

During the 1970s and 1980s, an understandingof the public’s perception of wolves was vitalto developing an effective wolf-restoration pro-gram.

Wolves are symbols representing a rangeof issues, with the perception of the impor-tance of the species varying among variousdemographic and socioeconomic groups. Fewwildlife issues are so driven by misconcep-tions that have so little basis in biological fact(Kellert, 1985).

Among the many questions not yet satis-factorily answered are whether wolves are, infact, recovered and what number of packs andwolves designates recovery, whether wolf preda-tion helps keep elk and deer herds at desirablelevels or whether wolves decimate these popula-

tions, and whether wolves kill for sport, or onlyfor survival?

PURPOSE AND RATIONALE

This study seeks to examine some of the ma-jor sources of public information available on-line to the populations most directly affected bythe reintroduction of Northern Rocky Moun-tain (NRM) wolves in the State of Montana, andthose whose state legislators craft laws affectingNRM wolves.

There is considerable speculation about the impact ofwolf predation, but relatively little scientific data fromwhich to draw informed conclusions. In the absenceof data, both prowolf and antiwolf interests are free toattempt to influence decision makers though purelypolitical means. (Smith & Sime, 2007, p. 393)

These political means are influenced by publicopinion, and those who help to shape it.Methods used for managing predators, andassociated public perception, are a crucial con-sideration in developing effective systems ofmanagement for predators and prey. Findingsuch systems will continue to be a challenge forwildlife managers (Boyce & Byrne, 2007). Thepublicity appearing in various media has fueleda growing public debate between recreational-ists and wolf advocates. “The wolf is an exampleof science ending up at the doorstep of publicopinion, and public drama” (Royster, 2004,p. 1). Wolves are not the problem; symbolism is(Royster, 2004). Wolves are among the most po-litically and emotionally fraught issues in Mon-tana. They seem to attract animosity in a waythat other large predators, like grizzly bears andmountain lions, do not. This poses a dilemmafor policy makers because agencies and com-missions are likely to hear from the mostpolarizing, vocal individuals, while the “massesin the middle” with more moderate viewpoints,will define the middle ground, yet stay relativelyquiet. They also note that data gaps, limitedexperience managing wolf populations and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:43

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

48 K. F. DAJANI

unequal power among interest groups willlikely frustrate policy makers (Smith & Sime,2007).

Documenting the information in mediacan help to explain social attitudes and perhapslay the groundwork for a change in social atti-tudes. This may contribute to better informedlegislation.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Americans get much of their environmen-tal information from the Mass Media (Lar-son, Zimmerman, & Scherer, l982; Pierce, Lee-Sammons, & Lovrich, 1988). Mass media re-porting can influence which issues the publicperceives as important, a phenomenon knownas agenda setting (Yagade & Dozier, 1990).Because of the important role of the mediain public debate, it is worthwhile to examinewhat the media are saying about environmentalissues.

Content analyses of environmental report-ing have been done since the early 1970s. J.Clausing applied content analysis to the report-ing of environmental issues in fish and gamemagazines from 1966 to 1968 (Clausing, 1971).E. R. Belak pursued a similar path lookingfor change in environmental coverage over alonger period, which included samples fromsignificant years (1908, 1934, and 1968-–1970;Belak, 1972). Although these were studies thatquantified the amount of environmental cov-erage, one of the first studies to seek to de-scribe the environmental content of certainmagazines was done by J. Hoesterey and J. S.Bowman in 1976 (Hoesterey & Bowman, 1976).The occasions when wildlife reporting occurswas the focus of Julia B. Corbett’s 1995 study,“When Wildlife Makes the News: An Analysisof Rural and Urban North Central US News-papers.” Corbett explores what kinds of issuesmake the news, and who speaks on behalf ofwildlife (Corbett, 1995).

More recently a quantitative content anal-ysis of U.S. and Canadian print media between1999 and 2008 was conducted by Melanie Hous-ton, as a method of measuring public attitudesand assessing attitude change toward wolves.Findings indicate that attitude expressions havebecome more negative over the 10-year timeperiod. Regional differences in attitude expres-sion trends were also noted (Houston, 2009).

Seng and Zink (2009) note that increas-ingly, public opinion about environmentalissues is being driven by the news media’s treat-ment along with characterization in documen-taries, feature films, ads, cartoons, sitcoms, na-ture shows, hunting and fishing segments, andsocial media. They conclude that at the veryleast, media has contributed to a blurring of themeaning and perceived role and status of theconservationist, sportsman/woman, and envi-ronmentalist. They suggest that it is not suffi-cient or constructive to simply decry unfavor-able media bias, but rather that it is necessary toconsider how media might be “reprogrammed”to greater understanding, sensitivity, and ac-curacy about conservation-related informationand issues.

METHOD

This study used content analysis to examine on-line sources of information about NRM wolfmanagement. Web sites of the 14 conservationgroups involved in the lawsuit against the De-partment of the Interior (Table 1); north Mon-tana newspapers available online (Table 2); andlegislation, speeches, and press releases fromMontana representatives Denny Rehberg (R),U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. SenatorMax Baucus (D), and U.S. Senator Jon Tester(D); available online were examined for thetime period between August 5, 2010 (when U.S.District Judge Donald Molloy, relisted wolvesas an endangered species) and March 18,2011, when a settlement on wolf recovery inIdaho and Montana was reached between 10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:43

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

WOLF WARS 49

Table 1Conservation Groups

The 14 conservation groups whose Web sites wereexamined include:

Nonsettling plaintiffs:Alliance for the Wild RockiesHumane Society of the United StatesFriends of ClearwaterWestern Watersheds Project

Settling Plaintiffs:Defenders of WildlifeNatural Resources Defense CouncilSierra ClubCenter for Biological DiversityHells Canyon Preservation CouncilGreater Yellowstone CoalitionJackson Hole Conservation AllianceOregon WildCascadia Wildlands ProjectWildlands Network (formerly Wildlands Project)

conservation groups and The Department ofthe Interior. Four of the plaintiffs are non-settling: Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Hu-mane Society of the United States, Friends ofClearwater, and Western Watersheds project.They questioned the scientific integrity of thebases for the decision and expressed concernsabout opening the door to removing otherspecies’ safeguards. If the settlement had beenapproved, The Endangered Species Act protec-tions would be removed from gray wolves inIdaho and Montana and management author-ity for wolves would be returned to those states.This settlement was rejected by a federal judgeon April 8, 2011. Subsequently, a wolf delist-ing rider sponsored by Senator John Tester (D-Montana) was introduced as part of a budgetdeal between Republicans and Democrats thatremoved wolves from the endangered specieslist in Montana and Idaho, and Washington,Oregon, and Utah as well. Interestingly, thismarked the first time an animal or plant hasbeen removed from the endangered species listby Congress (Taylor, 2011).

Montana media were selected as the focusof this study because Montana has the largestpopulation of wolves in the northern Rockies(www.centerforbiologicaldiversity.org).

Table 2Newspapers Examined

North Montana newspapers available online (21)

Bigfork EagleChar-Koosta News (Pablo)Choteau AcanthaClark Fork Chronicle (Huson)Cut Bank Pioneer PressDaily Interlake (Kalispell daily) ∗Flathead Beacon (Kalispell)The Glacier Reporter (Browning)Glasgow CourierHavre Daily News (daily)∗The Herald News (Wolf Point)Hungry Horse News (Columbia Falls)Lake County Leader (Polson)Liberty County Times (Chester)Seeley Swan Pathfinder (Seeley Lake)The Shelby PromoterTobacco Valley News (Eureka)The Veterans Voice of Montana (Plains)West Shore News (Lakeside)Whitefish PilotThe Western News (Libbey)

Note. 18 are weekly, two daily, and The Western Newsis published twice weekly. Papers were identified throughtwo Web sites (http://mt.gov/work/state newspapers.asp), notcomprehensive so supplemented with USNPL MT (www.usnpl.com/mtnews.php). A third source was used to deter-mine which papers had online versions and archives. It isthe Montana Newspaper Association (www.mt.newspapers.com/links).

North Montana print media were selectedbecause on August 5, 2010 wolves across north-ern Montana were classified back to endan-gered and relisted, and wolves across southernMontana were reclassified to experimental un-der the federal Endangered Species Act. Themap for the Federal Interim Wolf Manage-ment Area boundaries was used to determinewhat constituted northern Montana. Newspa-pers north of the border were selected for usein this study. Two of the 21 papers examinedare published daily, one (The Western News) ispublished twice weekly and the remaining 18are weeklies (Table 2).

Although legislation could potentiallyhave an impact on wolf populations in Mon-tana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon, theMontana Congressional Delegation and theirdocuments were chosen for analysis becausethe delisting legislation was proposed by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:43

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

50 K. F. DAJANI

Table 3Content Categories

1. Predation of livestock and pets1A. Photos and/or graphic descriptions1B. Issue of reimbursement for livestock loss

2. Public safety3. Number of wolves in affected area

3A. Wolves are recovered3B. Wolves are not recovered3C. Recovery designation based on sound science3D. Recovery designation not based on sound

science4. Big game depredation

4A. Photos and/or graphic descriptions5. Cost benefit analysis of alternative solutions6. Intrinsic value7. States rights versus federal rights8. Conflict9. Solution

10. Land management

Montana representatives, with some cosponsor-ship by Idaho representatives.

Online material was selected for examina-tion because it may be more readily available towidely dispersed rural populations than wouldtraditional print media.

These media, documents, and Web siteswere examined to check for content in 10content category areas (Table 3). Categoriesand subcategories were generated from a pi-lot study, from past content observed, and fromthe literature, with numbers 5, 6, 8, and 9adapted from Detwiler (1993).

FINDINGS

A total of 132 documents dated between Au-gust 5, 2010 (when a U.S. District Judge relistedNRM wolves) and March 18, 2011 (when asettlement was reached with 10 conservationgroups who sued the Department of the In-terior), were examined (Table 4). These in-cluded:

• 80 newspaper articles from the 21 newspa-pers examined,

• 6 documents available on the Web site ofSenator Baucus,

• 6 documents available on the Web site ofSenator Tester,

• 15 documents from the site of Representa-tive Rehberg (Web site had a Wolf Manage-ment link), and

• 25 documents from the Conservation GroupWeb sites.

Two of the 14 Conservation groups participat-ing in the lawsuit made no mention of the wolfissue on their Web sites during the time periodexamined. They were Hells Canyon Preserva-tion Council and Wildlands Network (formerlyWildlands Project).

DISCUSSION

The most frequent content category overall wasstates rights versus federal rights (Table 5).Noted only three times in the ConservationGroups Web sites, among the three state rep-resentatives Web sites these rights were noted22 times with regard to wolf management, and26 times in newspapers. Two general themesare evident within this category. The first is theassertion that the states, and particularly Mon-tana, have known and still know best how tomanage their wolf populations. The second isthe expressed notion that federal governmentis too large and interferes in state business.State representatives and the newspapers weremuch more vocal about this issue than wereconservation groups.

The issue of wolf management is highlypoliticized and politicians often cater to themost vocal of their constituents, many of whomhave very vested and immediate interests in themanagement of wolves. Politicians have done alot of jockeying over the legal status of wolves.Denny Rehberg, a Republican U.S. representa-tive for Montana has a Wolf Management linkon his Web site to provide information and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:43

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

WOLF WARS 51

Table 4Contents of Documents

State ConservationCategory Representatives Newspapers Groups Total

1. Predation of livestock and pets 9 10 0 191A. photos and/or graphic descriptions 1 2 0 31B. issue of reimbursement for livestock loss 1 18 0 19

2. Public safety 03. Number of wolves in affected area 0 6 3 9

3A. Wolves are recovered 9 13 7 293B. Wolves are not recovered 0 1 12 133C. Recovery designation based on sound science 7 5 8 203D. Recovery designation not based on sound science 1 1 11 13

4. Big game depredation 5 23 2 304A. Photos and/or graphic descriptions 0

5. Cost benefit analysis of alternative solutions 6 0 1 76. Intrinsic value 1 17. States rights versus federal rights 22 26 3 518. Conflict 8 3 1 129. Solution 21 0 0 21

10. Land management 1 1

solicit public input. He held 72 Public Listen-ing sessions across Montana in late 2010 andearly 2011. “Next to the economy and deficitspending, the status of the gray wolf as an en-dangered species has been a top issue on theminds of Montanans” (Rehberg, 2010, p. 337).

The second most frequently noted contentcategory was big game depredation, with 30

Table 5Most frequent content categories in descendingorder

Content category Number found

States versus federal rights 51Big game depredation 30Wolves are recovered 29Solution 21

Recovery designation based onsound science

20

Predation of livestock and pets 19Reimbursement for livestock 19Wolves not recovered 13Recovery designation not based

on sound science13

Conflict 12Cost benefit analysis 7Photos and/or graphic descriptions

of predation of livestock and pets3

Land management 1Intrinsic value 1Public safety 0

mentions (Table 5). Conservation groups ac-knowledged this concern twice, state represen-tatives five times, and newspapers 23 times. Thiscontent focuses on the desirability of increas-ing elk, and to a lesser degree, deer popula-tions. Large herds of elk are valued for bothsport and food. Resident and particularly non-resident hunting permits account for state rev-enue. The additional income derived by lodges,outfitters, taxidermists, and guides is also seenas threatened by wolf depredation of the elkpopulation. Reduced elk numbers anger thehunting community that has invested resourcesin improving elk habitat (Chaney, 2011). Re-gional newspapers made frequent mention ofthis element of the debate.

Environmentalists, though, welcome thereduction of elk herds and confirm that thehuman manipulation of the ecosystem withthe reintroduction of the gray wolf has, infact, reduced elk herds. The reduction of elkpopulations improves the plant communitiesalong streams, which brings back songbirds andbeavers (Chaney, 2011).

The third most frequently noted contentcategory is perhaps the most contentious(Table 5). The simple statement that wolvesare recovered was noted 29 times; seven timeson conservation Web sites (all of which also

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:43

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

52 K. F. DAJANI

included the opposing statement that wolvesare not recovered), nine times in state repre-sentatives’ documents, and 13 times in news-papers. Thirteen sources noted that wolvesare not recovered (one newspaper and 12conservation sites—which included the seventhat posted the statement that wolves arerecovered). Further, 20 sources noted thatthe status of wolf recovery is based on soundscience, while 13 noted that the designationof “recovered” is not based on sound science(Table 4). Not only rhetoric, but data appearto be contradictory. Those in favor of delistingwolves provide statistics demonstrating thatthe recovery of wolves has been successful,while opponents of the lifting of protectedstatus from wolves provide statistics demon-strating that recovery has not been achieved.This contradictory information is difficult todisentangle. Interestingly none of the sourcesexamined actually engaged in any type ofdiscussion about the conflicting standards.Rather, of the seven conservation sites thatincluded the opposing statements about wolfrecovery, on six of them the argument was sim-ply reduced to “We say they aren’t recoveredwhile the other side says they are.”

Numbers determine whether U.S. Fish andWildlife Service defined recovery standards ex-ist. Recovery goals for the Rocky MountainGray wolf were 30 breeding pairs and 300 in-dividuals for 8 consecutive years. In 2010 therewere an estimated 1,651 gray wolves in theNorthern Rockies, in 244 packs, with about111 breeding pairs, according to MontanaFish, Wildlife and Parks information. Whenthe August 5, 2010 ruling was made relist-ing gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Moun-tains as protected by the Endangered SpeciesAct, conservation groups praised the decisionas a response to their lawsuit. But conserva-tion groups continue to argue that the gov-ernment’s determination that 300 wolves con-stitute a recovered wolf population in theNorthern Rockies ignored current science.They cite independent scientists who have con-cluded that 2,000 to 5,000 wolves are neces-sary to secure the health of the species in

the region (www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press releases/2010/wolves-08-06-2010.html).

It appears that recovery goals are thebasis of much of the disagreement over wolfrecovery. The question that is unresolved is:How many wolves are enough to ensure theirsurvival?

Predation of livestock and pets was noted19 times, with nine mentions by state represen-tatives and 10 in newspapers (Table 4). Threeof these included photos and/or graphic de-scriptions of the depredation. Shocking de-scriptions or graphic pictures of wolf kills havehelped to fuel the emotions and confusion sur-rounding the wolf issue. State representativesappear to be responsive to their constituents bynoting instances of predation. Newspapers re-ported these incidents as news stories, utilizingphotos or graphic descriptions of predation oflivestock and pets, though not of big game

Interestingly the related issue of reim-bursement for livestock loss was noted onlyonce by state representatives, but 18 times innewspapers (Table 4). The newspaper articlessuggested that the reduction of livestock depre-dation and the resulting payouts was desirable.Livestock producers may submit reimburse-ment claims to the state of Montana if they candocument that livestock loss was due to wolfpredation. Documentation poses a problem, asit is often difficult to determine whether a wolf,grizzly bear, or pack of coyotes actually killedan animal when the remains that are found arescant. Further, many back country kills cannotbe confirmed.

In only 12 instances was the notion of aconflict noted (Table 5). Information was in-cluded about problems associated with wolfmanagement and disagreements among inter-ested parties. This occurred eight times onstate representatives’ sites, three times in news-papers, and once on a conservation Web site(Table 4).

Cost benefit analyses of various solutionswere noted seven times; six times in state rep-resentatives’ documents and once on a con-servation Web site. According to the staterepresentatives’ Web sites, the cost benefit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:43

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

WOLF WARS 53

would be greatest for the state of Montanawhen wolves are designated as recovered andtheir management placed in the hands of thestate. The state would then seek a reductionin, and limits on, the wolf population. Some ofthis would be achieved through hunting, whichshould bring revenue to the state.

Land management seemed to be of littleconcern with regard to wolf management, as itwas mentioned only once (Table 5).

The intrinsic value of wolves was notedonce, on a conservation Web site (Table 4).

Interestingly, the content category of Pub-lic Safety (human health and safety), was notmentioned in any of the documents reviewedduring the time period examined. Public reac-tion is often intense when predators attack orkill pets (note that pets were included in cat-egory 1) or humans (Boyce & Byrne, 2007).Such attacks could trigger fear and resentmenttowards offending animals.

In summary, findings indicate that in-formation available online through Staterepresentatives’ Web sites, online versionsof regional newspapers and the Web sites ofconservation groups is not consistent, containsvery little in the way of informed debate, andis confusing. Information about wolf manage-ment actions and conflicts that is important forpublic understanding was not evident. Gener-ally, information was polarized and polarizing.Legislative Web sites devoted more attentionto cost benefit analysis than newspapers orconservation groups, and acknowledged con-flict more often. Legislative Web sites were theonly sources that referred to solutions to theproblem.

Newspapers covered the issues primarilyas news in response to events, while the con-servation groups covered fewer categories lessfrequently, perhaps because they have a moreregional focus rather than one on (northern)Montana.

The most glaring omission was the fact thatnone of the sources examined actually engagedin any discussion about the conflicting stan-dards used to designate recovery. This may beattributed to the difficulty in ascertaining whois an authoritative source on this issue.

CONCLUSIONS

It is not surprising that there seems to be a grid-lock in attitudes over the status of wolves.

When potentially influential sources of in-formation fail to provide balanced and accu-rate coverage of complex issues we can antic-ipate poor planning and inefficient policy re-sults. Emotionally charged policy issues oftenresult in false dichotomies rather than reason-able, fruitful debate.

One thing is clear; wolf recovery inthe northern Rocky Mountains may not yetbe complete. The stripping of EndangeredSpecies protections from Gray wolves in thenorthern Rockies may have been premature.Wolves are still at risk. What is needed is thedevelopment of a legitimate recovery plan fornorthern Rockies wolves that will ensure theirrecovery over the long term. The conflictsinvolved in wolf management are real andsignificant. Finding a middle ground that usesscientifically defensible management numbers,that monitors the impacts of wolves and thattries to ensure public understanding of thecritical role wolves have in the ecosystem isimperative. According to the Deputy Secretaryof the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “For toolong management of wolves in this country hasbeen caught up in controversy and litigationinstead of rooted in science, where it belongs”(FWS, 2011).

In conclusion, it seems tragic that an issueso worthy of close scrutiny, open debate, andthe dissemination of accurate information wasdecided by politicians who managed to attachthe delisting of wolves to a “must pass” budgetrider (Chaney, 2011).

While humans continue to struggle to for-mulate better solutions to the problems posedby the return of wolves, we are left with severalquestions.

How many wolves are enough to ensuretheir survival? A staff blog by Sylvia Fallon of theNatural Resources Defense Council, posted onAugust 16, 2010 suggests that recovery goals arethe basis of disagreements about wolf recovery.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:43

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

54 K. F. DAJANI

The US Fish and Wildlife Service form the basis ofthe recovery goals. It’s time for the Service to reclaimtheir leadership role in wolf recovery by reassessingand reasserting not only a legally defensible, but a sci-entifically defensible recovery plan for wolves. (Fallon,2010)

Perhaps policy makers were eager to latch ontorecovery numbers because it simplified the verycomplex process of endangered species man-agement.

Are wolves now being managed or are theybeing killed?

Are wolves being persecuted or protected?Public opinion on this issue is fierce, and

the fate of wolves in the northern Rocky Moun-tains will continue to be a source of debate andcontroversy.

REFERENCES

Belak, E. R., Jr. (1972). The outdoor magazines revisited.Journal of Environmental Education, 4(1), 15–19.

Boyce, M. S., & Byrne, R. (2007, March). Managing predator-prey systems: Summary discussion. Transactions of the 72ndNorth American Wildlife and Natural Resources Confer-ence, Portland, Oregon, pp. E19–E33.

Chadwick, D. H. (2010, March). Wolf wars. National Geo-graphic, 34–55.

Chaney, R. (2011, May 22). Scientists Debate ‘magicnumber’ of wolves needed for species survival. TheMissoulian. Retrieved from www.missoulian.com/news/local/scientists-debate-magic-number-of-wolves-needed-for-species-survival/article–e1aeb1e4-8422-11e0-8828-001cc4c002e0.html

Clausing, J. (1971). The ecological message of the outdoormagazines. Journal of Environmental Education, 2, 10–12.

Clifford, F. (2009, February). Wolves and the bal-ance of nature in the Rockies. Smithsonian Maga-zine. Retrieved from www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Howling-Success.html

Corbett, J. (1995). When wildlife makes the news: An analy-sis of rural and urban north-central US newspapers. Pub-lic Understanding of Science, 4, 397–410.

Detwiler, S. (1993). A content analysis of environmental re-porting in Time and The New York Times, 1991 and 1992.Retrieved from http://www.detwiler.us/thesis.html

Fallon, S. (2010). How many wolves are enough? Nat-ural Resources Defense Council Staff Blog. Retrievedfrom http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sfallon/how-many-wolves-are-enough.html

FWS. (1999). Rocky Mountain wolf recovery 1999 An-nual Report. Retrieved from www.fws.gov/mountain-praire/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt99/

FWS. (2009, April). Final rule to identify the NorthernRocky Mountain population of gray wolf as a distinctpopulation segment and to revise the list of endangeredand threatened wildlife. Federal Register, 74(15), 123. Re-trieved from www.fws.gov

FWS. (2011). Press Release, March 18, 2011. Retrievedfrom http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Interior-Announces-Proposed-Settlement-of-Gray-Wolf-Lawsuit.cfm

Hoesterey, J., & Bowman, J. (1976). The environmentalmessage of Audubon and the Sierra Club Bulletin. Jour-nal of Environmental Education, 7 , 61–65.

Houston, M. J. (2009). A quantitative content analysis of atti-tude expressions toward wolves in the United States and Cana-dian print news media, 1999–2008 (Master’s thesis, TheOhio State University). Retrieved from WorldCat Disser-tations and Theses.

Kellert, S. R. (1985). Public Perceptions of predators, par-ticularly the wolf and coyote. Biological Conservation, 31,167–189.

Larson, M., Zimmerman, D., & Scherer, C. (1982). Com-munication behavior by environmental activists com-pared to non-active persons. Journal of Environmental Ed-ucation, 14(1), 11–20.

Pierce, J. C., Lee-Sammons, L., & Lovrich, N. P., Jr. (l988).US and Japanese source reliance for environmental in-formation. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 902–908.

Ream, R. R., Fairchild, M. W., Boyd, D. K., & Blakesley, A. J.(1989). First wolf den in western United States in recenthistory. Northwest Naturalist, 70(1), 39–40.

Rehberg, D. (2010, October 6). Look to Montanans forwolf solutions. Bigfork Eagle, 2

Royster, W. (2004). Wolves not the problem, symbolism is.Jackson Hole Journal, II (8), 1.

Seng, P., & Zink, T. (March, 2009). Mixed messages: Mediaand the environment. Transactions of the 74th North Amer-ican Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Arling-ton, Virginia, pp. 302–311.

Smith, C. A., & Sime, C. (March, 2007). Policy issues related towolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. Transactions of the72nd North American Wildlife and Natural ResourcesConference, Portland, Oregon, pp. 391–402.

Taylor, P. (2011, April 13). Budget’s wolf delisting opensPandora’s box of species attacks enviro group warns. NewYork Times. Retrieved from www.NYTimes.com/gwire/2011/04/13/13greenwire-budgets-wolf-delisting-opens-pandoras -box -of-s-99159.html

Yagade, A., & Dozier, D. (1990). The media agenda-settingeffect of concrete versus abstract issues. Journalism Quar-terly, 67 , 3–10.

Young, S. P. (1944). The Wolves of North America-Part 1:Their history, life habits, economic status, and control.In S. P. Young & E. A. Goldman (Eds.), The wolves of NorthAmerica (pp. 1–385). New York, NY: Dover Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:43

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14