Lack of Climate Change Discussion at Carnivore Conference

From October 11-14, I was attending a wildlife policy conference in Washington DC. It was great to get out to DC and do some networking with like-minded people and there were some issues on which there was broad agreement and scientific consensus. Unfortunately, one of the issues that everyone agreed: climate change, while definitely a threat to large carnivore populations, especially in the long term, the conference was more focused on “immediate” threats to carnivore population: habitat loss and poaching. This was disappointing to say the least, as well as the apparent lack of ethnic and age diversity: boomers and older were highly represented whereas there were almost no students.

The argument that poaching and habitat loss are more “immediate” than the negative impacts on climate change is a very dubious one. First of all, polar bear habitat as well as that of their prey is already being reduced due to reductions in artic sea ice. Habitat loss most commonly thought of as the result of development, expanding suburbs and roads. However, habitat loss it is also occurring due to less visible human activities: emitting fossil fuels. This dubious argument also only makes sense if you exclude the wolverine. Already at perilously low numbers in the continental US, climate change is reducing alpine snowpack that wolverines rely on as their primary habitat. As snow recedes, according to Christine Eisenberg’s Carnivore Way (2014), wolverines are relegated to ever-shrinking mountain-top environments. Lack of attention to polar bear and wolverine challenges was probably the result of the Cougar Fund acting as one of the primary funders of the event. There was a disproportionate focus on cougars and wolves (probably due to wolf popularity/controversy).

There were some positive discussions that had little to do with climate change. Another consensus at this conference made up mostly of scientists was that more science will not change policy – anti-carnivore state or federal management agencies or policy commissions will simply ignore inconvenient science or use minority viewpoints that support convenient policies even that means following a graduate thesis instead of peer-reviewed science. What most speakers called for at the conference was a change in values, or at least government action that reflects a change in values – the general public now supports the existence of large carnivores. I think this is analogous to climate change: more science isn’t going to prove our point, those who deny the science of the last thirty years are probably stuck in their ways or have a vested interest in the status quo. What we need is a change in values, recognizing that the immediate, short term dollar – profitability and shareholder payouts for the next quarter – needs to become subordinate to taking care of our common home. Only reflection on our values, and sound public policy to match them will rise to the challenger of climate change.