A Beyond the Count Interlude
This wasn’t a post I planned on writing this week.
But sometimes, something shows up in the conversation that deserves reflection
and a response.
Last week, the Voyageurs Wolf Project (VWP) posted their thoughts on wolf hunting and trapping. If you haven’t seen it, it’s worth reading. Their message, in short: they don’t take a stance on hunting or trapping, and they believe decisions about wolf management should be democratic and value-driven. Science, they say, doesn’t tell us what we should do—it tells us what’s possible, and leaves the rest to the public.
In many ways, I agree.
Science is about uncovering patterns, measuring impact, and describing how the world works—not prescribing what we ought to do with it.
I also admire the work VWP has done over the years. Their insights into wolf behavior—especially in summer months—have changed what we know about this species. Their research is thoughtful, careful, and widely trusted. And their choice to remain politically neutral is clearly made with integrity.
But I want to offer a reflection, not as a rebuttal, but as an invitation.
Because I believe neutrality, when it comes to science and wolves, isn’t as simple (or as neutral) as it may seem.
What’s Not Being Said
VWP is correct that wolf populations are resilient, and that they can compensate for moderate mortality. This is well-supported in the literature. Wolves can survive hunting. The science is clear on that.
But the conversation doesn’t end there. In fact, that’s where it should begin.
Think about it: what happens when we focus only on what wolves can survive and ignore what might still be lost?
- What happens to pack structure, conflict patterns, and social cohesion when one or both parents are removed?
- What happens to public understanding, when scientists refrain from clarifying that hunting is not ecologically necessary for population control?
- What happens to the democratic process, when those with the most expertise choose not to inform it fully?
These are not political questions. They are ecological and ethical ones. And they are the kinds of questions science is uniquely equipped to help us answer if we allow it to speak clearly.
Neutrality Isn’t Silence. It’s Clarity Without Agenda.
Let me be clear: I don’t believe scientists need to become activists. I understand the desire to avoid advocacy, especially in an era of polarization and politicized conservation.
But there is a difference between not taking a side and refusing to clarify the implications of your work.
Saying, “Wolves can survive hunting,” is a scientific statement, sure.
But saying nothing about what hunting does to pack stability, ecosystem dynamics, or public attitudes isn’t neutrality—it’s omission og highly relevant data.
The public depends on scientists not just to collect data, but to help them understand it.
When we step back from that responsibility in the name of staying out of the fray, we may think we’re protecting the science. But in practice, we may be leaving the public vulnerable to misinterpretation and misinformation.
Democracy Requires More Than Public Opinion
VWP states that wolf management should reflect what the public wants. And I would agree that is the basic principle of wildlife management and the way it is done in this country (though, we could get into lengthy discussions around ethics, values, and efficacy there, the conflict of public wants versus ecological reality).
Thing is, democratic decision-making is only as good as the information it’s based on.
And right now, the public is not hearing:
- That wolf population estimates in Minnesota have a margin of error of up to ±27%
- That wolves are not overpopulated, and hunting is not ecologically necessary for management
- That pack disruption can increase conflict with livestock and humans
- That—and this is a big one—that the motivations for removing legal protections are rarely rooted in care for pets and livestock like politicians would have you believe, and more deeply rooted in how the removal of protections would provide less restrictions on how land is used, developed, and resources extracted.
The idea that the public can weigh in effectively without this context is naive at best and negligent at worst.
Science doesn’t make the decision. But it has a responsibility to clearly inform the decision-makers. And when that doesn’t happen, it’s not neutrality. It’s complicity by omission.
On Galileo, Wolves, and the Danger of False Equivalence
In response to criticism, VWP compared their situation to Galileo, suggesting that acknowledging uncomfortable science has led to backlash from those who disagree with it on values grounds.
But let’s be clear: Galileo was persecuted for challenging the dominant worldview with an inconvenient truth and refusing to back down, not because he said he needed to stay neutral and let the public decide.
The discomfort people feel around their posts and stance, I would argue, is not because they acknowledged that wolves can survive hunting. It’s because they declined to say anything meaningful about what that fact should lead us to consider beyond headcount—ecologically, socially, or ethically.
Galileo wasn’t silenced for stating data. He was silenced for what the data implied.
In contrast, what people are asking of VWP is the opposite: to speak fully to the implications, because VWP’s voice has power. And that power carries responsibility.
My Ask, Directly to VWP
If your goal is to stay out of the political conversation, I respect that.
But if your work is going to enter the public discourse—and influence how wolves are understood, protected, or killed—then I believe you have a responsibility to ensure that what people hear is accurate, complete, mindful of nuance and interconnection, and grounded in context.
That doesn’t mean advocacy.
It means communication.
And wolves—science, itself—needs that more than ever.
Thanks for reading,
Devon
