In this short blog post, I will analyze the endangered Algonquin wolves in Ontario due to changes in the Endangered Species Act under the lens of Rolston’s “Duties to Endangered Species” article.
It seems as though the government of Ontario and its citizens have little to no care for the Algonquin wolves. Bill 108 passed by the conservative government elongated the time frame to create recommendations on how to protect the wolves and compromised their habitat protection (Rutledge). It also allowed the environment minister to bypass legal protection calling for the Algonquin wolves whenever convenient (Rutledge). With relaxed hunting laws and little strategies to preserve this species, Algonquin wolves are endangered since less than a thousand mature wolves remain (Rutledge).
The Ontario government’s Bill 108 largely ignores the scientific community (Rutledge). In her article, Rutledge goes on to mention that, just like decisions made about COVID-19, saving Algonquin wolves should rely on independent research. This means all voices should be heard, but science should prevail (Rutledge). However, I believe when it comes to saving species, scientific knowledge isn’t enough. We need biological ethics to preserve species (Rolston, 718). If we establish these biological ethics, hopefully, we won’t even need to tire scientists in providing research to government officials or the public. Biological ethics will be an especially useful argument against governments that reject scientific data.
Simply said, humans regard other species as ‘stock’ (Rolston, 718). Humans often protect valuable species or artifacts not because we have duties to the species, but because we have duties to “ourselves [and to the] duties of prudence and education” (Rolston, 719). At the end of the day, humans treat species as either resource of consumption, study material, or entertainment (Rolston, 720). In this case, Algonquin wolf hunting is merely for entertainment since nobody eats the wolves (Rutledge). However, Ontarians need to realize that the extinction of the wolves is not just going to affect their loss of entertainment, but it will result in the murder and insensitivity of forms of life and its systems (Rolston, 720). We need this “principled responsibility to the biospheric Earth” to instill change in our behavior (Rolston, 720). If scientific knowledge about the effects of killing Algonquin wolves is insufficient, then wolves still shouldn’t be killed because of biological ethics. This thinking is lacking in the government of Ontario as they allow the merciless hunting and trapping of Algonquin wolves in the wide unprotected lands (Rutledge). Most protected areas are patchy and are separated by large amounts of unprotected lands where wolves are bound to travel to (Rutledge). In that travel process, many are killed (Rutledge). Based on these relaxed laws, I would say that the patchy protected areas are merely a façade to trick citizens into thinking the government is playing an active role in preserving the Algonquin wolves.
Rutledge says wolves “nurture our spirit’ and improve our well-boing by “just being there” as humans admire “untamed and untouched wilderness”. This view might be slightly anthropogenic as it states that Algonquin wolves shouldn’t be hunted because of the intrinsic values they provide to humans. However, species need to be objectively present in the system (Rolston, 721). There reproduction and changes in gene poll provide evidence of their existence (Rolston, 721). Consequently, their existence alone provides us comfort (Rutledge). This may form a reciprocal contract between Algonquin wolves and humans in which humans don’t hunt the wolves and the wolves exist to provide us with well-being. However, people argue that contracts can be only with “reflective rational agents” (Rolston, 722). Regardless, even if wolves are not rational agents, can’t speak, and are powerless, we have a duty to protect them (Rolston, 722). Thus, even if we can’t form reciprocal contracts with species, we need to avoid harming them (Rolston, 722). We need to instill these biological ethics to shift away from the anthropogenic thinking of humans valuing everything “relative to [their] utility” (Rolston, 726). If we establish this thinking, we may not even need scientific research to stop the hunting and extinction of Algonquin wolves in Ontario.
Samar
Sources:
Rutledge, Linda. “The Erosion of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act Threatens Iconic Algonquin Wolf.” The Conversation, 9 Aug. 2020, theconversation.com/the-erosion-of-ontarios-endangered-species-act-threatens-iconic-algonquin-wolf-142805.
Rolston, Holmes III. “Duties to Endangered Species,” BioScience 35(1985):718-726. Special issue on biological conservation. Reprinted variously.