Let’s debate with curiosity and respect, even about tough issues like wolves

I was feeling raw and deeply angry, last April when I wrote my first opinion piece for WyoFile about the news of wolf abuse in Wyoming. That anger has not faded — especially in light of the recent bill and amendment the Wyoming Legislature passed to largely uphold this horrible manner of killing. But with time, research, and reflection, I’ve realized I made a mistake in how I framed my frustration.

In my original article, I stated that “the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s disgraceful management of numerous wildlife species shows that this incident reflects its values when it comes to ethics, fair chase, and basic respect for wildlife.” This statement was unfair, overly simplistic and, frankly, unhelpful. In a time when public discourse is increasingly polarized, I strongly believe that division, blame and broad-stroke accusations are counterproductive to progress. 

While Game and Fish plays an important role in species management, it is only one piece of a much larger system. Legislative decisions, stockgrowers’ associations and hunting interests all hold significant influence over wildlife policy in Wyoming. As one commenter astutely pointed out, the state’s wildlife professionals are “so far below the top of the heap that their opinions don’t matter.” That is a troubling reality. The department’s research, data and expertise should be given greater consideration when wildlife policy decisions are made. But this essay is not about how to structure government — it’s about owning my words and refining the conversation.

I also failed to acknowledge the valuable work Game and Fish does. The agency has invested considerable effort in monitoring wolf populations, resolving conflicts, and providing thorough reporting. The personnel I have interacted with are hardworking, professional and deeply committed to our state’s biodiversity. My words did not reflect that, and for that, I sincerely apologize.

Since writing the op-ed, I have taken more time to study the ongoing wolf management challenges in Wyoming and Colorado, each facing different but significant struggles. I have read in-depth reports from Game and Fish, examined coverage from reputable sources like WyoFile, and carefully considered the thoughtful comments readers shared. I truly appreciate those who engaged with my writing in good faith.

The message I want to leave with now is this: Let’s approach difficult topics with curiosity and respect, even when we passionately disagree. This is something I have learned, and it is what I aspire to do in the future. My original piece felt out of character for me — I am typically a thoughtful person, and I regret that my words have not always reflected that. I hope you accept my apology, and I look forward to continuing this conversation in a way that encourages meaningful debate rather than deepening divides.

That said, there is still urgent work to be done. Wyoming needs collaborative solutions that allow wolves to coexist in regions with livestock operations, improve management practices to reduce depredation and increase acceptance of predators on our landscapes. I believe wolves should not be classified as predators across the majority of the state, and that hunting them should require a license. The way we hunt should be ethical — just like our debates.

This is a difficult conversation, but one worth having. And I remain committed to having it in a way that moves us forward, together.