The Outside Blog

Media

How Much Does "The Grey" Hurt Gray Wolves?

The release of The Grey, an action-packed thriller set in the Alaskan wilderness that pits man against wolf, could not have arrived in theaters at a worse time for OR-7 (a.k.a. Journey) the male gray wolf that left his pack in northwest Oregon late last year and moved into California, solo, looking for a mate. In doing so, he became the first wild wolf to enter the state since the species was exterminated there, more than 80 years ago. And he’s been greeted with scorn from Northern California ranchers, some of who have expressed interest in finding, killing, and burying the animal. (Wildlife officials are tracking the collared animal via GPS, but delaying the release of the data to keep would-be hunters on a cold trail.)

The film’s release is also bad timing for wolf advocates who are trying hard to get wolves back under the legislative protection of the Endangered Species List. In Oregon, WildEarth Guardians has launched a boycott of the film based on its negative portrayal of the animals. The gist of the film: massive, bloodthirsty wolves terrorize survivors of a plane crash. Liam Neeson’s character fights back with makeshift weapons that seem better suited to a gang fight. The takeaway: wolves hate us and want to kill us. Another takeaway, via Outside’s Brad Wieners: It’s a dumb movie.

But how much can this movie do to inflate the image of the big bad wolf? Will it actually sway the many ongoing debates between wolf advocates and ranchers, who want more freedom to protect their livestock and want to pull wolf management duties away from the federal government? 

“I think that it will, in fact, have a very detrimental effect on ongoing efforts to get protection back for the wolves,” says Marc Bekoff, a former professor of ecology and evolutionary biology who now writes books about animal welfare and advocates for protecting wolves and other predator species. “The advertisements I’ve seen have really focused on an aggressive, predatory, and violent nature of wolves. They’re not like that. There’s only one documented case of a human fatality by a non-rabid wolf in North America in recent history*. Their major mode of existence is to live in cooperative, cohesive packs, but you’re not going to see this portrayed in a movie, because blood sells. Movies do not have to answer to the science. Movies like The Grey aren’t fact-based and I think they should be, given how accessible the facts are.”

Jon Coleman, an associate history professor at Notre Dame and author of Vicious: Wolves and Men in America, has studied attitudes and perceptions of wolves throughout American history. He notes that while The Grey certainly won’t do wolves any favors and is potentially dangerous for conservation efforts, there are also other depictions of wolves that have arisen in recent history. “There is the New Age wolf, which is a mystical animal, and there’s this ecological wolf that is [described as] a keystone animal and a bellwether about the environment. There is a collection of positive treatments of wolves that have certainly helped” conservation efforts.

Oddly enough, he says, it was someone who was responsible for eliminating wolves from the American landscape that also helped introduce romantic notions of wolves to American culture during the 1920s. “The guy I talk about in my book is Stanley Young, who was a bureaucrat. He was in charge of exterminating pests, such as wolves and coyotes. That was his day job. But on weekends he wrote folkloric tales” about wolves. Facing a future without wolves, did people want to create a new, more playful image?

If they did, they had a lot of undoing to do, first, because Young was far from the first to assign personalities to wolves. “Wolves are a proxy for all different kinds of threats,” says Coleman, be they natural, social or religious. “Mormons were depicted as wolves. Native Americans were continuously conflated with wolves. So historically, “killing wolves is a way to get back at a whole list of adversaries that you feel threatened by.”

Today, many Americans feel that big government is a threat. Regulation is a threat. The reintroduction of wolves was “sponsored by the federal government,” says Colemen. “So wolves are ripe to be a symbol of that government. I think that’s a lot of what fuels the animosity. Environmentalism does, as well. It gets down to an argument of who knows nature, and wolves get snarled in that debate.

Environmentalists and government officials present wolves as benign to human beings and then you have a rancher who might be economically effected and maybe emotionally as well if they see their livelihood being attacked by these animals. This is contrasted with this characterization – and maybe this is more of a caricature – of wolves as animals that do no harm. If you look at it from rancher’s perspective I can see where they are coming from.”

In other words, the debate isn’t just about what is ecologically sustainable, and what number of wolves is too many or too few. “If all the government had to do was worry about managing wolves, they could pretty effectively satisfy those who get their livestock threatened [through financial compensation], or they could cull populations that got too large.” But the government is also managing expectorations – both those of wolf lovers and those who are adamant that wolves do not belong in Western landscapes.

Because they live and work in packs, they’re more like us than many other predators. And their numbers also inflate fears – “one of the themes that keeps reoccurring in my research is the image of being surrounded by a pack of wolves,” says Coleman.

Go about 1:19 deep into the trailer for The Grey and guess what you’ll find? A scene in which the men, having survived a plane crash, are surrounded by a pack of wolves.

While he says moviemakers should stick to the facts, Bekoff concedes that facts aren’t what propel the conversation. “It’s got nothing to do with science,” he says. “It’s all to do with heart. It depends on what side you’re on.” 

* A previous version omitted the words "in recent history" from Bekoff's quote about human fatalities. Other fatalities have been documented but they date back to 1910 and earlier. Also, conflicting investigations into a 2005 death near a garbgage dumb in Saskatchewan show the man was killed by either wolves or bear.

--Mary Catherine O'Connor
@mcoc

 

 

More at Outside

Comments

8
anon

One thing I believe a lot of people missed... Everything that was said by any character in the movie, was that character's own uneducated interpretation of what was happening. The only one who was depicted as having any real grasp on what was going on was Liam Neeson's character, and his interpretation was guesswork at best because he had no idea where the den was. Had they been going away from the den, the chances of being "followed" and "stalked" would have been much less. They weren't! They were going straight towards it! Had the narrow-minded, vegetable eating, tree huggers - that got their education from fools like this column's author and watching national geographic while eating hummus and crackers - spent more time developing their capacity to observe necessary details and facts, interpret them using logic and common sense, and make judgments based on something other than pre-dispositions for animal loving, they might have caught on to the plausible reality of the predicament and folly that ultimately took the lives of these survivors.

Flag This
anon

One thing I believe a lot of people missed... Everything that was said by any character in the movie, was that character's own uneducated interpretation of what was happening. The only one who was depicted as having any real grasp on what was going on was Liam Neeson's character, and his interpretation was guesswork at best because he had no idea where the den was. Had they been going away from the den, the chances of being "followed" and "stalked" would have been much less. They weren't! They were going straight towards it! Had the narrow-minded, vegetable eating, tree huggers - that got their education from fools like this column's author and watching national geographic while eating hummus and crackers - spent more time developing their capacity to observe necessary details and facts, interpret them using logic and common sense, and make judgments based on something other than pre-dispositions for animal loving, they might have caught on to the plausible reality of the predicament and folly that ultimately took the lives of these survivors.

Flag This
anon

The tackling of such a difficult filmaking task and a dark storyline filled with thought provoking themes on having the strength to confront the death of others as well as the death of one's ownself hasn't been done this well in a long time.

Flag This
anon

The tackling of such a difficult filmaking task and a dark storyline filled with thought provoking themes on having the strength to confront the death of others as well as the death of one's ownself hasn't been done this well in a long time.

Flag This
Fact vs. Ficton

This is only a movie. People need to look at the reality of how the elk populations are suffering from wolves as well in order to have a balanced understanding before making any judgments. Check out http://biggameforever.org/ then go to National Resource Defense Council wolf project page for a look a both sides.

Flag This
get the facts right

In most of the northern rockies, elk are NOT suffering. The populations are doing quite well. Where they seem suppressed, there are a lot of reasons, harsh weather, overhunting, poor forage and not wolves, to account for it. There are, however, hunters who cannot abide that a game animals would die by any other cause than a human killing it. These killers do not deserve to wear the cloak of conservation. They don't care, don't know and don't understand the first thing about it!

Flag This
get the facts right

In most of the northern rockies, elk are NOT suffering. The populations are doing quite well. Where they seem suppressed, there are a lot of reasons, harsh weather, overhunting, poor forage and not wolves, to account for it. There are, however, hunters who cannot abide that a game animals would die by any other cause than a human killing it. These killers do not deserve to wear the cloak of conservation. They don't care, don't know and don't understand the first thing about it!

Flag This
Anonymous

In the 4th para. from the bottom, which begins "Environmentalists and government officials...", continues: "...you have a rancher who might be economically effected [sic]" when I believe that you mean Affected. The way you use it, it means "brought into existence," economically. I don't think that's what you mean to say. Other than that, if there's ANY publication that re-treads the tired old 'Who's the Boss?' Alpha vs. beta turf, it's Outside mag. Which lends itself to the 'Buy THIS overpriced gear, and you will be taken for an Alpha." fallacy. Hey, whatever sells ad space, right? Gross.

Flag This

Post Comment

Categories

Authors

Previous Posts

2012

2011

2010

Blog Roll

Recent Comments

  1. Luis commented on

    The Top 10 'Outside'...

    Tucson?

  2. Rose City commented on

    The Top 10 'Outside'...

    I don't see how Portland can be left...

  3. Chrissy commented on

    The Top 10 'Outside'...

    Tucson! If you haven't found out why...

Current Issue Outside Magazine

Subscribe and get a great deal! 2 FREE Buyer's Guides plus a FREE GoLite Sport Bottle. Monthly delivery of Outside - your ultimate resource for today's active lifestyle. All that and BIG SAVINGS!

Free Newsletter

Get our e-mail dispatch, with Outside articles & online exclusives, delivered to your inbox each week.

Ask a Question

Our gear experts await your outdoor-gear-related questions. Go ahead, ask them anything.

* We might edit your question for length or clarity. If it's not about gear, we'll just ignore it.