Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The Current Transcript for July 25, 2018

Host: Megan Williams

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: You've heard me ask the question of why anybody would need to buy 10 or 20 guns, which they can lawfully do under the present laws. And that leads to another question we need to discuss. Why does anyone in this city need to have a gun at all?

MEGAN WILLIAMS: Following the deadly shooting on Toronto's Danforth Avenue, a lot of Torontonians are echoing Mayor John Tory's question. In our first half hour, we tackle the issue of handguns and the push to ban them. Then.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Well it is very easy to draw references from American political life and use it to explain to them what is going on there, especially under Trump now people can actually relate to what does it mean to live and to the beginning of a dictatorship.

MW: Wit with a warning. An Egyptian in exile explains the political importance of satire in Egypt and increasingly in the United States. And in our last half hour.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: 0-Six sadly, did leave the park during that first legal hunting season and who could have foreseen that one of the first wolves that would be shot during Wyoming's first illegal hunting season in generations would be the park's most beloved animal. Arguably, the most famous wild animal in the world.

MW: The triumph and the tragedy of 0-Six the alpha she-wolf of Yellowstone National Park. But first getting guns out of the hands of dangerous Canadians. I'm Megan Williams and you're listening to the summer edition of The Current.

'Urban movement' grows as municipalities take sale of handguns into their own hands

Guest: Bill Blair, Paula Fletcher

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: We are traumatized and very, very saddened for these families, but we will not stop living and we will continue coming here and supporting this community. This is our home.

MW: A local business owner on Toronto's Danforth Avenue, where residents and community members continue to grieve today for the victims of Sunday night's mass shooting that left two people dead and 13 others injured. It was the worst mass shooting the country has seen since January 2017, when a gunman attacked a mosque in Quebec City, killing six people and wounding eight others. Amid the anger and grief, there are calls for change. Toronto Mayor John Tory has added his voice to the call for a ban on handguns. And while events like the shooting rampage that tore through Toronto's vibrant Greektown neighbourhood are rare, elected officials, police and community advocates across Canada say gun violence more broadly, is a growing problem. From 2013 to 2016, the number of gun crimes rose 30 per cent according to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. My next guest has been tapped by the Prime Minister to combat gun violence as part of his new portfolio. Bill Blair is the Member of Parliament for Scarborough-Southwest and Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction. We've reached him today in Toronto. Hello.

BILL BLAIR: Good morning Megan.

MW: Good morning. I want to start with the latest on Sunday night's Danforth's shooting. Police sources told CBC News that officers removed another firearm from the gunman's home. That was during the search on Monday, that one of Faisal Hussain's brothers who is in a coma, is known to police for involvement in a Thorncliffe gang. That a police source believes that this brother, who's in a coma, is the source of the handgun used by Hussain on Sunday and that this handgun originated from the United States. American authorities are helping to narrow down exactly where it came from. So what is the federal government doing to stop guns from the U.S. coming into Canada?

BB: Actually Megan, there's been a great deal of work that is done, but it's certainly more that needs to be done. Over the past several years, I will tell you when I was the chief in Toronto, we traced the origin of every crime gun that was seized. And at that time about 70 per cent of all of the crime guns that we took into our custody, overwhelmingly the majority of which were handguns, were sourced in the United States. And so we have been doing a number of things. Investigations are being conducted on both sides of the border to interdict those organizations responsible for moving those drugs across. But we're making significant new investments in both the RCMP and CBSA, the Custom Border Security Agency in order to increase their capacity to conduct border investigations and interdict the supply of those guns coming into the country. We're also working very closely with U.S. law enforcement authorities, particularly the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms to conduct joint investigations. We know that many of those handguns are brought about as a result of criminal organizations who recognize the profit that's available. The interdiction of those guns is a very important part of the work that we're doing, but also I think there needs to be a great deal much more work done on the Canadian side in reducing the demand for those guns, particularly among the street gangs that are responsible for so much of the violence that's taking place in our country.

MW: We know there's also a rise in the domestic trafficking of you know the illegal resale of guns, originally purchased legally here in Canada. What's Ottawa doing to tackle that?

BB: Yeah this is one of the things that we have observed since approximately since 2013, where the number of crime guns that are being seized, the proportion of those which are actually sourced from Canada and that could be done in a number of ways. They can be either stolen or illegally diverted from legitimate sources of handguns in Canada. People who purchase them legally who then, those guns ends up in the hands of criminals, which we've interdicted a number of individuals who frankly went into the business of gun trafficking. They used lawfully obtained licence to purchase handguns and then diverted them immediately by grinding out the serial numbers and selling them to criminal organizations because of the profit involved. We've taken a number of very significant steps and we've got legislation currently before the Senate Bill C-71 that strengthens the background checks and the regulations with respect to the issuance of those licences and gives greater powers to the authorities to take those steps. But frankly, you know what we've heard very clearly, the mayor of Toronto has made a number of calls for greater restrictions, particularly on handguns.

MW: He and the Toronto City Council have called for a ban. I mean, which of course would require changes to the Canadian Criminal Code. Is that something this government is prepared to consider?

BB: What we are prepared to consider is working with the municipalities, working with our provinces, working with stakeholders across the country to find the best solution. You know, we know that there are many responsible gun owners in this country and their firearms do not represent a risk to public safety. But we've got to do everything that we can do to ensure that handguns are kept out of the hands of criminals and those who are prepared to commit violent acts. And so you know we have taken some very significant steps in increasing our law enforcement capacity to respond to this. We've also announced a significant amount of funding, which will be made available to the provinces and territories to municipalities to increase their capacity to deal with guns and gangs and the gun violence in their communities. And you know I met just this week with the premier of Ontario and the mayor of the city of Toronto and the chief of police. We talked about some of the ways in which the federal government is prepared to come in and support the efforts of the Toronto Police Service and the province of Ontario to respond to this issue. I think the best response comes when all three orders of government are prepared to come to the table to work collaboratively together to respond to this issue in a responsible way. And so yes we are, we are quite prepared to engage with stakeholders across the country on finding better ways to manage this violence.

MW: Now you've just told us that a lot of the guns that are now in the hands of potentially dangerous people are guns that are purchased legally in Canada and then sold or stolen. But why does someone need to have a handgun, to legally own a handgun in Canada?

BB: Well there is actually we have a fairly rigorous system of restriction and regulatory control over the sale and possession of handguns, but it is legally possible for an individual who's obtained the appropriate licences and permits to own a handgun, but those are restricted weapons and there's a higher system of regulation, which controls them. Now the issue that has arisen that the mayor of Toronto has raised and city council spoke to this week is why those handguns are necessary in an urban area.

MW: Exactly. Why does someone need to own a handgun in the city of Toronto or throughout the country?

BB: And I will tell you I'm not a handgun owner myself, although I carried one for 39 years as a police officer and as the chief of police in Toronto. And one of the challenges we have faced is of course in the city for many years is criminal organizations and individual gang members who have ready access to handguns and are prepared to use them to commit violent acts. And we've got to do everything we can to keep the guns out of the hands of those individuals. But I will also tell you Megan that I am aware and have had a number of engagements with legal handgun owners who are very responsible in their use and abide by all the terms and conditions and restrictions that are placed upon that and are very responsible in their guns. There are unfortunately some individuals who with criminal intent are reckless and profit motivated, who divert those otherwise legally guns into the hands of criminals and that has, there's serious consequences and we have a responsibility to do everything we can to keep that from happening.

MW: I understand that there are a lots of people who own handguns who are very responsible, but when you have a problem with stolen handguns and with some people who legally own handguns who are selling them to people for illegal purposes, does it not make sense to go towards banning handguns.

BB: I think what makes sense is to make sure that we put in the necessary regulatory restrictions and controls to ensure that those guns do not end up in the hands of criminals. And you know the range of considerations in that, the government has already indicated Mr. Goodale said publicly yesterday and I agree with him that we are quite prepared to work with the city of Toronto, the province of Ontario, with stakeholders across the country to respond to this in an appropriate way. And we're prepared to consider any recommendations or request that they come forward, but it has to be done, I think in an appropriate and proportional way that we do what is necessary and appropriate. And that really involves ensuring that we take into consideration every concern or perspective. OK. Now you're the son of a police officer who spent almost 40 years with the Toronto Police force yourself, 10 as the chief, how surprised are you by the level of gun violence you're experiencing not only in Toronto, but across the country?

BB: Megan I'm very concerned by it and it's one of the reasons that the Prime Minister has asked me to take some responsibility for this for our government and simply because I was the chief of police in Toronto in 2005 and during that period and in the years leading up to it, we saw a somewhat similar surge in the incidents of gun violence. It was culminating in 2005, which was often referred to as the summer or year of the gun. We took some very proactive steps and we worked very collaborately with both the province and the federal government and enacted you know appropriate legislation at that time and provided sufficient resource for us to respond I think in a very proportional effective way. And we were able to significantly reduce the incidents of gun violence in the city of Toronto through that collaborative, collective effort.

MW: OK. I just have one last quick question. Yesterday we had your former police chief, deputy Peter Sloly in, who said going to the heart of radicalization should be at the forefront of a strategy to fight gun and other forms of violence in Canada. He said the processes of radicalization have become much more sophisticated over the past 10 years. Now ISIS on their website has claimed responsibility for the Danforth attacks, something that we have not been able to confirm beyond their claim. How much of a problem do you think radicalization is in Canada related to gun violence?

BB: Well it's certainly an element to this and I agree with my friend and colleague Peter Sloly that we have to do more and be more effective in responding and reducing that. I spoke at the very outset of this conversation Megan, about the importance of doing the work to reduce the demand for these firearms. That demand can come from a number of sources. It can come as a result of radicalization and extremism or often unfortunately, it also comes from young people who get involved in gang culture and the violence, which is so often associated to it. We you know just simply bringing in regulations to control guns and don't get me wrong, that needs to be done effectively, but we also need to make the appropriate investments in communities and in people.

MW: Understood. OK.

BB: In order to reduce the demand for these weapons.

MW: OK. Thanks very much.

BB: Thank you Megan.

MW: I've been speaking with Bill Blair, who is the Member of Parliament for Scarborough-Southwest and Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction. He spoke to us from Toronto. As Toronto struggles to make sense of Sunday's tragedy, City Hall is struggling to find a solution to the growing gun violence in the city. Toronto has seen a spike in gun violence this year. So far there have been 228 shootings. This time last year there had been 84 shootings. Our next guest is calling for a handgun ban in Toronto. Paula Fletcher is the city councillor representing Toronto-Danforth, where the shooting took place on Sunday. She joins me now in our studio. Hello.

PAULA FLETCHER: Good morning.

MW: Good morning. So what do you think of what you just heard from Minister Blair?

PF: Well, I think that last night at City Hall, Council voted 41 to 4, to ask the federal government to ban the sale of handguns in the city of Toronto. We're pretty clear on that. I think people would be interested to know that in 2008, city council voted again under then Mayor Miller to ask the federal government to ban handguns in Canada. Well that didn't work. Now we're just looking at our jurisdiction, to say in our city, please do that. And to also ask the provincial government to ban the sale of handgun ammunition because they have the authority over handgun ammunition. I also understand cities like Quebec City are thinking about the same thing. I think this will become a growing movement across major urban centres, where people think what is the reason why somebody would need a handgun or an automatic weapon, living in a big city like this.

MW: OK and how do respond to critics who say a handgun ban won't work that it doesn't address the root causes of gun violence. We just heard from Bill Blair saying that as well, that there's a lot of other social causes and elements, the influences that go into gun violence.

PF: Absolutely. He's absolutely right about that and when he was chief, he understood that. City Hall is understood that and that's why yesterday we also dealt with and supported a very large package of interventions for those youth who would need those interventions to keep them from going down that road. It means jobs, it means programs. We heard from that a summer program where every single youth in one community, 98 youth had 98 jobs. That was a turning point. So that is the type of investment that's needed. We also need to say handguns are not a casual thing. They are killing weapons and they are banned. So it's not simply one track, it's a multi-track approach and I think each one is important and necessary.

MW: Now you've been at the site of the shooting, talking to people in your community, what sorts of things are you hearing from them about gun control?

PF: Well I've been getting e-mails from my community saying, good, yes, we need to ban handguns in the city of Toronto. There's a lot of support. There's also people who don't live in the community that are fussed up about that and want to maintain guns under any circumstances in the city. And I think people that are at the scene, they're really dealing with the trauma at the moment, many of them. So many people were going to be on the street at that time or at a certain place at that time or their daughter was working in one of the businesses that was targeted. So there's still people just processing that incredible trauma and the horrifying events of that evening. But I think that many people that I have spoken to really question the issue of how somebody has a gun, why they would have a gun and be able to do something of that nature on this fantastic street in the city of Toronto.

MW: Now there's new gun control legislation that the federal government is moving through, Bill C-71. What do you think of that?

PF: Everything's great, but here in the city we've looked to tailor something that we need. This isn't the first time we've dealt with this. There was a very big campaign back in 2008 and very strong positions taken by city council. I also have a group that I'm associated with of mothers who've lost their sons to gun violence, they're very strongly speaking out about a ban on guns in the city of Toronto. And this is now what council has done now. So I hope that the federal politicians will listen to those of us on the ground, that have to deal with this every day. Gun use has become something very casual. To have a gun, to use a gun, to carry a gun, it should not be seen as something that's casual. It should no longer be casual. They should be banned in the city of Toronto. That's a very different message than well it's OK, if you're a responsible gun own etc. etc. A very different message.

MW: But of course, what you're doing in the city of Toronto, it is dependent in large part on federal legislation.

PF: One hundred per cent.

MW: I mean do you think Bill C-71 goes far enough?

PF: Well it doesn't because it doesn't give us the chance to eliminate handguns in the city of Toronto. And last time, when we were having this debate in 2008, it was intertwined with the long gun registry. When the long gun registry was dismantled I gather that just illegal gun use went up in the country by an astounding percentage. So we're still dealing with the aftermath of the federal government not necessarily tackling guns. We're not the federal government, but we're telling them this is how we have to tackle guns now. We've tried it your way for 10 years, we want you to try it our way now. We're very thoughtful about this. These are 228 shootings in the city. I've had a lot of them in my ward. Councillors know this on the ground. We watch it. This is a step that we say is absolutely required and we really, really, really want them to listen to us.

MW: OK. And how optimistic are you that the council and the federal government will be able to take action that will end up curbing gun violence.

PF: Well I think if we have this in the context of large urban centres that other councils, other city councils in Canada would be also interested. The fact that Quebec City is contemplating this, I think that's pretty important. I've heard that Ottawa, there's councillors saying well why don't we think about that. So this could become more of an urban movement. This is not about somebody living where my camp is up in northern Ontario, has their rifle. This is about 2.7 million people in a large urban environment and they're necessarily, not necessarily having access or legal access to a handgun.

MW: OK. Thanks very much.

PF: Thank you.

MW: I've been speaking with Paula Fletcher who is a Toronto city councillor for Ward 30, Toronto-Danforth. She was with me in studio. We'd like to know what you think. Should there be a handgun ban in Canadian cities? What gun control measures would you like to see or do you think there's already enough gun control or too much gun control? Let us know. Head to cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the contact button. The CBC News is next. Then, Egyptian satirist Bassem Youssef explains why humour and human rights often don't mix in a dictatorship. I'm Megan Williams and you're listening to the summer edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Americans can relate to life under dictatorship thanks to Trump, says 'Egypt's Jon Stewart'

Guest: Bassem Youssef

MW: Hello. I'm Megan Williams and you're listening to the summer edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MW: Still to come, the legendary life and tragic death of the Wolf Queen of the Yellowstone National Park. But first, from comedy in Cairo to stand-up in the States.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: As-salaamu 'alaykum everyone. My name is Bassem Youssef. In my native Egypt, I was a surgeon, until the Arab Spring, when I realized my country itself had fallen ill. So I created a comedy show to help the nation heal. The people liked it, but the government not so much. And before things got worse, I left for the land of the free. Now I can learn from the best. After all, this is the United States of America, the greatest democracy on Earth, right?

MW: And that is a succinct and self-introduction of my next guest from his web series, Democracy Handbook. The series is a satirical take on how well American democracy is working. I won't spoil the ending for you. Bassem Youssef is a household name in Egypt and his story is one that in many ways mirrors that of the rise and fall of the Arab Spring itself. As he mentioned, he was a heart surgeon when in the fading days of the revolution, he turned to the internet to broadcast episodes of political satire aimed at Egyptian authorities. It was a first in his country and by the end of 2011, Bassem Youssef was hosting his own television show that would go on to draw more than 30 million viewers a week and earned him the moniker of Jon Stewart of Egypt. Successive governments didn't take too kindly to him poking fun at them. Signals were jammed. Threats were made against his life and when he was threatened with arrest a second time, he packed his bags and fled the country. Today, Bassem Youssef is living in Los Angeles and making a go of a new career, as a comedian in the United States.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: So I am a Muslim Egyptian and I want to play down my Arabness. Do I pass for a white person?

VOICE 2: In terms of.

VOICE 1: Can I pass for an Italian?

VOICE 2: Yeah, why not?

VOICE 1: OK.

VOICE 2: I bet you that half the people you meet already think you're Italian.

VOICE 1: No.

VOICE 2: No?

VOICE 1: No.

VOICE 2: I mean that's the way you could go, if you wanted to.

VOICE 1: Oh [attemps Italian word] Oh OK. I'll work on the Italian. In the meantime, I wanted to see what's working for other Arabs who have been here for a bit. Where are you originally from Yusuf?

VOICE 3: Jordan. Palestine. I don't know what you want to call it.

VOICE 1: All right, so you're an Arab.

VOICE 3: Yes.

VOICE 1: No you're not. You don't look Arab. You're tall and your hair and you're from Dallas. You're not.

VOICE 3: And I have no hair on my chest.

MW: Along with his Democracy Handbook, he's got a book, "Revolution for Dummies," a podcast "Remade in America"" and tomorrow he'll be on stage in Toronto, performing as part of the Brave Festival. But for now, he's joining me from New York City where he's a comedian in residence at the legendary stand-up club, Joe's Pub. Hello Bassem Youssef.

BASSEM YOUSSEF: Hey.

MW: Hi. So the last seven years of your life, going from a heart surgeon to satirist, taking on authorities with humour, having to flee Egypt, your rising comedy in the U.S, it's a remarkable story. Does it seem that way to you?

BY: Well, when you are inside the story, you're just concerned about the day to day activities to get you to the next day. Nobody wakes up in the morning and say, I have a remarkable life. People usually come and tell you if your life is remarkable or it sucks. So I never, I don't think that anybody, no matter how rich famous, established, they wake up in the morning and say I have a remarkable life.

MW: Right. Do you get tired of telling it?

BY: No. Because hopefully every time I tell it in a different way, in a more interesting way. Every time I tell it to a different audience with different references. Every time I find a new way to tell it, to make it interesting to people with different interests.

MW: Now I want to go back to when the Arab Spring protests began in Egypt and you were a humble heart surgeon, waiting on papers to travel to the U.S. for a pediatric surgery fellowship and you decided to stay. Why?

BY: Well that was a very unique opportunity. And when I decided to stay, I said I'm going to delay that fellowship for a year and I'm going to try this for a year. The TV thing for a year.

MW: Right. OK.

BY: Because when I did these YouTube videos it just exploded and everybody was watching it and then I found that there is a need in the country for something like this, which is using political satire to expose the hypocrisy and the brainwashing machines in the media in Egypt. And I said maybe that will be one year and things will be OK and I'm going to go then one year just took a life of itself and I found myself there and I left medicine behind and I didn't even imagine that that would be my career.

MW: Now you started doing, you're uploading your videos and I guess doing your act sitting in your laundry room, is that is that correct?

BY: That's correct.

MW: And so you know I'm just wondering when you did your first acts, did you have a sense of, I mean you obviously had a sense that there was appetite for this kind of satire in Egypt, but did you have any sense of how big it would become or could become at that moment?

BY: Absolutely not. I thought that like 10,000 people will watch the videos and then I ended up with 5 million in a few weeks. And that was very surprising and very intriguing and very scary. And I found myself being recognized in the streets and people stopping me to take pictures and people hating on me and people loving me. And then I decided to continue then to the next stage, which is television.

MW: Now at its height, 30 million people tuned into your show every week, which is roughly a third of the entire population of Egypt. What do you think people saw in you? I mean why was it so hugely popular?

BY: I think, Egypt has a very long tradition of comedy, but it was mostly social comedy. Political comedy that was pointed and direct was not a part of our lives because the government wouldn't allow it. Suddenly there was this stage of fluidity that people can actually say what they want. And a lot of people saw in the show something or someone that can speak their mind. We were, there was no censorship, there was no people telling us what to do. And I think that helped people felt that this was genuine. This was authentic.

MW: Were you scared at all?

BY: No. No. I was more worried about producing a bad product, a bad show than actually getting hurt. Because if you get hurt, you get hurt. But if you fail, that's actually something I have to live with.

MW: Now in 2013, a warrant for your arrest was issued under the then President Mohamed Morsi government. You turned yourself in. You were released on bail and then Morsi was overthrown by General el-Sisi in a military coup and then you were facing the possibility of similar charges under el-Sisi, so you fled. I mean, why? What was the difference between, I mean why did you have to flee at that moment? What was the difference between performing political satire under el-Sisi compared with Morsi?

BY: So under Morsi there was some sort of a balance of powers. The Muslim Brotherhood didn't control the army, didn't control the police. They tried. They failed. They tried to stop the show. They failed. When the army took over, military dictatorship has, they have been there for 60 years. So they know by experience how to shut everybody down and how to detain, torture and kill everybody, while having popular support. So basically, it's the difference between a dictatorship that was in the making, that they didn't have popular support and a dictatorship that had popular support. ?

MW: So did you feel that backlash from the people?

BY: Absolutely. There's a lot of people, even within my family and my friends that would, they didn't like what I did under Sisi. They considered me as a traitor, as someone who hates the Army. Every I mean within my circles, everybody hated the Muslim Brotherhood, but like the army was always revered and sacred. And it was very difficult to continue under the army because they just like, they locked down the country. The Muslim Brotherhood couldn't do that because, yes they came in democratic elections, but they wanted to use democracy for their own sake and they tried and they failed.

MW: Did that make things harder for you to to take on el-Sisi, knowing that huge popular support for your act under Morsi wasn't there anymore?

BY: Of course, because here's the thing, under Morsi, if I would criticize the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Brotherhood had their own channels to criticize me. There was like other channels to criticize Morsi. It was very fluid. Everybody said what they wanted. When the army came, there was not a single voice of dissidents against the army. There was not a single anchor, single show, single channel that would dare to criticize or remotely make fun of the new regime. I tried even brushing around that because it was very dangerous not just for me, but for the people around me. And it was not just difficult, it was dangerous. And yet, even with that kind of like mid-level criticism, that was annoying for them and that's why they closed me down twice. And they jammed my satellite channel, satellite signal twice.

MW: Right.

BY: So they couldn't even accept that. It is just like, imagine if you are in Nazi Germany trying to make fun of a popular Hitler. It will be absolutely impossible.

MW: So you made the decision to leave Egypt. Do you remember what was going through your mind as you boarded the plane? I mean did the word exile come into mind, come to your mind?

BY: I didn't know what would, like I definitely didn't know if that would be the last time I would see the country, but I was worried that I would not be allowed to board the plane.

MW: Oh that you would be taken, perhaps to prison?

BY: I would be or at least be put on a no fly list because I didn't know there was a verdict against me at 12 noon and I left at 5 o'clock. So that was like five hours, all it took me to take the decision to leave.

MW: And how did Egyptians react to the news of your flight to Dubai?

BY: Depends. A lot of people say, a lot of people, it's just like you know I know people say, oh he's a coward, he left. As if it was my duty to be imprisoned. A lot of people said they were sad. A lot of people they wanted me to stay and fight, which is very easy for you if you're sitting on your behind watching things without any stakes for you in the game. And a lot of people would even say, oh he's just, this is all an act and he's exaggerating.

MW: So you eventually made your way to Los Angeles and to a country where it's not revolutionary necessarily to ridicule those in power. How do you talk to Americans? How do you explain to them? How do you make them understand what it was that you were doing in Egypt?

BY: Well, it is very easy to draw references from American political life and use it to explain to them what is going on there. Especially under Trump now, people can actually relate to what does it mean to live and to the beginning of a dictatorship. Because for the first time, they have a president who is not very cool with criticism. And if it was up to him, he would actually close it down, but it's the system that's preventing him from doing that. So I, you will find, you'll be surprised how much people actually react and connect to what I'm telling them from what's happening and I always use what they see in the American media and I bring the references back from Egypt.

MW: Now did you, you of course came to the U.S. before Trump was elected. Did you see a shift in people's ability to understand that with the rise of Trump?

BY: Yes. Yes. Do you know that you're really more and they say look oh no software behind you.

MW: Right. I want to talk about Jon Stewart who you're a big fan of and now a friend of as well, the former host of The Daily Show. When you first met him you wrote and I'm quoting here, "When we compare the politics of hate and xenophobia in both of our countries, we found things to be sadly similar. I discovered that I wasn't actually imitating him on my show. It was the same stupidity in both nations that was encouraging similar forms of satire. We were merely seizing the moment."

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: But in the last week before you left.

VOICE 2: Yeah.

VOICE 1: You were hosting Bill O'Reilly, our beloved Bill O'Reilly.

VOICE 2: Yes. Yes.

VOICE 1: And he told you and I quote, "Oh you're leaving, so why don't, since you care too much about Muslims and Arabs. It's like why don't you leave your place to a Muslim and an Arab. Right?

VOICE 2: Yeah, yeah.

VOICE 1: Why didn't you think of me?

VOICE 2: But here's the thing I want to point out, it's not about, it's not that you know defending Muslims or defending Jews or defending Christians or defending what are the other ones. I don't like [BLEEP]. And so I try to speak out against [BLEEP] and isn't that all government is. It's we all get together and decide as a majority who the [BLEEP] are. That's what, that's all it is. Government is always a lottery. You put your money down, it's a bet. I'm going to put down some money on this guy in the hopes that he'll turn out to be something good and a lot of times he doesn't, as it appears to be in this case.

MW: Did that surprise you? The similarities between the two countries?

BY: Well, not as much a surprise, but it's kind of when you have a certain concept or notion and it is and it gets you know emphasized or validated, when you speak to someone who's in the business here in the United States. He also told me about the same thing about the backlash even from the liberal side because he's not doing enough or the backlash from the right wing because he's not doing enough with the Liberals. And I saw that the right wing in both countries have the same kind of rhetoric using blackmailing people through religion or through nationalism, making you look as a traitor or as a God hater, if you criticize them. Because this is what people that have authoritarian mindset have, they always hide behind empty ideologies. So if you criticize the Muslim Brotherhood, you hate God. You're anti-Muslim. If you criticize the army, you hate the troops. If you take a knee during the national anthem, you don't respect their flag or the anthem or the army. It's the same thing.

MW: But of course the stakes were different for you than they are for comedians in the western world.

BY: Yes, of course. The backlash will be of course different in my country.

MW: Now, I'm intrigued by something you said about Americans, that they put too much pressure on their satirists. What did you mean by that?

BY: Yes, because a lot of people, not just in America, but also in the Middle East, they get disenfranchised by the system, by the political system, even by the media. There's no trust. So they turn into the people that they feel comfortable with, satirists and comedians. They just they reach your heart very easily, but then suddenly they turn to them as if they have the solution. Satirists don't have a solution to anything, we make fun of things.

MW: You're exposing things.

BY: We're exposing things, but we don't do things. It's really up to the people to do, not us.

MW: Now your job has obviously changed from what you were doing as a comedian in Egypt and now doing working as a comic and an interviewer and doing all sorts of things in the United States. I mean what do you consider your job as a satirist in the U.S. to be now? Well I am here as an immigrant, as someone who's arriving here in a time when there's a lot of negative, you know political stance against immigrants from other countries. And I think I need to have voices like me find their way into the American media circles. I need to have more representation in comedy on television, on radio and I want our voices to be heard because I think the more our voices to be heard the better. That diversity problem would be and the more that people could accept us for who we are.

MW: You've also said you're less interested in President Donald Trump than in the atmosphere he's created. How so?

BY: Because Trump, maybe he's going to be here for four years, hopefully not eight years, but it is what he has created. He created an atmosphere where it's OK to be hateful. And you call that free speech, where it's OK to kick people out. Where it's OK to try to close yourself in and don't allow other people to represent their culture and represent their ideas. So that is something that will stay long after Donald Trump has left.

MW: So what do you see now when you look at American democracy today?

BY: American democracy is still better than many democracies in the world, but American democracy have a problem that has been there even way before Trump. The problem with American democracy in my humble opinion is that I find it very strange that the representatives who have been elected by the people, after they're elected and when they are in office, they basically get all their decisions and lawmaking influence by the people who donate money to their campaigns. Which is making it more of an oligarchy than a democracy. I mean nobody ever, would ever vote for killing net neutrality and yet five people behind closed doors did that because there's some big corporations who paid money to do that. It's to have pay per law. Law is very, very disturbing. And it is more telling of what's going to happen.

MW: The kind of things authoritarian regimes do without being elected to do them or doing them after election.

BY: Yeah, but at least here you have the chance to change things every four years or every two years.

MW: So you're trying your hand at stand up comedy. Can you talk about that transition? I mean going from being the host of a satirical show that drew tens of millions of viewers to standing on stage in a legendary, but small comedy club in New York City, doing something you've really never done before. Is that right?

BY: Well I kind of like got, I took the reverse path. Usually stand-up comedians do stand up, then they get a show and they host a show.

MW: That's right.

BY: I was a doctor. I did a show. I hosted it in Arabic. Then I come here. I never did stand-up before, now I'm doing stand up in English. So that's a lot of changes.

MW: An unusual career path.

BY: Very unusual.

MW: And how's it been?

BY: Well, I mean the comedy residency here in Joe's Pub is going quite well and I'm doing a whole hour every and almost every night doing stand up comedy in English and it's been well received. Every single show has been sold out and the audience has been mixed, between Americans and Arabs. So I'm very happy with the reaction and very actually, I'm very happy also with the progression.

MW: Now you've also got a new podcast that explores what it means to belong as an outsider in the U.S., which of course you are. Is there anything about that that surprised you, talking to fellow outsiders?

BY: Not at all. I think all outsiders stories are the same. I believe that anybody who's been successful at a certain field has been an outsider in his own way because there's a lot of people who fight against traditions, against politics, against certain social norms to be where they are. So I find it very interesting how this all unfolds.

MW: Your career aside, has it been difficult for you to adjust to living in the United States?

BY: No. No. I mean the only thing that's missing is basically doing it here. Making it here. Making it happen and succeeding and this is what I'm more concerned of now.

MW: Do you feel like you're doing that?

BY: I hope so.

MW: So just a couple last questions. When you look back on the Arab Spring today, what do you see?

BY: Well the Arab Spring, I know that a lot of people look at it as an unwanted disaster, but I think it is part of a bigger process. And I always say that a revolution is not an event, it's a process and it takes time. All changes in the world didn't just happen overnight. It happened throughout decades and it takes time and I still believe that things could change.

MW: Do you see a day when you'll be able to go back home again?

BY: I don't know.

MW: OK. Thanks so much for talking with me today.

BY: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you.

MW: Bassem Youssef is a political satirist and comedian. He'll be in Toronto tomorrow night performing at the Harbourfront Centre as part of the Brave Festival.

[Music]

Coming up in our next half hour, the fall and rise of wolves in Yellowstone National Park and the danger that still lurks for them in the wild. I'm Megan Williams and you're listening to the summer edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

How O-Six became Yellowstone's 'most beloved' wolf

Guest: Nate Blakeslee

MW: I'm Megan Williams and you're listening to the summer edition of The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Howling]

[Music starts in the background]

VOICE: Now seven years old, 42 and 21, the alpha pair, have outlived most of their contemporaries, for they won't be allowed to enjoy their golden years in peace. Trouble comes in the form of number 113. A powerful young male, a lone wolf.

MW: That is from the BBC documentary, Wolf Pack. Wolves had roamed and hunted in Yellowstone National Park for thousands of years, until they were eliminated in the 1920s. But in the mid 1990s, the U.S. government decided to reintroduce grey wolves to the area and they did that with wolves from Alberta. Nate Blakeslee has looked closely at how these wolf packs fared. He's the author of The Wolf: A True Story of Survival and Obsession in the West. It's a dramatic saga featuring many feuding canine factions, but there is one wolf more notable than the rest, an alpha female named 0-Six. Nate Blakeslee spoke with Anna Maria Tremonti in November.

AMT: What happened to the Yellowstone wolf population?

NATE BLAKESLEE: Well the reason wolves had to be brought back to Yellowstone is they were all hunted out by fur trappers and then later by cattle ranchers to protect stock. They were all gone as you say by the 1920s. And what you saw in Yellowstone was this explosion and the elk population. The Wolf was the apex predator in the park. The only animal really that preyed on Elk. There were so many elk in the park they began to destroy the habitat. Rangers in the park took to shooting them. They called them they shot thousands of them every winter just to keep their numbers down and to try to keep the park healthy. The idea that wolves might be a more holistic solution to solving that problem was around since the 1940s but it was very controversial. All of the descendants of those same ranchers that hunted out the wolves they're all still there. They're all still running cattle and sheep around the park. And then too elk cutting is really big business in the northern Rockies. Guides can charge thousands of dollars for out of town hunters, restaurants, motels cater to the hunting business and wolves eat a lot of elk. So the hunting industry knew that they stood to lose two of the wolves came back.

AMT: Hmm. But they still decided to bring wolves and they got them from Canada. Tell me about these whales from Canada where were they from?

NATE BLAKESLEE: Well they were from an area near Jasper National Park and near a town called Hinton. And the idea was that the Fish and Wildlife Service in the United States sent a trapper, a government trapper up there to make contact with some of the local trappers and convince them that if they were to catch some live wolves you know they would pay for them and carry them back to the United States. They were able to convince them to do that. They brought about 30 wolves back to repopulate Yellowstone and central Idaho. And it was immensely successful. They spread throughout the park and as planned they also spread throughout much of their former range in the northern Rockies.

AMT: How easy is it to catch a live wolf?

NATE BLAKESLEE: [Chuckles] It's not easy at all. You know the trapping business is built around getting those pellets and so ordinarily they're not concerned with whether or not the wolf survives the process or not. But in this case obviously it was essential.

AMT: So when they got to Yellowstone and they introduced them - you said the residents were not happy with this at all.

NATE BLAKESLEE: No. The dynamic was one that you often see in the American West these days. It was - because so much of that land is controlled by the federal government, you see this sort of Us versus them, this local control versus sort of intrusive federal bureaucrats at least that's how it's cast in the West. And this was a case of that too. Ranching is so powerful there. The hunting industry is so powerful there that all those state legislatures were largely opposed to reintroduction, even though a number of people that lived there were very excited about it. But it was driven by the federal government and the federal government was determined to see it done. And the land on which they reintroduce them was federal land.

AMT: And so the wolf packs are brought in to Yellowstone. How do they behave?

NATE BLAKESLEE: Well first they built these enormous pens, these acclimation pens. Nobody ever tried anything like this before. And for all they knew the wolves of just take off straight back to Canada. And in fact an early alpha pair did immediately leave the park with disastrous consequences. But once they got established, they did exactly what biologists would predict that they would. They reduce the size of that elk herd. They caused the elk that remained in the park to begin behaving differently; to stop congregating in valleys, to stop eating their preferred foods along stream sides which was degrading the habitat for trout, for beaver. All of those species bounced back and many others that they didn't necessarily expect to. The park had far too many coyotes because there was no canine competition. The walls reduce the coyote population. You saw a rebound in the rodent population, which meant there was more food for weasels and badgers and large raptors. There was this avian renaissance in the park that no one knew they were missing. And they call it a trophic cascade, this endless cascading of positive consequences all the way down the food chain.

AMT: Some of the seemed to act as gangs protecting their turf. How did they do that?

NATE BLAKESLEE: Well wolves are extremely territorial. The quality that makes them so useful to humans as good guard dogs makes them very dangerous to one another. Every single part of the park is controlled by one pack or another. Any time a wolf leaves its own home territory he or she does so at the risk of his or her own life. And wolves must leave their home territory. You mentioned lone wolf earlier. A wolf in order to establish his or her own pack and territory must leave their home territory and go out on their own and try to find a mate and try to find a territory of their own. It's extremely dangerous. The most common cause of death in the park for wolves is conflict with other wolves.

AMT: So tell us about the Druid's. Why were they so special?

NATE BLAKESLEE: The Druids were sort of the face of the reintroduction program for the first 10 years. They were the pack that rose up in the Lamar Valley which is the easiest place to spot a wolf. Yellowstone is the one place in the world where you can reliably spot wolves from the roadside with a spotting scope. You don't get close to them but the scopes are so powerful even, if they're a mile away you can see every detail. You can see the expressions on their faces. When they were brought back to the park. It was not meant to be a tourist attraction. The biologists assumed that they would just leave the Lamar Valley because it's it has a road running through it. It's popular with visitors. It was thought that you would need a plane or at least a horse to go back and observe wolves. But to their surprise some of them did stay in the valley. They didn't seem to mind having people on the road watching them. And the Druid's was that pack that most of those early watchers got to observe.

AMT: And the people watching them, people became quite obsessed with them. Tell me about the people who were watching.

NATE BLAKESLEE: They did. Thousands of people would come through the park and watch wolves you know for a day or two and then they would post what they saw on Facebook. This is how 0-Six became so famous. She was the easiest to view in the park, during the time when Facebook was just exploding in popularity. And so people would take a picture or video or they would see her do something and post this breathless account on Facebook and her legend just sort of spread. And she became an attraction in the park, like the Tower Falls or are old faithful something you saw when you came there. But there was also this much smaller group of diehard Wolf aficionados, this subculture that exists in the park which was fascinating to watch and be present for. People who come to the park every single day for whom one sighting is not nearly enough, who track the wolves using their radio callers get them in their scopes and watch them for hours.

AMT: And in fact your book which reads like a great novel and tells the story of these wolves. [Unintelligible] you couldn't you couldn't interview the wolves of course. So who did you get the notes from? Who did you talk to who was little was watching them so much?

NATE BLAKESLEE: Well I wanted the book to read like the biography of a wolf. And as you say the obstacles to doing that to having a wild animal be a main character in a book that is narrative like a novel. The obstacles are considerable but 0-Six was different. She was by far the favorite Wolf of that subculture of wolf Watchers I described. And I met this woman, a retired schoolteacher from San Diego her name was Lori Lyman and she had this treasure trove of notes. She had taken notes every day for three years on the life of this wolf pack, 2400 pages. And I read it and it was like reading the diary of a wolf. And the author and me said you know imagine what you could do with this material. It's like a Jack London story but it's all true. You can create a nonfiction book that reads like a novel in which the main characters were wolves.

AMT: So 0-Sic - First of all why is she called 0-Six?

NATE BLAKESLEE: It's a nickname. It's the year of her birth. Once the wolves do get a research collar they'll have a number. But until then the watchers Lori and her friends they come up with nicknames.

AMT: And 0-Six was her nickname, what did she look like?

NATE BLAKESLEE: She was a grey wolf. They're all grey wolves that's the common name of the species but they can be grey or black and occasionally white. She was a grey wolf. She had uncommonly sort of attractive facial markings she had sort of this owl like mask around her eyes. She was unusually large for a female she was 105 pounds. She initially came to Lori's attention and her friends because she was such an accomplished hunter. They watched her as a lone wolf for a couple of years. Wolves in the park eat elk. Elk are in the deer family but they're enormous animals. The bulls can be 700 pounds and it usually takes a pack to bring them down. The females, the faster lighter females, will run them to exhaustion, the bigger males will come around and grab them by the throat to crush windpipe. 0-Six perfected the art of doing that by herself which is something that had seldom been seen in the wild until Yellowstone reintroduction.

AMT: Okay, so 0-Six is this amazing Wolf. She's an alpha female. Correct?

NATE BLAKESLEE: Yes.

AMT: And before we go further on the alpha females, let's take a step back and talk about another wolf, because some of these wolves have lives that like are right out Shakespeare. Tell us about 40.

NATE BLAKESLEE: [Chuckles] 40 was known as sort of the evil stepmother of the hailstone wolves. She was an early alpha female of the Druid pack. And so she was widely watched by thousands of visitors. She was an unusually cruel alpha female. All alpha females - every pack has a hierarchy and every wolf sort of defends their spot in the hierarchy through a certain amount of sort of very controlled violence. For want of a better word they will howl each other down. They will pin one another. Usually it's largely symbolic. For 40 it wasn't. You know she was she was not a benevolent ruler and the pack did not thrive during her tenure.

AMT: She kicked her own mother out of the pack at one point, didn’t she?

NATE BLAKESLEE: She forced her own out of the back. She cruelly abused her sisters in order to prevent them from breeding, which again is instinctive behaviour but not usually done with the gusto that she did. She did not come to a good end. It is really it a sort of a fairy tale type story. The watchers observed her. She would diligently police her sisters to make sure that they did not become pregnant. However, one season two of them did.

AMT: And they were mating with her alpha male. Am I right?

NATE BLAKESLEE: Yes. And so the watchers observed her pursuing one of her sisters to the den. They presumed it would result in the death of that sister's pups - which is something that wolves sometimes do to protect their own territory. The next morning they saw a wolf by the roadside badly wounded near death. They assumed that they would find that sister. Instead they found 40. And it seemed that the other females in the pack had decided that they had finally had enough. And it was the first recorded instance of the pack. I guess matricide is what you would call it, a pack deciding that they had had enough in killing their own female ruler.

AMT: The view was that that actually lured her into that den.

NATE BLAKESLEE: Well it's hard to say exactly what happened.

AMT: The wolves aren’t talking.

NATE BLAKESLEE: The Wolves aren't talking but she had clearly been attacked by more than one wolf. And she was very near death when they found her and she died shortly thereafter. And the wolf that took over became the new alpha female, who was known as 42, became the queen of the Druids for 10 years or more. Her reign was you know it was still talked about today. She was like Yellowstone royalty 21 and 42. They're like the Kennedys [laughter]. The Kennedy family of Yellowstone wolves.

AMT: It's wild. And so people could do that just by tracking them by watching them all the time you could figure out these life patterns. You could see who was whom in the pack.

NATE BLAKESLEE: Yes there is a man in the park named Rick Macintyre. He works for the park service. He's been there since day one of reintroduction. He is the park's Wolf guru. He is so obsessed with wolves. He famously never missed a day in the park for 15 years whether it was on the clock or off. Every morning it was the same thing: Go out before dawn. Find them with telemetry set up the scope and wait and watch for wolves. He can pick out almost any wolf in the park in his scope and he can tell you that Wolf's lineage. He can tell you a story about the Wolves mother, about the Wolves father, where they denned, any landmark in the park he has a wolf story. He's this amazing font of wolf folklore in the park.

AMT: So interesting. And despite the fact that we learned, the sisters turned on 40 and she dies this lady Macbeth kind of death will show amazing empathy toward other wolves. How does that empathy show itself?

NATE BLAKESLEE: [Laughs] Well that was a revelation to me and that is what sort of Rick and Laurie considered to be their mission in the world is to rescue wolves from this fate that they have suffered largely, because of their reputation as sort of these remorseless killers. In fact they are much more and the empathy that you describe you really can’t see it through the scope. Wolves raised their pups collectively. Every adult wolf participates in raising the pups. They feed them, wolves feed their pups like birds. They'll fill their stomachs with food and regurgitate for the pups. The delight that each and every adult wolf shows on those pups is astounding. And when you watch them through the scope you feel like in some ways you're watching a human family. Of course you don't want to anthropomorphize as a wildlife biologist or as a journalist but you really can see it. And it's a survival strategy. Unlike a grizzly or a mountain lion that will spend 90 percent of its life alone, wolves spend all of their time in the company of other wolves. They hunt collectively, they defend the den collectively, and they raise pups collectively. And that ability to get along and cooperate with other wolves to understand the emotional state of another wolf and respond accordingly is a trait that has been selected for just like their amazing sense of smell or their endurance or their strength or agility over thousands of years.

AMT: So let's get back to 0-Six. First of all her connection to the Canadian wolves that were brought in in the mid-90s was direct lineage?

NATE BLAKESLEE: She is fourth generation. She's a descendant of 21 and 42.

AMT: Okay. And she does become the most famous wolf in Yellowstone because so many people start to watch her.

NATE BLAKESLEE: Yes. She's the easiest Wolf to spot during the time that she was the alpha and she was the queen of this same area that the Druids ruled the Lamar Valley. She was sort of their successor.

AMT: So she gets on Facebook.

NATE BLAKESLEE: She gets on Facebook, people start to learn her legend, she becomes a stop. You know Wolf watching became such a big business that there were tour guides that will take you to see the wolves in the park. And when she fatter for her first litter she chose this den that was perfectly visible from the park road. And so when she brought the pups out of the den for the first time it was this grand unveiling. You know there were dozens of people there with their scopes and their cameras.

AMT: So these wolves at this point were protected from human hunters because they're in the park and you cannot hunt them. Correct?

NATE BLAKESLEE: Yes.

AMT: Then in 2012 the United States government takes the wolves around Yellowstone off the endangered species list.

NATE BLAKESLEE: Yes,

AMT: Why?

NATE BLAKESLEE: The book tells the story of 0-Six but it also tells this parallel narrative of this fight that has been going on for decades over how wolves should be managed in the West. The original deal was the federal government promised if you let us reintroduce these wolves as soon as they become sufficiently established and numerous we will remove federal protection, and the states will be able to govern how they're managed and everyone knew that would mean hunting and trapping. The devil was in the details. Local officials felt like they had reached that threshold only after five or six years. But the federal government was resistant and even after the federal government was ready to cave local activists environmental groups were resistant. And the lawsuits went on for years and years and years. But finally as you say, in 2012 they did authorize that first legal hunting season in Wyoming. Wolves in the park are always protected but it doesn't matter because their ranges are so huge a wolf can routinely travel 20 miles in a day - up to 40 miles on some occasions. All of the packs routinely leave the park. 0-Six sadly, did leave the park during that first legal hunting season and who could have foreseen that one of the first wolves that would be shot during Wyoming's first legal hunting season in generations would be the park's most beloved animal, arguably the most famous wild animal in the world.

AMT: So 0-Six is shot and a remarkable scene takes place right after that shooting, what happens?

NATE BLAKESLEE: Nobody knew who shot 0-Six. He wisely kept his name out of the papers. The area in which he shot her is incredibly remote. He did not want to become the next Cecil the lion, that Minnesota dentist that became sort of the target of national scorn. But when I found him about a year later he had changed his mind and he was ready to tell his story.

AMT: Anonymously.

NATE BLAKESLEE: Anonymously. And he did tell me what he saw that day. And for most people it would have been a life changing experience and I think it may have been for him too. He spotted 0-Six and her mate, was known as 755, not far from the road in some willows. He had cut their trail in the snow on the road from his truck he pulled over onto a friend's land. He got out. He sounded this predator call which makes the sound of a dying cottontail rabbit, it's known to bring out coyotes and wolves. It brought 0-Six and 755 out of the willows about 200 yards away. He told me they just stood there and looked at him and he had time to choose which one he wanted. He did not know he was looking at the world's most famous wild animal.

AMT: He didn't even notice the color.

NATE BLAKESLEE: e didn't notice the color it was winter their coats are very thick in the winter and the colors are hard to see. He decided he wanted 0-Six. He shot her, 755 flew off into the willows. And this man who in the book I call Stephen Turnbull begins walking through the snow to retrieve her carcass his trophy, and then 755 comes back out of the willows and just sits there and stares at him. And he told me he had never seen anything like it in his life and he didn't know what to do, and he just stopped. And then 755 started howling and then he had no idea how many wolves he was stalking, all the rest of the pack started coming out of the willows. And pretty soon there were 10 wolves around 0-Six and they were all howling.

AMT: And how far away is he at this point?

NATE BLAKESLEE: He was about maybe 75 yards away. And he told me he was just dumbstruck and he didn't know what he should do. Naturally he was worried that they were going to come after him.

AMT: They can take down an elk as you've already pointed out.

NATE BLAKESLEE: They don't attack people but you know it's one thing to know that sort of intellectually it's another thing to be standing out there with the lone wolves, who are behaving, to him, very strangely.

AMT: It's like they're in mourning.

NATE BLAKESLEE: He told me - Well first of all he went back to his truck.

AMT: Carefully.

NATE BLAKESLEE: [Chuckles] Carefully he drove back to a cafe he told anyone in the cafe who would listen what he had just seen. I'm not sure how many believed him because it was such an amazing story. He went back there out there an hour later and they were gone. And that's when he was able to get her. But he told me… As he's telling me this story in his cabin, I think he saw on my face, I had been I'd spent months with the watchers by that time talking to them about 0-Six, hearing all of these stories you know, Queen of this wilderness beyond compare. He seemed to realize how that would sound to me and how it would sound to watchers in the park and he said it was it was almost sad was how he put it. And you know it was still to this day one of the saddest things that I have ever heard in my life that story.

AMT: Does he regret shooting that wolf?

NATE BLAKESLEE: He was extremely defensive that first day. Because he had been - even though his name was not in the papers he had been dragged through the mud. And he kept saying over and over again “I didn't do anything wrong. And I would do it again.” And legally he was right. He didn't do anything wrong but morally I think he himself was maybe on the fence.

AMT: What is the status of the wolves around Yellowstone today?

NATE BLAKESLEE: Well I think you would have to say that the sort of the anti-wolf forces have the upper hand at least in the northern Rockies. Wolves are hunted and trapped in all three states that surround Yellowstone National Park. But wolves have also spread beyond the northern Rockies. You know as an area becomes denser the population becomes denser, they begin to disperse looking for new territories and they have moved west into Oregon and Washington and down into California even, places that haven't seen wolves in eighty years. And so now the fight today is over whether or not those wolves should remain protected because of course there's ranchers there too and there's hunting guides. And so this idea that the wolves should be taken off federal protection and the rest of the lower 48 states is something that's being contested today. Part of the reason I wanted the book to tell a story is that the story itself is part of the message of the book. If you're a game manager in a place like Wyoming you spend all your time trying to calculate how many hundreds of wolves can you afford to let hunters and trappers kill this year, or how many hundreds can be killed on behalf of livestock protection. The book asks readers to ask a different question which is what is the value of one wolf's life? And if every wolf leads a life that has this wonderful adventure story as 0-Six did, and there was nothing unusual about 0-Six except that we knew enough details about her story to tell it. If every wolf's life is like that and every wolf killed by a hunter ends such an amazing story, does it force us to re-evaluate the way we think about those policy goals? And does it force us to go back again and take another look about what our values are in that process?

AMT: Good questions. Thanks for making us think.

NATE BLAKESLEE: Thank you. I hope the book does.

MW: Nate Blakeslee's new book is, The Wolf: A True Story of Survival and Obsession in the West. He spoke with Anna Maria Tremonti in November. That's our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for Q. Bruce Willis has survived Armageddon, crime bosses and giant alien bugs, but can he fend off a tornado of insults. Fans will find out at the end of this month when Bruce Willis becomes the latest celebrity to get roasted on Comedy Central. To mark the occasion, comedy historian Kliph Nesteroff will walk us through the impolite, often vile and fascinating history of the comedy roast. That's coming up next on Q. And remember you can always take The Current with you to go on the CBC Radio app. It lets you browse through past episodes of our show and start listening in just a few seconds. You can search for stories you missed or want to hear again or listen live to your local CBC station, right from your smartphone or tablet. Hear the day's top stories, even make your own playlist of your favorite stuff to listen to later. It's free from the App Store or Google Play. Well, forty years ago today, the world was agog with the news of Louise Brown's birth. She was the first so-called test tube baby. The procedure, now commonly known as In vitro fertilization, has made it possible for millions of people around the world to become parents. But it also raised fears that a brave new world of designer babies was dawning. Doctors Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards oversaw the procedure and shortly after the birth of baby Louise, they held a press conference to tackle the ethical issues head on. Here are Dr. Steptoe and Edwards from England on a doctor's duty and doing the right thing. I'm Megan Williams. Thanks for listening to the summer edition of The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: When a couple come to us with a problem I think it's a doctor's duty to try to solve that particular problem and in doing so to behave in a proper ethical manner. We have been directing our efforts to helping a particular couple who are infertile to have their own child. We have not been concerned with genetic engineering. We have not been concerned at the present time with doing anything other than helping infertile couples. I think if everybody approaches this from, is this medically a right thing to do, for the particular couple that they can't go into any dangerous waters. Now I'd like to hear Dr. Edwards' view as well.

VOICE 2: I would say what we have done, is brought medical responsibility into the early stages of human life. And if you think of it this way, then what you have to do is take care of the embryo as you would any other human life, which has to be protected and nourished and basically this is the fundamental ethical situation that I think we're in. Now, I have no doubt the responsible medical people and scientists can carry out all that is necessary to make sure the standards are being maintained in many parts of the world and that this development will be handled responsibly and carefully as other developments are. And I think this basically is where we stand today.

[Music: Theme]

July 25, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode