The intense controversy over whether the gray wolf should remain on the Endangered Species list is about not only the fate of this top predator but also, how much weight scientific and environmental considerations will be given in decisions affecting immediate stakeholders as well as the general public.
The wolf controversy is a prime example of the complexities at play among hunters, environmentalists, local politicians and the interests of the general public. The hunters want the excitement and thrill of a wolf hunt, the environmentalists want to see their restoration efforts of this nearly extinct animal protected, local politicians want revenue and the general population wants (or will want, if they become adequately aware of the issue), balanced ecosystems.
The reintroduction of the gray wolf to the Northern Rocky Mountains is considered one of the great success stories of wildlife restoration. After being relentlessly shot, trapped and poisoned to near extinction in the 1930’s, the wolf was put on the Endangered Species List. Once listed, the wolf was protected from any further killing. A reintroduction program began in 1995 to increase the wolf population to a level that would be self-sustaining. Wolves were captured in Canada and let loose in Yellowstone National Park to breed. This reintroduction program was so successful that about 1650 wolves now live in the park and in the wilderness of the surrounding states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.
But protection of these wolves became threatened when former President Bush just before leaving office, suspended the federal endangered species listing. The action was to be reassessed by the Obama administration before formal adoption. The new administration subsequently affirmed the federal delisting and therefore, continued management of the wolves was turned over to the states. Idaho and Montana started managing the wolves in 2009 while the wolves of Wyoming remain listed and under federal protection due to flaws in that state’s management plan
Once management was passed from the federal government to the state wildlife agencies, hunting became the focus. The reason for this is the subject of my September 2009 blog post which explains that the lion’s share of funding for state wildlife agencies comes from hunting license fees and a tax on guns. It is for this reason that state wildlife agencies are beholden to their local hunting community. In fact, upon hearing that his state was soon to be in control of the wolves, Governor Otter of Idaho was quoted as saying he would be one of the first to purchase a wolf hunting license.
The value and importance of conserving endangered species and ensuring biodiversity is an accepted axiom of the 21st century. From scientific journals to biology textbooks it has been written about time and again. The importance of a keystone predator such as the gray wolf to a balanced ecosystem is undeniable.
It has been asserted that one of the prime benefits of having wolves in Yellowstone National Park is to control the wolf’s natural prey populations of elk and deer. Without this top predator, the elk population had increased dramatically in the park causing damage to vegetation which in turn had a cascading effect on the health of the ecosystem as a whole. The elk grazed so heavily that seedlings and shoots of aspen, willow and other trees were prevented from growing. With fewer trees, especially along streams, fewer dams were built by beavers causing an increase in run-off and erosion. Fewer trees also meant fewer nesting birds. Entire food webs were breaking down affecting fish and amphibians. Once wolves were reintroduced to the park, banks and streams were once again intact and stream-side vegetation reappeared. And as is often the case with predators, additional food was also provided for small animals from carcasses left by wolves. In short, organisms from every trophic level were positively affected by the wolves. Environmentalists have concluded that a healthy ecosystem is near impossible without a thriving wolf population.
That our policies would and should be motivated by these basic scientific principles seems evident however, not surprisingly, politics has reared its ugly head and muddied the waters. Even though last year, on the 160th anniversary of the founding of the Department of the Interior, President Obama said “…I’ve signed a memorandum that will help restore the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act…”, science appears to be losing ground to local politics and creating what has been dubbed “the wolf wars”.
With a current total population of about 1650 wolves, the first hunting season in history just ended. In it, 300 wolves were legally permitted to be killed. The reason for this limit is to ensure the wolf population remains sustainable. Wildlife biologists (who don’t work for state wildlife agencies) say these total population numbers are too low and not based on sound scientific evidence. This issue, among others, is currently being litigated in federal court. The biologists assert that the entire wolf population was delisted prematurely and the target number should be closer to 2000-3000 wolves in total with no allowances for hunting. (Also being litigated is the issue of whether it was valid to delist the wolves in two states while leaving them listed in a third when, it is argued, the wolves comprise a single population that naturally moves across state borders.)
Interestingly, it is reported that approximately 14,000 wolf hunting permits were sold during the first wolf hunt season. This is a puzzling number in light of the fact that only 300 wolves could be legally taken. From the state’s perspective the revenue from the sale of the license is gain whether a wolf is killed or not. But it’s interesting that hunters would find these odds appealing. But maybe they have learned something from their experience. About six months ago, in the midst of the hunting season, a New York Times article “Wolves Aren’t Making it Easy for Idaho Hunters” quoted the wildlife manager for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game as saying it was clear that wolf hunting wasn’t going to be easy. When the final kill numbers came in, of the 300 wolves permitted to be taken, it was reported that 222 were killed.
How these scant numbers can be twisted by some to serve their self-interest, is truly amazing. Hunters, ranchers and state wildlife agents continue to insist there is a current overpopulation of wolves and more hunting is “needed”. Hunters claim they need higher limits and thus more targets and a longer season. This serves their personal interests in two ways: first, it expands the opportunity for recreational hunts and second, it further reduces the overall wolf population in the hopes of leaving a greater number of elk and deer for the hunter to also hunt. As one hunter so clearly stated on his blog “… [With] the wolf…there won’t be surplus game, especially big game, to need additional management by hunters.” For many, this naturally occurring balance of nature would be considered ideal.
Perhaps the most wolf intolerant group however, is the rancher. Any number of wolves is too many for most ranchers because wolves have the potential to prey on their livestock. This is one of the main reasons the wolf was originally eradicated from the west.
A number of responses have been developed to address the rancher’s livestock depredation problem. This month’s issue of National Geographic reports in an article entitled “Wolf Wars” that approximately 569 cattle and sheep were killed by wolves in 2008; a loss number we should be able to manage and contain. One response to the rancher’s dilemma has been a patrol program. Patrols made on motorcycle, car and foot are conducted to keep an eye out for evidence of wolves. Ranchers are notified to keep cattle herds moving and to avoid certain areas. There is also a financial compensation program run by the Defenders of Wildlife, a private not-for-profit group to help ranchers with their losses. New tactics are also being tried such as collecting carcasses from cattle that died due to birthing problems and accidents, and planting these bone piles in remote areas attracting wolves away from cattle grazing territory. And lastly and perhaps most importantly, is the need to keep prey populations intact. Here in opposition to the needs of recreational hunters, it is important to keep healthy populations of deer and elk for wolves to prey on. If enough food is available in the wild, the wolf is less likely to venture into human inhabited ranch land looking for dinner.
And lest we fear the west will be overrun with wolves, evidence shows wolves may naturally self regulate their numbers. While there is no predator above the wolf, nature has a way of regulating its own. Wolf populations will regulate themselves in nature through the availability of food, harshness of weather, disease, and wolf on wolf killings.
One of the most important elements is food supply. Historically there has been an overabundance of elk and deer in the Northern Rockies and the wolves have been feasting mightily. However this trend is starting to wane and recent reports show either no wolf population increase over the last few years or a slight decrease. Predator and prey populations are balancing.
Other important stabilizing factors in the wolf population are disease and wolf on wolf mortality. A pack of wolves that has been closely studied is the Druid pack. At its peak, the pack numbered 37 members, but as of late the pack appears to have died off or dispersed almost completely. Apparently the alpha female in the pack was killed by a wolf from another pack and the remaining alpha male and 6 other wolves contracted a skin disease called mange that severely weakened them leading to death. With no more leaders, it is thought that the remaining few members of the Druid pack will wander on their own, unlikely to make it through the winter.
The situation with the gray wolf is a sorry example of rational, scientifically based evidence mingling with self-interested stakeholders. The fact that recreational hunting opportunities are even considered at this point is deeply disturbing. Hunting doesn’t mimic natural predation but in fact, has some far reaching negative consequences for the health of our environment. An interesting study published last year by the National Academy of Sciences entitled “Human predators outpace other agents of trait change in the wild” found that humans, as “super-predators” often aim to take out the biggest and healthiest, or “trophy” animals, in a herd thus damaging the overall health of a species. By removing these fine specimens from the animal’s gene pool we are in essence, weakening the species and leaving the less desirable animals to procreate. The study found that this human interference with the dynamics of natural selection leads to decreased body size over time and compromised reproductive health.
One of the benchmarks used by biologists to measure the continued viability of wolves is the number of breeding pairs. It is doubtful hunters have any idea whether they are killing a male or a female when they hunt and thus, are causing an imbalance in the male/female ratio of the packs. Hunting not only brings down the absolute number of wolves but also negatively impacts the gene pool of this once endangered species.
The wildlife in this country is owned by its citizens. This legal concept means we all share equal, undivided interests in our wild animals. The government holds wildlife in trust for our benefit and is empowered to manage it for the public good. The hunter dominated state agencies represent only about 4% of the general population. Policies should be developed based on sound science and carried out in a democratic manner responsive to the majority, not a vocal minority. Perhaps this is an opportunity for the “just say no” policy. Since the American people have spent tens of millions of dollars and thousands of man hours to re-balance the ecosystem in the Northern Rockies, how about just saying “no, you cannot play here, please take your guns and leave.”
Prior blog posts:
February 2010 "Connecting the Dots of Violence"
January 2010 "Lead Ammunition"
December 2009 "The Federal Gun Tax"
November 2009 "The Supreme Court and the Culpability of a Child"
October 2009 "Teaching Children to Kill"
September 2009 "The Structure of our State Wildlife Agency System"
