Joshua R. Larson
March 17, 2011
The Wolf Makes the West “Wild” Again
Throughout history wolves have been one of the most controversial animals worldwide. The story of wolves in the United States is a classic example of the persecution that wolves have endured for centuries. Prior to the settlement of the Western United States, wolves numbered in the thousands. However, the wolves did not fit in with our “western” way of life. The problem with the wolves in the eyes of the settlers was the fact that they seen wolves as direct competition for the same game animals that sustained their families. As a result, the government supported and in fact paid for the extermination of the wolf. By the middle of the twentieth century, the wolf was extirpated in the lower 48 states, besides a small population that remained in the far northern portion of Minnesota.
The United States (besides MN and AK) remained almost wolf-free for over three decades. After a number of years, the absence of wolves was beginning to create problems within the ecosystems in which they had originally lived. Wildlife biologists/ecologists began to realize the importance of apex predators in maintaining a healthy and self sustaining ecosystem. In the early 1980’s, the government along with the help of wildlife biologists began to plan the reintroduction of wolves to portions of the west that were still wild enough to sustain the large territories that wolves required to survive. However, the politics that were involved with the restoration process took over a decade to work through. By the time wolves were set to be reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park, wolves had made their way back into portions of Montana. But, in the winter of ‘95/’96 wolves were finally reintroduced to Yellowstone. The reintroduction of wolves has brought many positive effects to the ecosystems where wolves live. The most visible effects that are already noticed are healthier prey animals, predators, scavengers, and a healthier plant and tree communities. Also, the reintroduction of wolves has also boosted tourism in the national parks where they reside to almost unbelievable numbers.
Despite the early success of wolf reintroduction, the presence of wolves is now beginning to become an issue, again. Although the threat of eradication seems implausible at this time, many political figures have begun expressing negative attitudes toward wolves. Is the latter a sign of things to come? Wolves have only been present in their reintroduced habitats for 15 - 20 years, which from a scientific perspective is relatively short. Many more effects of the wolves’ reintroduction have yet to reveal themselves in the coming decades of observation. However, for the moment the positive effects that wolf reintroduction have had on ecosystems seems to have secured their place in the environment. But, only through the continued research of the effects that wolves have on their ecosystems and the publics’ opinion of whether wolves have the right to stay, will decide the fate of the wolves existence in the future.
4 comments:
I agree the wolf is a vital part of reintroduced habitat, however, I believe the wolf populations need to be well monitored in order to keep them from over populating areas leading to a decrease in their prey species. I have not looked into the issues of wolves in Yellowstone as much as a have the issues of wolves in Wisconsin. Being a hound hunter I have my own opinions on all the wolf arguments in our state and believe that there should be some management tool put into place for the wolf. Such as a hunting season regulated like bear or bobcat season where you have to apply for points each year for a certain number of years before obtaining a tag for the animal.
Wolves have thrived worldwide long before we were here to decide how many wolves should be allowed to persist in a particular region or habitat. Predators regulate their own numbers naturally through predator-prey cycles. If wolves had the ability to outstrip their food supply, we would not need to be concerned about their management due to the fact that they would have went the way of the dinosaurs! I do agree that problem wolves which resort to depredation of livestock should be removed, but I do not sympathize with the hunter who loses a dog while hunting in known wolf territory (I equate that to sticking your hand in a bee hive and not expecting to get stung). Hunting wolves as a management strategy has the potential to create greater problems. As we all know, wolves are highly social pack animals with a strict hierarchy. I believe that if certain individuals of a pack are harvested, the pack behavior may be altered in a negative manor (such as a pack which hunted natural prey begins to practice livestock depredation due to a lack of leadership). If the population needs to be reduced, I believe the most effective method is to utilize animal contraceptives or sterilization.
Contraceptives and steralization????? These are wild animals, not your pets. You say there is no sympathy for hound hunters who loose dogs to wolf attacks? I disagree, i know a bunch of bear hunters who have run there dogs in the same woods for years and now they are loosing dogs due to the increasing wolf population and there spread throughout the state.Bear hunters know there is a risk of injuring or loosing a dog every time they let the dogs out on a hot track but they accept those risks becuse they are pursuing that animal and know the risks. Now when a bear hunter is chasing bears and a pack of wolves kills their dogs, that is not a risk they were planning when they set out bear hunting. If they had a wolf season and they ran dogs after them, dogs killed by the wolves would be a known risk and many peple would be alright with that because they knew the risk when they started hunting. The wolf numbers are much higher than what we ar told and they are only going to keep getting higher if we don't do something to manage them, not run them to extinction. Contraceptives and sterilization are way to expensive and are not practical for dealing with wild animals. Hunting is more practical and would create revenue that could be put toward manageing resources including the wolf programs.
Josh, in response to your comment on sterilization I just want to say. I believe 100% in the need for wolves. They play an integral role as an apex predator in many North American ecosystems. These ecosystems have evolved for thousands of years with the wolves to keep many other plant and animal species in balance. Unfortunately, these ecosystems did not evolve with modern man. Since humans are not going anywhere biologists have to manage for wolves in the presence of a large human population. That is why the population goal of 350 wolves in Wisconsin was originally chosen by the state. Biologists believed that if the wolf population was kept around 350 individuals, wolves could still fill their ecological niche, yet conflicts with humans would be kept at a minimum. Now that we have far exceeded this number some sort of population control will ultimately be adopted. I believe that sterilization is not the answer. Sterilization has proven to be ineffective and costly with so many other species including deer, squirrels, and feral cats that I feel the DNR shouldn’t even waste their time with this option. Many carnivore experts including Dave Mech and Adrian Wydeven have spoke out about the importance of a wolf hunt. Although hunting wolves can be detrimental to pack dynamics if done improperly, it is beneficial to man’s perspective of the wolf, which I believe is more important in the future success of the state’s population. Hunters’ dollars would bring in needed funds for wolf conservation in the state. An open hunting season would also help hunters look more favorably on the wolf. Just look at the black bear for an example of how legalized hunting changes a hunter’s opinion of a species. Black bear are large predators that cause damage to crops and livestock, kill hounds, and scare the public, but there is no call for the eradication of them by hunters because they value being able to hunt them. Wolves are already being killed in this state, but creating a well-managed legal public hunt would bring money into the DNR, ease the public’s opinion about wolves, and allow us to properly manage their population.
Post a Comment