Wolves and the West II

(SNOOZE-FEST ALERT: 1600 Words. Settle in; you're going to be here for awhile.)

In this post, I examine a few of the issues surrounding wolves in the Mountain West. When possible, I have used information from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the various state wildlife agencies. I feel that these wildlife management agencies represent the most reliable source of information concerning wolves.

I have not cited my sources in most cases. Shame on me. I can point the reader toward more in-depth information if the reader is interested.

-----

Wolves and the Endangered Species Act
Wolves in the West are still officially an endangered species for the time being. Many people are upset that this allows the federal government to supersede the states' rights to manage wildlife. Critics argue that wolves are in no danger of going extinct because 60,000 of them still live in Canada. They argue that even though wolves are "endangered" in a certain area, the Endangered Species Act should not apply.

Wolves will likely soon be de-listed in the West. This upsets wolf advocates because they believe the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming will mismanage the populations, destroying much of the recovery work that has been done over the last decade. These three states have expressed an opinion that wolf populations are already too high and should be reduced. The states have shown interest in opening hunting seasons on wolves in order to reduce their numbers. Some pro-wolf advocates have expressed fears that the states will not pursue or prosecute people who illegally kill wolves.

It is unlikely that the state governments will completely wipe out their wolf populations. If the federal government believes that any state's wolf population is dangerously low, it will invoke the Endangered Species Act again. It is more likely that the states would attempt to reduce wolf populations to the minimum levels necessary to avoid the Endangered Species Act.

The Governor of Idaho, an outspoken wolf critic, has said that he would like for hunters to kill all but 100 wolves in Idaho. This is considered the lowest possible number which would avoid the Endangered Species Act. The Governor also expressed an interest in shooting the first wolf himself.


Wolves and Livestock
Wolves were originally exterminated in the lower 48 states because of the threat they posed to livestock. Today, wolves are still enormously unpopular among Western ranchers. Wolves will kill livestock; it cannot be avoided. In 2006, wolves in the West killed 344 sheep, 170 cattle, 8 dogs, 1 horse, 1 mule, and 2 llamas. These numbers include only "officially confirmed" wolf kills. They do not include unreported wolf kills, nor reported kills which could not be confirmed as wolf-related.

Wolves account for a very small percentage of overall livestock losses. According to a study by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, predators killed 12,000 sheep in 2004 in Idaho, where wolves are most abundant. Of those deaths, only 270 were from wolves. Coyotes accounted for 7,100 deaths and domestic dogs accounted for 1,400. In addition, 10,000 sheep were lost to non-predator causes.

It is legal for people to kill wolves "in defense of life or property," which includes livestock. About 150 wolves were officially killed in defense last year. This number includes only reported and confirmed cases.

Government and private programs are in place to compensate ranchers for livestock lost to wolves.


Wolves and Wild Game
Wolves are also extraordinarily unpopular among some groups of hunters. They believe that wolves greatly reduce populations of elk and deer. With fewer animals in the woods, hunters have less success.

Wolves do reduce elk and deer herds. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game conducted a study among the Salmon Region elk herd in 2005. Again, Idaho is where wolves are most abundant. The Department concluded that wolf re-introduction reduced the Salmon Region elk herd from 28,000 animals to 25,000, a difference of 11%. The study also found that out of all elk killed in a given year, 52% came from hunters, 30% came from mountain lions, 7% came from wolves, and 7% came from malnutrition.

Perhaps more damaging from the hunter's viewpoint is the change in elk and deer behavior caused by wolves. Wolves discourage elk from congregating in large herds in open meadows. Wolves make elk and deer more wary. Elk and deer that have been hunted by wolves tend to hide in thick timber at high elevation in small groups. This likely makes it harder for human hunters to find and kill these animals.

Are Wolves Dangerous to Humans?

Statistically, no.

In 2005 a hiker in Canada was killed by wolves. This was the first confirmed human wolf kill in North America since 1900. Other unconfirmed wolf kills may have occurred during that time, but the number would be fantastically low. Wolves are usually very wary of people. They have spectacular hearing and smelling abilities, and they use them to keep their distance. Occasionally wolves will approach humans out of curiosity, especially if domestic dogs are present, but there is no evidence that wolves consider humans either "food" or "enemies." Snakes, dogs, and deer kill people every year. Wolves do not.


Who Needs Wolves, Anyway?
From a purely ecological standpoint, wolves are a good wildlife management tool. Elk and deer populations are dangerously high in many places across the country. Wolves were originally introduced in Yellowstone in part to help control the runaway elk population, as it is illegal to hunt in a National Park.

When elk and deer herds become too large, the population suffers as a whole. Disease and malnutrition become more prevalent. The herd becomes more susceptible to large population swings. An out-of-control population of large grazing animals can lead to destruction of habitat and food shortages.

Population control is now accomplished primarily through public hunting. When this is not enough, state agencies will often hire sharpshooters or helicopter teams to kill additional animals. In many areas elk and deer herds are out of control because both hunting and government-kills are unacceptable or impossible. One example is Rocky Mountain National Park, where hunting is illegal and a high density of tourists makes government killing both distasteful and unpopular.

Wolves are much cheaper than hiring sharpshooters.

Wolves efficiently cull the herd. Wolves generally kill animals which are old, young, or weak. Hunters generally focus on the biggest, strongest, and most fit. From a purely biological standpoint, the wolves' outlook is more favorable.

On a broader scale, the presence of large carnivores benefits the environment in many ways. When a major species is completely removed from it's native ecosystem, the implications are wide-reaching but complicated. It's hard to tease out the precise chain of cause and effect.

The natural world is fantastically complex; we still don't understand many aspects of it. However, most biologists will agree that having more native species is good while having fewer native species is bad.

Many people believe wolves are important for reasons other than wildlife management and biology. Some like wolves for aesthetics; they're nice to have around. Some believe that because wolves once inhabited this country, they have a right to live here. Some believe that every species is valuable in and of itself; therefore we should do whatever we can to keep them around.

Finally, many people argue that wolves encourage tourism. A University of Montana study recently found that wolf re-introduction in Yellowstone has directly generated an additional $35 million in tourist revenue.


Comments
Wolves are fascinating to me, personally, but still I find that I don't feel particularly strongly either for or against re-introduction. As a hunter, I tend to focus on the ecological and environmental impacts. For good or ill, I tend to view wolves as a wildlife management tool. If re-introduction helps the herd, then do it. If it doesn't, then don't. Admittedly, this is a very narrow perspective.

I would advise pro-wolf advocates to stick closely to the topics of ecology, ranching, and tourism when engaging this debate. Arguing for wolves for the sake of aesthetics is dangerous. Introducing wildlife because it's nice to look at is a poor precedent. I think it would be pretty cool to have some tigers around here, but introducing them would likely be a disaster.

Arguing for wolves because "they belong here" or because "they have a right to exist" is a powerful idea, but it makes for a weak point of debate. If an opponent has made up their mind that no such right exists, it is very difficult to persuade them otherwise. The "wolves belong here" argument is largely self-evident; people either believe it or they don't.

I'll close with a judgment call:

The evidence advanced by anti-wolf advocates is weak. It is largely anecdotal, based on something that happened to a friend or a neighbor because of wolves. I've heard many stories about wolves killing a whole flock of sheep or eating the family dog, but I've never seen even an attempt to make the case that wolves cause economic hardship on a broad scale, especially when compared to other causes of livestock loss. I've heard stories of wolves driving all the elk out of a favorite hunting spot, but I've never seen a single scientific study suggesting that wolves damage the overall health of an elk or deer herd.

Studies and analyses to the contrary in both cases are abundant.

The strongest argument against wolves is that they are inconvenient, particularly to ranchers and some hunters. This is a valid complaint and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. However, when one side presents the wolf as ecologically and economically beneficent, and the other side counters that they're inconvenient for some people, I can't help lean in favor of the wolf.

That is my opinion, based on the evidence I've seen. I'll leave the rest for the reader to decide.