WOLVES:
The controversial reintroduction of the grey wolf in the United States is the inflammatory topic of dialogue from Capitol Hill to the local diner, wherever lawmakers, ranchers, environmentalists, and sportsmen debate. Some claim nothing but havoc and destruction can come when “The Big Bad Wolf” moves into the neighborhood, while others claim Canis Lupis comes to rebalance an ecosystem thrown out of kilter by man’s mistakes, enhancing the health of ungulate herds by killing off the olds and diseased. In this polarized battle, the only reasonable measure is to strip away the emotion and consider the historical evidence--what happened when the wolf was here in previous times? What about the places it has previously been restored (i.e. The Midwest)? Does the wolf contribute, or does it cause trouble? Because wildlife management is not an exact science, reviewing history brings biology and wildlife management into a real-world realm. A specific science is conclusive and can be tested and re-tested with a certain, measurable reaction every time. Not so with a subjective “art-science,” such as wildlife management, in which the many variables involved in any natural study results in varying conclusions from biologists--even within the same study. The main misconceptions about wolves are fed by feelings and emotions mixed with some element of fact. A lack of valid information contributes to the distortions, along with biased publications that sway opinion, whether intentionally or otherwise. With time and repetition, myth and misconception overtake fact. 1. Man’s unnatural fear of wolves is born of legend and fictional tales. Many researchers have spent countless hours investigating personal experiences with wolves, and not one is afraid of a bedtime story. Instead, they have witness first-hand the wolf’s grizzly slaughter of animals, the torture of still-living animals with their intestines dragging on the ground, flanks ripped open, screaming in pain. Witnesses say the mutilations are often without evidence of killing for food at all. 2. Wolves are endangered. Most Americans relate this to The Endangered Species Act (ESA), a flawed but powerful law passed in 1973. While most would define “endangered” as “few in numbers,” that is often not the case with species protected by this legislation. For the wolf, estimates set the number on the North American continent somewhere around 50,000 to 70,000, with most wolves occupying areas in Canada and Alaska. But the ESA used the artificial international boundary between the US and Canada to conclude that the “distinct population” of wolves in the US was endangered. They conveniently ignored the fact that wolves are known to cross the border and set up house on their own. This established the political definition that for the reintroduction of wolves to the Rocky Mountain regions in 1995 and 1996. The identification of sub-species has been countered with modern testing methods, and renowned wolf expert David Mech agrees that sub-species classifications are “nothing more than a local form of wolf.” The Yellowstone wolf recovery was based on obsolete and disproved classifications from a book published in 1944 (The Wolves of North America, by Young & Goldman) 3. Wolves are necessary for control of ungulate herds. Plentiful, healthy ungulate herds existing throughout the world without the presence of wolves prove this to be untrue. Obviously, wolf presence does control--if not decimate--herds, but not necessarily through the removal of the sick and weak and improving herd health. Wolves are know to prey heavily on newborns, the young, and pregnant females, effectively wiping out the future of the herd. Eventually, as ungulate numbers drop, wolves will move on in search of better feed grounds: Private property, livestock pastures, your own back yard. And, there is evidence this is already happening. 4. Reintroduced wolves will cause minimal depredation of domestic animals. This misconception was based on the erroneous assumption that there are enough deer and elk to feed on, preventing livestock killing, and that (apparently) the wolves would know to stay in the designated recovery area. Yet, within days of the wolf releases, livestock kills were reported. Like any predator, the wolf will go for easy prey. The wide-spread killing of dogs from Alaska to Wyoming to Minnesota is rarely mentioned, but it is common for a wolf to tear a dog from its collar, or to come right onto the porch to grab a pet. 5. Wolves kill only the sick and diseased. Wolves are not capable of reasoning like a human being in order to determine old, sick, or diseased. They work by what is easy to catch, and that may be the young, the future of the herd. It may also be a colt in the barnyard or a dog in the yard. 6. Wolves only kill what they eat. Sometimes, wolves do kill and devour everything. One of the difficulties of confirming a kill, especially among livestock, is that sometimes a carcass can never be found. Accounts of sport killing are common, both historically and from contemporary reports. 7. Wolves never attack or kill people. While wolves normally avoid human contact, they are known to follow, threaten, and attack human beings. This behavior likely can only increase as packs move into more populated areas and grow accustomed to human presence. Regardless of the romantic image some hold about the wolf, the fact is they never were in danger of extinction (and therefore did not need to be reintroduced), they reduce harvestable game and endanger the future of herds by killing the young. With very little natural restraints on their expansion, numbers of wolves will only increase, along with the problems they cause. |
|
