Alsatian

The wolves have been reintroduced into the lower 48 states . . . but why was this done? What is the theory, as it were, behind this? Wolves are not threatened as a species -- plenty of wolves in Alaska and Canada, right? I'm guessing the idea was -- "Well, wolves once roamed the lower 48. It was unjust, it was imprudent, it was arrogant of our species to dispatch these animals from the lower 48." I'm wondering what the rationale was. There are a lot of things that aren't what they were before man increased in numbers and started dominating nature more aggressively with technology -- the plow, the bulldozer, the concrete truck, the rifle, etc. I'm assuming we aren't going to try to reverse all of this and return to our stone-age level of technology. Are wolves needed as a natural check on populations of some animals, as birds may be necessary to reduce the number of insects? If they have been reintroduced just because they look cuddly and because of the movie White Fang, this kind of wishy-washy thought can be contended with, can't it?

Is the policy on wolf reintroduction underpinned by the endangered species act, and if so how? I'm curious about this. Frankly, I don't even understand the idea of reintroducing wolves with the provision that they be controlled and kept in check. This is like reintroducing smallpox with the provision that we try to limit the damages caused thereby.

I admit to being pretty clueless about this issue, so maybe this background is known and obvious to most people.

ELKampMaster

Alsatan,

Al, that is W-A-Y too much common sense for this discussion. You added the proviso "I admit to being pretty clueless...." I don't think you are clueless at all; just way ahead of most the pack (no pun intended).

IMHO, the wolf reintroduction folks are effectively "chopping a hole in the bottom of the big game hunting life boat" and my biggest surprise has been the number of hunters cheering them on.

In answer to your question as to "why" it was concluded that wolf re-introduction was a good idea, I'm sure you're gonna hear some good ones. Underneath the scientific glitz and rationale lies an underlying sentiment (that you touched on) of a large portion of the American public residing in their "lands far, far away"....
** Why those little woolfies are sooo cute!
** Those woolfie burning yellow eyes are just sooo cool!
** That woolfie howl is just sooo neat!
** Last but not least, most Americans too damn cheap to drive to Canada to get a "woolfie fix" so they want them moved closer, just so long as it is not in THEIR back yard!

A classic case of falling in love with a dream without considering (or even caring about) the "on the ground" realities.

Wolves and Smallpox, now it is going to get really good as someone explains how we need smallpox to lead a complete and environmentally balanced life!

Interestingly some big game hunters STILL don't realize they are sliding into deep do-do!

"Somehow, I told you so just doesn't cut it!"
-- Famous Black Guy Action Hero

Good Luck With That.....
EKM

CalNewbie

While the wolf is not in danger of becoming extinct anymore, the Endangers Species Act has two provisions for listing a species as "endangered":

1. A species is in danger of actual extinction.

2. A species can be placed on the ESA if it has lost a considerable amount of its former territory.

The second of these provisions applies to the wolf. However, those opposed to reintroduction make the arguement that although the wolf has lost some of its former range, the wolf population in the areas where it is still present is high enough for them to be taken off the ESA list. Practically speaking, they can't be everywhere they once were, so how do you rationalize singling out specific areas for reintroduction?

I believe that the concept is: Wolves, like all wildlife have a right to exist in a wild state, this right is no way related to their known value to mankind, it derives from the right of all living creatures to co-exist with man as part of the natural ecosystems. That's creatures, not organisms. Comparing the wolf to small pox is a macro vs micro logical fallicy. This is the same sort of thinking that caused USFWS to get its hands slapped in the court ruling cited in earlier posts. And, unless you're trying to build a super-race, there's little value in letting people die of smallpox. However, reasonable people do disgree on the benefits to nature of the wolf's reintroduction.

Some benefits have been realized. From what I've read it sounds as if some of these were not forecast, or weren't thought to be as great as they have been. One is a reduction in over-browsing. Another is the benefit to other parts of the ecosystem that are secondary predators/scavengers that finish off the carcass. Another is the reduction in the coyote population. The over-population of coyotes adversely impacted the populations of the medium sized predators that couldn't compete with the coyotes.

There are also drawbacks. As mentioned, wolves have a negative impact on hunting. While recovery programs are implemented in National Parks where hunting is not allowed, both the herds and wolves don't stay just in the park Wolves will reduce these animal numbers, meaning there would be fewer animals for hunting and game purposes. Kinda goes to my question - is it justified to eliminate the wolf so that we have better hunting opportunities? My personal view is that I can't rationalize that kind of action.

On the "bright" side, maybe someone gets attacked by a wolf and we'll get a "Bad News X6" post.

There's also the loss of livestock. But livestock losses to wolves are dwarfed by losses to other factors. 1995 the USDA reported that 4.2 million head of cattle died due to weather, disease, theft, or poison. The same report listed 117,400 as dying from the result of predator attacks; the vast majority of which were coyotes. In the Rocky Mountain region between 1997-1999, sheep deaths due to wolves made up .01 percent (1 in 10,000) of total sheep losses, and cattle deaths attributed to wolves accounted for .03 percent (3 in 10,000) of all cattle losses. Those numbers are no consolation when wolves attack your herd, but they put the matter in some perspective.

Please note, I found those figures on the web. The LA Times reported today that, in a survey of USFWS scientists, 20% reported being pressured to change data to achieve a political goal. Add that to all the other ways numbers can be twisted. However, I hope that they're good enough to use for the purposes of a friendly discussion.

RandyL

The difference now as opposed to when wolves and wildlife coexisted with out problems are numerous. The wolves were introduced, not naturally occuring, no control of the wolves as yet. USF&W is waffleing on control. Very limited control in Montana and Idaho, if your livestock or pets are being attacked and thats it. Wyoming, no control because Wyoming submitted thier plan along with Id, and Mt. The Wy plan calls for all wolves out of Rockefeller Park and Yellowstone to be classified as preditors, in the Parks they are trophy game. We all know in the Parks they will never be hunted, no hunting is allowed in those parks. Basically out of the Park they are fair game, anything goes except, poison or aireal gunning. The USF&W did not like this so they denied WY delisting. The state of Wyoming, a group of hunters, two county commisions, and a livestock group, filed suit against the USF&W just recently to prove that the USF&W lied and denied Wy's plan on unsound scientific evidence. Right now it is a political ploy by the feds.

Don't let anyone BS you, the Canadian Grey wolf is doing fine and VERY well in Wy. No one can even agree on a total count. USF&W say 170 wolves in WY. G&F estimates over 500. Mike Jemenez, USF&W guru, stated to the news last week that the wolf population has leveld off in Wy, with a 6% growth rate. 6% is a pretty good growth rate, I wouldn't call that leveling off. Where as, the elk population is at less than 1% growth in the same area. There are so many reports around the state I have to agree with the G&F. I can tell you documented, published stories one after the other of wolf sighintgs around the state of Wy. The truth is big game is suffering, drought, loss of habitat, and preditors. Wolves and Grizzlys. A combination of all of the above has drasticly reduced elk numbers in some areas to pre 70 levels. Simple math, wolves eat elk, there are around 500. How much meat can 500 wolves eat? LOTS AND LOTS! What do you think? Conservatively! 20 elk a day? Times 365 days a year! Not to mention the ones that are stressed from harasment by being chased by wolves, only to wonder off and die or abort thier calves. This has also happend on almost every winter feed ground in WY. Read the above news article.

It is a very controversial and emotional situation. I am not against having wolves here, I just feel if they come out of Yellowstone then they are fair game. If a season was opend tomorrow and no restrictions, excluding poison and aireal gunning, you wuold not kill all the wolves in Wy. They will not be wiped out, or eradicated. How many people on this forum has spent time in wolf country and even seen a wolf?? I have hunted in 5 Canadian provinces a total of 7 times, a wolf tag in my pocket each time and I seen one wolf in all the trips I made. Here in Wy, I see tracks every time I go to where I elk hunt, I have seen wolves one time, they just stand there and watch you, no fear. And I am seeing fewer and fewer elk. As is most outfitters and hunters in Northwest Wy.

RandyL

The impact on elk in NW Wyoming is becoming severe as is the decline in moose populations. The moose areas here were eliminated, combined, and quotas reduced to 1/4th of previous quotas. Why? Preditors, wolves and bears.

RandyL

By WHITNEY ROYSTER
Star-Tribune environmental reporter Monday, January 17, 2005




JACKSON -- Sure, you can talk about the economic implications of wolf reintroduction. Some people have lost money, others have made some.

But for Jon Robinette, the issue is much deeper.

"It changed our whole lifestyle," said Robinette, general manager of the Diamond G Ranch in the DuNoir Valley northwest of Dubois. "Instead of being able to go to bed and sleep, we have to get up and check for wolves."

Robinette has had his run-ins with wolves. He has lost six dogs since wolf reintroduction. He has had dogs killed out the back door. He has had horses killed in corrals and in pastures. He has lost cattle.

Still, Robinette, who says he was not in favor of reintroduction but recognizes that ways have to be found to live with wolves, said pinning a number to his losses is problematic.

"There's a whole scenario here, not just how much money did you lose," he said.

He has hired additional riders to look out for animals killed -- and to protect the evidence to determine what happened. That process, too, can take up to 12 hours, Robinette said, and the riders cost about $4,000 a month, for five months.

Then there's the impact to the cattle: Weights go down if cattle are stressed or being moved a lot. Reproduction rates might go down. Calves killed are a loss of about $1,000.

Before 1997, Robinette said the most cattle he lost was 22. In 1997, 61 calves were dead or missing. In 1998, 56 were lost; in 1999, he lost 53. Last year, there were nine confirmed wolf kills and 22 missing calves -- and that's just the number above those he knew wolves had nothing to do with.

While Robinette has lost money from wolves, others, like Bob Richard, might have made some.

Richard is the owner of Grub Steak Expeditions out of Cody, a custom sightseeing tour business.

Although Richard said an absence of wolves "would not change my business one iota," he does receive requests from people to see wolves.

"Last year we saw over 45 different wolves," he said. He takes clients to Yellowstone and into the Shoshone National Forest. Costs are about $375 for a full-day tour for two adults.

Last year, he said out of 1,900 clients, "a couple of hundred" wanted to see wolves. For the most part, people prefer bears or geysers, he said.

Have wolves helped his business?

"It has contributed to interesting private tours," he said. "Wolves were reintroduced, and I think we're going to see a very rough road ahead for the wolves over the next couple of years."

And there are people such as Rick Hoeninghausen, director of sales and marketing for Xanterra Parks and Resorts, which operates in Yellowstone National Park.

"There's definitely evidence that it has been helpful," he said of wolf reintroduction.

The company has offered wolf-watching packages, which has boosted winter tourism rates. More offerings in spring and fall have boosted sales as well.

Anecdotally, Hoeninghausen said he has seen a lot of people in turnouts on the road to Lamar Valley with spotting scopes, and more traffic on the road. Lamar Valley is a hot spot for wolves.

"From a business perspective, from a park experience perspective, I can definitely see that it has brought a positive impact," he said.

Gene Bryan, executive director of the Cody Chamber of Commerce, said wolves have been a "mixed bag" for businesses in Park County.

"There is an element here that supports wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park but is very concerned about the impacts the wolves are having outside the park, i.e. on the traditional livestock industries related to cattle and sheep production and especially the impacts they are having on wild game populations -- elk, deer, bighorn sheep, moose -- and the resultant impacts on the outfitter industry and resident-non-resident hunting," he said.

Still, University of Montana economist John Duffield conducted studies to cast wolf reintroduction in an economic light, according to Associated Press reports. He asked people how much they would be willing to contribute to a fund supporting reintroduction.

Then, Duffield factored in the projected costs of reintroduction (opportunities lost to recreational hunters, livestock lost to predation, costs of wolf management). His analysis showed benefits outweighing costs by $6 million to $8 million.

Increased Yellowstone visitation because of wolves is expected to bring in up to $23 million, he said.

Managing wolves

Of course, there's a cost to the public for wolf management.

Wolf recovery coordinator Ed Bangs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said that agency spends about $200,000 each year for wolf management in Wyoming, compared with about $300,000 in Montana and even more in Idaho.

At the same time, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department last year spent just under $119,000 to manage the gray wolf in Wyoming, even though the state doesn't have jurisdiction over the animals.

In 2000, Game and Fish spent about $11,000 on wolf management. That figure dropped to $6,700 in 2001 but rose to $37,100 in 2002, according to Game and Fish data.

Wolf management costs rose dramatically in 2003 to about $506,000. Agency fiscal officers said most of the cost increase was attributed to the development in 2003 of a wolf management plan for Wyoming.

The agency's final management plan estimated the costs of a Game and Fish-managed wolf program after delisting would be about $395,000 per year. But Game and Fish directors later revised that estimate and now believe wolf management costs will approach $1 million annually after delisting.

They said the potential cost of the management program will depend on the complexity of the monitoring program and the amount of land occupied by wolves.

Defenders of Wildlife pays ranchers compensation for confirmed wolf kills.

In Wyoming, Defenders paid $28,096 in 2004, compared with $10,803 in 2003. In 2002, payment totaled $21,506 in Wyoming, and payments were about $14,000 in 2000 and 2001.

The group has paid out $144,000 to ranchers in wolf country around Yellowstone since 1995.

But all that talk of money means nothing to Robinette. Even though the ranch manager has seen his death losses skyrocket from 1.5 percent to about 8 percent a year after reintroduction, he still favors listing the animal as trophy game.

"Then you can manage the packs that are not acceptable," he said. With predator status for wolves, there is no compensation program. Livestock killed because of trophy game predation allows ranchers to receive compensation. The Legislature would have to change the rule to allow predator kills to be eligible for compensation, he said, and that means skunks, coyotes and a host of others would be on the list.

"The sooner we get the animals delisted, the sooner we can manage them," he said. "Wildlife is going to be helped, agriculture will be helped. It's not working the way it's going. I'm not anti or pro -- I just live with it."

Star-Tribune reporter Jeff Gearino contributed to this report.

Environmental reporter Whitney Royster can be reached at (307) 734-0260 or at [email protected].

RandyL

Bottom line, no good has or will come of the illegally introduced Canadian Grey wolf. We have to live with them, the state of Wy is suing the USF&W, for whatever good that will do. There are areas of Wyoming where you will look long and hard to even see an elk when in the past you could at least see elk and even hunt them.

outwesthunter

I live in central Colorado. Back this summer there was a wolf killed on I-70 About 40 minutes outside Denver. The family and me were coming back from shopping in the big city and saw it. I thought it was someones pet and my wife thought it was a wild wolf. The next day it was in the newspaper, it was a wild wolf. The paper said it was roaming looking for a mate, and that it came from Yellowstone. I am sure there is habitat enough for wolves to rehabitate CO. It doesnt soundlike wolves are going to help anybodies hunting success either.

Slamfire

You mean that ALL species are not necessary for a bio-diversified existance? I'll bet the folks keepin score of extinct species has counted smallpox as on that evil ol' mankind has thoughlessly destroyed. [:-]

Christine B

Wolves have their place in the environment......pure and simple truth. Ranchers, and many quite simply cannot see the truth in that fact. And yes, I would hunt them if they became a problem....it is however us/man that is the creator of the issues most have with Wolves. Wolves have their place....