Sylvia Fallon's Blog
Being unreasonable about wolves
May 5, 2008
Posted by Sylvia Fallon in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
Last week, NRDC joined with a coalition of partners to challenge the government’s decision to remove federal protections from wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. We also asked for an injunction to suspend the killing of wolves in this region which has already resulted in the deaths of at least 40 wolves – that’s an average of about a wolf a day since the delisting occurred. Combined with the anticipated state hunts scheduled for the fall, the wolves could be back to endangered numbers in no time.
In response, some are characterizing our actions as another needless lawsuit by unreasonable environmentalists. Citing the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s recovery goals of 300 wolves, the states claim that the wolves are more than recovered with numbers around 1500. What they don’t acknowledge is that those goals were set over twenty years ago when we knew much less about the biological requirements of many species including wolves.
It turns out that the current numbers are much closer to what is necessary for a recovered population. Scientific advancements in the last two decades tell us that we need to maintain an interconnected population of 2000-5000 wolves. We are almost there, but the state plans would turn things back.
Another recent scientific finding is that the wolves in Yellowstone have been genetically isolated from all other wolves in the region since the time of their reintroduction thirteen years ago. While the wolves have otherwise thrived in their new environment - returning ecological balance to one of our country’s most iconic national parks – they cannot survive in the long run without an established connection to large numbers of other wolves in the region.
Researchers have found that if the Yellowstone wolves remain isolated, their population could suffer from genetic defects such as physical deformities and population decline in as little as 60 years. This means that my son, a toddler now, could see the wolves in Yellowstone headed once again to extinction in his lifetime – and that’s if we keep the numbers where they are right now at 1500.
The state plans, which are based on the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s 20 year old recovery goals of 300 wolves, would allow these numbers to be significantly decreased thereby magnifying the isolation of wolves and speeding up the time to the population’s demise. We’d like to see these plans changed to ensure a truly recovered, self-sustaining population of wolves. I, personally, want my son to be able to witness the beauty and wonder of the natural world when he grows up rather than inheriting the burden of our mistakes for his generation to face. Call me unreasonable.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
- Sylvia Fallon
- Staff Scientist
- Washington, DC
- My interest in the natural world led me to study ecology and evolutionary biology, but...
- more→
Comments
Dagny McKinley — May 5 2008 01:17 PM
When will people be able to see wolves for the majestic creatures they are. They kill for food, but so do bears, eagles, even cats and dogs. Should we eradicate every living animal that is merely trying to survive in a habitat we have over-populated?
I just finished Ian McAlister's book 'The Last Wild Wolves - Ghosts of the Rainforest.' I think the mentality we have is it's better to kill something or someone we don't understand than to try to learn to live with them.
Dagny Mckinley
Lori Neumann — May 5 2008 08:21 PM
Why do people get a kick out of hunting and killing other living creatures? I just don't get it. Thank you for your post, Sylvia, though it saddens me to hear of the slaughter of these magnificant creatures. Reading your blog from my home in Chicago, I feel so helpless and so far away... How can we help overturn this legislation? What can we do to make an impactful difference in this urgent issue? I wish I could make people recognize that all living things deserve to share this earth with us.
holly english — May 6 2008 02:39 PM
Why don't we get back to the point that it is cheaper to compensate ranchers for livestock monetarily than to spend more $ on restoring an endangered species' habitat and population after a killing spree! The wolves also keep other populations in check that would otherwise decimate the forage that livestock depend on. Better yet, the few private interests that benefit from grazing on public lands should be bought out, or at least a condition on their permits should make clear that shooting wolves is not allowed - they must anticpate some loss from their herds. Every year stockmen lose more stock from disease than predation. I hope NRDC has explored these options.
Linda Navroth — May 8 2008 12:59 PM
I've been writing letters of protest and sending donations to NRDC & Earth Justice to help overturn the ruling. I suggest that everyone else do the same before too many more wolves are killed. I just wish all those crazy hunters with guns would just turn them on themselves. They want to kill wolves just because they can, not to protect livestock. A worthless bunch of sickos!
Jim Henderson — May 8 2008 02:57 PM
Lori Neumann, humans hunt because it is in our nature. Humans have always been hunters. It is as much a part of our nature as it is the wolf's. It's not a perverse kick. It's our instinct. It would be a very sad thing if we rounded up all the wolves and decided they should all be fed from a bag of Purina. It would be completely against their nature. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with humans who get all their food from the local market or their garden, though, because we have also always been gatherers. Our knowledge of how our actions affect the world give us the duty to make sure our actions as a species are responsible, and I believe we have the duty to make sure we preserve the wolf. But demonizing hunters for hunting is the same kind of thinking our predecessors used to demonize the wolf and drive it to the brink of extinction.
halfmonk — May 8 2008 05:58 PM
re: jim henderson's comment. humans hunt because it's in our nature? don't deceive yourself. most humans don't even know what their true nature is. buddha said our true nature is eternal and based in selfless compassion. if you think hunting is still in your nature then perhaps you might want to take a look inside, brother. humans have also needlessly killed other humans and we shouldn't condone that crap either. evolution, homey, check it out. get beyond that primitive nonsense.
Sylvia Fallon — May 9 2008 09:41 AM
Thank you to everyone who has commented. Wolves certainly elicit an emotional response from both sides on this issue. At NRDC, we appreciate the complexity of the issue and realize that any long-term solution will need to consider the needs of an array of interested parties. We don’t oppose hunting, for example. However, in the case of wolves in the Rocky Mountain region, we don’t believe that there are sufficient numbers of wolves to constitute recovery much less support a hunt. We believe we need an open and fair democratic process so we can find new creative ways to coexist with wolves, and achieve longterm recovery.
For those who are interested in contributing to our efforts, we agree that letter writing in the form of opinion pieces or letters to the editor of local and regional papers is a good way to start a public dialogue. You can also write a letter to the Department of Interior in support of our petition to revise recovery plans for gray wolves. And, of course, supporting environmental organizations that are working for the causes that you care about is another positive way to contribute.