Dances with wolves: one step forward, two steps back
- Sylvia Fallon
- Staff Scientist, Washington, DC
- Blog | About
- Posted March 6, 2009 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
Today the Secretary of the Interior affirmed a Bush administration push to delist wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. This decision is obviously a great disappointment to those of us who have worked so hard to make sure that wolves in the Rockies are truly recovered and have the state protections they need to stay that way.
We agree with Secretary Salazar that wolves are a remarkable endangered species success story. But we don't believe that the state plans will ensure their long term survival. Even with the wolves still under federal protection, Idaho has been making plans to shoot at least 100 of its wolves. And last year when protections were briefly lifted it only took a matter of months for all three states to collectively kill over 100 wolves.
Because of the original recovery goals - which were developed more than 20 years ago and were never based on any scientific calculations or theory - the states would legally be able to reduce the number of wolves in the Northern Rockies from today's count of roughly 1500 wolves down to 300-450. That's not much more than the number that Idaho wants to kill right now. It's too few and it will only require protections to be reinstated in the future.
As I commented earlier, the current delisting plan also includes a new approach for ensuring that the three subpopulations in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are connected by genetic exchange - namely tossing wolves in the back of trucks and dumping them off in new locations - and if that doesn't work, they would also consider switching pups between packs or using artificial insemination. Do any of these options sound like part of a successfully recovered (i.e. self-sustaining) population?
The lack of genetic connectivity between the three subpopulations was a major concern last year when protections were returned to the wolves. If there's reason to be concerned about genetic exchange now, there certainly will be if wolf numbers ever dip as low as the state plans allow.
We are arguing that we can get this right the first time around. Let's not recover wolves just to endanger them again. Let's take a fresh look at wolf recovery. I'm not saying we have to start this long process all over again - in fact I think we're almost there. But let's not just get there - let's stay there.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
Randy Johnson — Mar 7 2009 02:32 PM
Your flawed way of thinking is laughable. The best way to protect a species is to hunt them. Let me explain. By allowing the harvest of some of the population you acheive 2 major objectives. #1 is to instill the fear of man into the wolf. They have been getting a free pass, so when they encounter man, livestock, hikers, campers we have let them be. They have learned that we are not a threat to them. By teaching them that when the come across man they go back into the wilderness were they belong, not near our livestock or citites. #2, by selling some harvest tags you control the amount that gets killed, you also get to studies the dead wolves to check on the overall health of the population and genetic diversity. Plus the state agencies get funds from hunters who want to shoot a wolf. So you pass a law that says all of the money that comes from harvest tags of wolves goes to wolf research and management. That way the greasey government can't steal that money for something else. Plus it helps the economey becasue the hunter pays for travel, lodging, a tag, food, gas, a guide and if the hunter gets one they'll pay for a taxidermist. So everybody wins. [Sentence removed - Ian @ NRDC] We should be treating our animals as a resource and manage them through harvest not a hands-off approach and let disease and starvation control the population.
Ian @ NRDC — Mar 7 2009 04:48 PM
Randy -- we're happy to have you airing your views here, however much we may disagree with you. We don't, however, have much patience for name-calling, which is why I removed a sentence from your comment above.
terry smith — Mar 7 2009 04:58 PM
I don't think you will see many positive comments from people who must live in wolf country. Thousands of dead dear and elk- not the weak but healthy bull elk killed and eaten while still alive. We can no longer let our grandchildren sleep out in the back yard. The wolf is not naturally aggressive toward people but young children are at risk, especially after their natural food source has been depleted. Don't beleive me? Then all of you defenders of wolf reintroduction give me a call. No problem finding wolves or fresh kills around here. I'd be happy to take you on a tour.
Randy Johnson — Mar 7 2009 05:48 PM
It's too bad that the NRDC discounts all aspects of sound conservation that has taken place by the hunting population. You can look at 10+ million acres of wetlands protected by Duck Unlimited, the grasslands perserved by Pheseants Forever. Now tell me how these hunter funded organizations have hurt the enviorment? Hunting can provide the wolf the funds needed to ensure it's survival. But the close-minded views about hunting is nothing more than a front to stop all hunting.
Hopefully 30 days from now, you be fighting for something else and I can start saving me money for a wolf hunt. I'll be sure to send you a picture.
drew kennedy — Mar 7 2009 06:08 PM
The ONLY way to grow a healthy population is to harvest a percentage every year, or at least thats what they teach in "introduction" to wildlife ecology. Better for genetics, better for disease control and long term success of the species, and not to mention a bonus for the economy. It's a shame the animal rights activists have been fooled into thinking animals would suffer less if man stayed out of the way. I can't speak for all cases but this is definitely the case with the wolves. Many hunters are far more astute to the true meaning of protecting our wildlife. Why forcefully reintroduce a known "problem species" to the ranchers who feed our nation? Are wolves more important than a reliable source of food? Nobody wins except for the beurocrats who desire futher control and regulation over private citizens and natural resources.
Sylvia Fallon — Mar 9 2009 10:13 AM
NRDC is not opposed to hunting as a general rule. In reference to the wolves, please see my comments below from a previous post on the topic:
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.
Gordon — Mar 13 2009 07:16 AM
I am gratified to see that Neanderthals have apparently come back from extinction.
Kim — Mar 13 2009 07:31 PM
Why did Sec'y. Salazar reverse his ruling? I think that lofty language will only antagonize (big word, sorry) people who want to use labels. I feel for the woman whose kids can't sleep in the backyard. Her ancestors had the same problem and that is why they are so hated. However, wolves, and predators in general, are necessary to keep balance in nature. Maybe, both sides should take a turn and see what the other is going thru. The wolf advocates could sleep in the backyard, and the grandmother could plant willow trees along the river. We could use a few wolves back east, maybe we could ship you a few train loads of whitetail deer in exchange. A solution can be found with cool heads and warm hearts, not hot heads and cold hearts. Distorted emotional appeals are for TV commercials. The hunter is trying to meet you in the middle, maybe. We have to include people in the big picture, they are not going to go away. Realistically, true ranchers probably don't sleep in the backyard unless they have to and certainly not without a loyal dog and a rifle.
Catherine Fischer — Mar 13 2009 10:54 PM
What disturbs me most about the potential hunting of wolves is the randomness of killing functional family/hunting members. It was only recently that I learned (Temple Grandin "Animals Makes Us Human") that wolves do not live in large packs. More accurately they live in functional families, and extended families, with roles and rules. It is nonesense to think there would be a population benefit in killing a high- functioning member of the family! Certainly, it would leave behind a void with a greater opportunity for predation on domestic livestock and a greater opportunity for starvation for the remaining family.
Setting aside my strong personal distate of gunning down wolves, I ask the scientfic community: When and if, man must control the wolf population, cannot it not be done with a view toward function and outcome??? To hunt the wolf who live in small organized hunting families in the same manner as white tail deer, who live in large grazing herds makes no sense. Is there anyone out there who has developed this line of thought?
Aron — Mar 14 2009 11:26 AM
While I respect (generally) the views posted here, I have to say they seem short sighted and out of focus. First of all, viewing a living being as a resource is implying it's worth lies only in profit that can be made from it, and that it has no right for survival for its own sake. Humans are the biggest predators on the planet. The fact that the label "sport" is given to shooting a "problem species" with a gun is absurd. Tell me how many people realistically hunt for "reliable sources of food" in Wyoming or Idaho? Seriously. Join the army if you want to kill something. Centuries ago hunting was a necessity for survival, now its a "game". Secondly, it is the bureaucrats that are pushing for the delisting of wolves...Bush was the one who sought to have them delisted in the first place, with the support of the state governments. Obama is upholding that decision...its not the bureaucrats who are opposing this, they are the ones defending it.