Wednesday, February 24, 2010

The Gray Wolf: To Hunt or Not To Hunt ?

In March of 2009, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar decided to uphold the decision made by the Bush administration to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list in several states in the Northern Rockies. Salazar commented that the U.S. had successfully recovered the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act, and that population sizes were now large enough to justify removing the species from federal protection and allow the states to assume management. Almost immediately after the decision was made, Montana and Idaho both announced that there would be a hunting season for the gray wolf.

The decision to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list initially made by the Bush administration and upheld by Salazar was derived from abundant complaints from farmers and ranchers that the growing wolf populations were destroying their business by eating their livestock and cattle. The charismatic wolf, once considered one of the biggest priorities for species protection in the U.S., was now becoming considered a pest to many ranchers in the Northern Rockies.

Montana and Idaho opened a sport hunting season for the gray wolf last summer. Since that time, 230 of the estimated 1,350 wolves in the two states have been killed. Over a dozen environmental groups have proceeded to sue over the issue. While it is an undeniable fact that wolf population numbers increased significantly since it became protected by the Endangered Species Act, environmentalists argue that hunting will prevent the connectivity of the ranges of the wolves spread throughout the Rocky Mountain region, and the ability for the wolf populations to connect will be crucial for the long term success of the species in the region.

This is another example of why the Environmental Species Act is a highly contentious piece of legislation. As we have seen with the case of the Florida panther, sage grouse, and many other species, providing a species with federal protection can have a detrimental impact on private land owners. The federal protection of a species can eliminate a private land owner's ability to achieve full financial benefit from his or her land or assets. With the conflict involving the conservation of a a beloved animal such as the gray wolf versus the livelihood of farmers and ranchers, a polarized public opinion is almost certain to persist.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/science/earth/07wolves.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_14439195



Some quotes from The Onion on the issue:

http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/gray_wolf_can_be_hunted_again

16 comments:

  1. Despite not being at risk for extinction anymore, local populations of wolves are still threatened. One such threat is genetic bottlenecking caused by population fragmenting. Human's have isolated small pockets of the grey wolf species, which then suffer the effects of inbreeding. Studies have shown that the reproduction rate in wolves is strongly related to genetic diversity. Isolated wolf populations are greatly affected by the introduction of the alleles- (an alternative form of a gene that arises from mutation) of even a single additional wolf. Studies have shown that this reduction has coincided with a 50% loss of allozyme heterozygosity.

    Wolves tend to have difficulty adapting to change, and are often referred to as an indicator species; a species that indicates the position of an eco region or indicating an environmental condition such as a disease outbreak, pollution, species competition, or climate change. Wolves do not seem to be able to adapt as readily to expanding civilization the way coyotes do. While human expansion has seen an increase in numbers, it has caused a drop in that of the grey wolf species.

    ReplyDelete
  2. These are all really interesting articles. I hope everyone knows that the onion is a parody publication. I believe population management may be/become necessary however strict limitations need to be observed. 20% of the gene pool being exterminated every season is an terrible blow to the genetic variability of these already thin populations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm subscribed to receive email updates from Earthjustice and Defenders of Wildlife. In the past year, many of their updates concern the hunting of wolves in the states surrounding the Rocky mountains. Cabela's and Sportsman's Warehouse, outdoor sporting goods companies in Idaho and Montana, similar to REI in Boulder, have been sponsoring wolf killing derbies. The entry fees for these competitions are being used to support anti-wolf lobbyists and legislation. There has been strong public opinion against these companies and their anti-wolf practices yet they're continuing to persist in sponsoring the derbies.

    I think that the longer the grey wolf remains de-listed from the endangered species list, the more hunters will continue to devestate the population. The grey wolf is a beautiful and intelligent animal - studies show wolves have strong emotional connections with their packs - and they deserve protection and respect from society. Hopefully, we will see them relisted on the ESL in the near future.

    http://www.defenders.org/newsroom/press_releases_folder/2010/03_01_2010_more_than_145,000_speak_out_against_corporate_sponsored_wolf_killing_contests.php

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that it is okay to take it off the endangered species list, but they should not allow open hunting of the grey wolf. If a hunter wants to hunt a grey wolf, he should have to pay to kill it and obtain a special permit to kill one. There are many species in the United States and abroad that require special permits to hunt and kill, this could be applied to the grey wolf as well

    ReplyDelete
  5. I do not know very much about wolves but it seems to me that if only 1350 total animals are spread among the entire states of Montana and Idaho hunting them would be far from sustainable. Even if the states were to set up a sustainable permit hunting system their would be so few issued it seems inevitable that a large number of wolves would be killed illegally, especially when live stock is involved. Once again I'm far from both a wolf or hunting expert but to a casual observer hunting at this point seems very detrimental to the further success of the species.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In more Ken Salazar vs. endangered species news: Today Salazar announced that the sage grouse would not be designated an endangered species, despite the fact that the species is facing extinction and over 50% of its ecosystem has been destructed. Salazar notes that protecting the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act would hurt American ranchers and miners and compromise the energy production in the Great Plains region of the American West. It seems that a trend is developing in the current administration that the Department of Interior will not sacrifice economic interests for species protection.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/science/earth/06grouse.html?ref=science

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with Alec, I feel that 1350 animals is not a sustainable amount, considering that up to 250 have been killed since the introduction of hunting permits.

    Through some preliminary research on wolves, it appears that it takes them 2-3 years to reach an age at which they can reproduce, and they only live 6-10 years in the wild. If inbreeding is truly a factor in wolf populations, then less permits need to be issued, as it won't be long before wolves are back on the endangered species list.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There is an excellent article in the most recent issue of National Geographic, anyone who is truly interested in this dilemma should check this out. I plan to include portions of this article in my write-up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Save a dozen elk, kill a wolf"
    This is the bumper sticker that my Dad received from his rancher friend in Montana. The local perception of wolves (i.e. those who have direct contact with it) is much different then our perception as observers. Most of us value the grey wolf for its existence value, but many ranchers see the wolf as a threat for their economic viability, as well as recreational hunting of elk. There are many players in this situation, and it is helpful to think of it locally.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A possible idea would be to try and set up more protected parks in these regions where wolves would be protected. If a species is recovering like the wolves then it seems fair to remove them from the endangered species list, and it is up to the states to make their own laws. But there should be restrictions on the number of wolves killed so that it does not put the numbers back to extinction.

    ReplyDelete
  11. History certainly repeats itself. The wolves were endangered in the first place because ranchers and farmers and western developers killed any that intruded on their new property. However, elk overpopulation due to a lack of predators in the Rockies (especially in Rocky Mountain National Park) has lead to significant degradation of Aspen and other tree and plant populations. Wolves help keep the balance of nature.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The argument of ranchers and land owners that wolves are 'detrimental' to their livelihoods seems a gross exaggeration. It has been shown that the wolves have a minimal impact on death of livestock, on the order of less than ten livestock killed per year due to wolf predation in Yellowstone. Allowing hunting of a species which required extensive time and effort to reestablish in an area seems counterintuitive.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The early settlers of America described the Great Plains with packs of gray wolves roaming along with over 100,000 grizzly bears (now there are less than 1000) and 60 million Bison. The impact that colonization has had on nearly all North American species since the time of Lewis and Clark is unjustifiable. The fact that that we are now squabbling over a thousand wolves who have been pushed out of their own habitat is disgusting. These animals have as much of a right to be here as the ranchers do, if not more so. There needs to be much more protection on both federal and local levels to protect the gray wolf and fight against the purely monetary incentives of the ranchers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I do not know much about the issue but it seems that permitting 1/5 of a population to be killed in one season will just reduce that population that they worked to increase. I don't know the rate of wolf reproduction but it can't increase the population by over 20% in a single season. Are there not ways for ranchers to keep wolves off their properties? Or are ranchers resistant to the cost of these measures?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The process for taking an animal off the endagered species list is virtually unheard of. As such, the president may choose to enact what ever addional (or lack there of) protocols when doing it. This is the very issue. a species which has just reached the "recovered" state will still be threatened, especially if it is hunted. I'm not going to say hunting is bad/wrong/immoral or that it should not be allowed. but hunting an animal that was just on the endangered species list seems cruel and inhumane. there should be a mandatory procedure for any animal coming off the endangered list, such as no or very short and limited hunting. keeping tabs on the population with GPS transmitters would also probably be a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It seems that even though the ranchers have their reasons for wanting the elimination of the grey wolf, the hunters and biologists will not accept extinction as an answer. They are off the endangered list but this does not mean we should start killing them becasue they will end up back where this problem began.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.