Jacob Fackrell

Dr. Ryan Long

WLF 448

11 April 2018

Research Paper Draft 2

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2016), the gray wolf (Canis lupus)

historically occupied nearly all of the North American continent. By the 1960’s, it had been

extirpated entirely from the United States, except for in Alaska and north Minnesota. This

extirpation was systematic and largely complete, and it stemmed from a deep-seated human fear

and hatred of wolves. More practically, it was caused by competition; wolves and other

predators interfere with human agriculture and settlement, so it makes sense for humans to

attempt to remove their competitors as they pushed further into the frontier. The extirpation of

wolves was a result of efforts coordinated by the federal government and ranchers, with the

intention of removing the perceived threat to livestock. Bounties of $20 to $50 per wolf killed

were offered as recently as 1965. Wolves were killed in any way possible with no restrictions;

one of the most devastating of the methods used was the poisoning of carrion, which wolves and

many other animals consumed. In 1973, the gray wolf was listed under the Endangered Species

Act, which marked a shift in the federal government’s official attitude towards wolves. Instead

of actively persecuting wolves, the government began to actively protect them (FWS 2016).

This change was accompanied by a shift in public attitude toward wolves. While many people

still feel that their livelihoods are threatened by the presence of wolves, the opposing side that

supports wolves has grown since the 70’s. The growing support for wolves resulted in

reintroduction and conservation efforts throughout the United States.

 During the 1990’s, the gray wolf population in the United States grew through both

reintroduction and natural dispersal. The primary and most successful reintroduction effort took

place in 1995 and 1996, when wolves captured in Canada were released in Yellowstone National

Park and central Idaho. Wolves also spread naturally from Canada into Montana in the Glacier

National Park area (Bangs et al. 2005). Other wolf reintroduction efforts in the United States

have not experienced as much success. Red wolf (Canis rufus) and Mexican gray wolf (Canis

lupus baileyi) reintroduction programs have seen limited success that cannot yet compare to the

Northern Rockies reintroduction of gray wolves, though with time they may prove more

successful (FWS 2016, 2018).

The Northern Rockies population, primarily focused in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming,

grew from a natural remnant of 10 wolves in 1987 to about 660 in 2003 (Bangs et al. 2005) and

about 1,700 in 2016 (FWS 2016). With the reintroductions in Yellowstone and central Idaho in

1995 and 1996, these were considered experimental populations, which allowed for greater

flexibility in management decisions and methods. Less than two decades later, the Idaho

population was considered successful enough to delist and hand control over to Idaho Fish and

Game. More recently, the entire Northern Rocky Mountains population has been delisted and

transferred to state control. The Fish and Wildlife Service points to this reintroduction as a great

success, saying that the population is self-sustaining and expanding further into other western

states (FWS 2017).

Though reintroduction has been largely successful, it is still plagued by controversy. The

reasons that wolves were originally extirpated are still relevant, and many people feel that

wolves have no place in a world dominated by humans. Others feel that humans have no right to

impede the expansion of wolves. Surveys from 2000 showed that about 60% of people
supported the restoration of wolf populations. Older and more rural people had lower opinions

of wolves, while more educated and wealthy people had higher opinions. Somewhat

surprisingly, hunters had a higher opinion of wolves than the general population (Williams,

Ericsson and Heberlein 2002). The researchers behind these surveys predicted that the general

population’s increased exposure to wolves following their recovery in the United States would

result in more negative opinions of wolves. This was based on observations from Sweden,

where expansion of wolf populations and territories resulted in lower opinions of wolves

(Williams, Ericsson and Heberlein 2002).

Another study (Meadows et al. 2005) regarding peoples’ attitudes towards wolf

reintroduction in the southern Rocky Mountains found polarized results. This study found that a

majority of people supported the idea of wolf reintroduction. This support ranged across most

demographic groups, except for ranchers, the majority of whom were opposed to reintroduction

(Meadow et al. 2005). The most interesting part of this study was that when people were given

persuasive arguments either for or against wolf reintroduction, the majority did not change their

position. Instead of changing positions, more information on the subject caused people to

develop stronger opinions, more extreme versions of the position they already held (Meadow et

al. 2005). This demonstrates how volatile and controversial the topic of wolf reintroduction and

conservation can be.

While peoples’ opinions on wolves certainly matter for reintroduction efforts, scientific

evidence is independent of public opinion. Oftentimes, hard data and public opinion are

completely disconnected, but hard data should be more important for management decisions.

While it is true that management cannot occur in a vacuum, the public has a tendency to ignore

or be unaware of scientific evidence. Even if the public refuses to listen to hard data, managers
cannot. Though wolves have already been reintroduced to the Northern Rockies and are

currently thriving, management must continue and more decisions must always be made.

Hopefully, these decisions will be based on sound science rather than opinions.

The primary scientific argument in favor of wolves is that they are integral to the

ecological health of the ecosystems in which they were historically present. As a large predator,

they fill an important role that has widespread effects on all other levels of the ecosystem

(Beschta and Ripple 2009). These effects have been observed and studied extensively in

Yellowstone National Park. By reintroducing wolves after their 70-year absence from the park, a

trophic cascade was initiated. Some of the first evidence of a trophic cascade was found in 2003,

about 8 years after wolves were initially reintroduced (Ripple and Beschta 2003). Evidence that

woody riparian plants were growing more successfully in high predation risk areas for elk than in

low risk areas indicated that the recovering wolf population may have been reducing the

browsing intensity on these plant communities (Ripple and Beschta 2003). These findings

prompted further study, which provided further evidence of a trophic cascade occurring in

Yellowstone.

A more extensive study by Ripple and Beschta (2012) found clear relationships between

the wolf population and many other populations of both plants and animals in Yellowstone. The

basic mechanism works like this: more wolves in the park means elk experience more predation,

which decreases browsing intensity, especially in areas with high predation risk. The decrease in

browsing intensity allows for higher recruitment in plant populations (specifically aspen,

cottonwood, and willow), so over time there are more of these plants and they are able to grow

larger. This increase in certain plant species’ biomass and density is beneficial to other species

that are associated with these plants, resulting in increases in populations like beavers or fish.
 Though elk populations in Yellowstone did decrease over time after the reintroduction of

wolves, it has been hypothesized that simple population reduction is not the primary mechanism

responsible for releasing plants from high browsing pressure. Instead, it may be that elk avoid

browsing in areas that have higher predation risk (Ripple and Beschta 2004). It was found that

after the reintroduction of wolves, woody riparian plants in areas of high predation risk began to

recover, while the same plants in areas of low predation risk showed little change. This led to

the “ecology of fear” hypothesis, which says that elk will change their behavioral patterns to

decrease predation risk when predators are nearby (Ripple and Beschta 2004). This may be what

drove the trophic cascade that was observed after reintroduction.

The potential trophic cascade caused by the reintroduction of fear to elk in Yellowstone is

not the only observed ecological benefit of wolves. The presence of wolves in Yellowstone has

been shown to directly benefit scavenger species such as grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), ravens

(Corvus corax) and bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Wilmers et al. 2003). Especially

during winter, carcasses left behind by wolves can provide a valuable, steady stream of high

quality calories to scavengers. In winter, deep snow causes elk to expend much more energy,

making them easier for wolves to hunt. This means that it is often more energy efficient for

wolves to take down another elk for the highest quality meat and organs than it is to consume

every scrap of a prior kill. These abandoned carcasses act as subsidies for scavengers who

would otherwise have trouble finding high calorie food like meat (Wilmers et al. 2003).

The research on the ecological benefits of wolves shows that they have a beneficial value

to ecosystems in which they were historically present. Though they were absent from these

ecosystems for decades, wolves showed their value within a few years of returning. It is

important to note that these examples have been from Yellowstone National Park, which is
intended to be managed as a refuge from human interference as much as possible. This is not the

reality outside of the national park system. Though the ecological benefits of wolves are clear,

issues arise in areas where wolves and humans interact.

One of the primary concerns that many people have with wolves is livestock depredation.

It is logical that wolves and other predators will kill livestock when given the chance and when it

is beneficial or energy efficient for them to do so. Wolves in the United States kill more sheep

than cattle, and they do sometimes kill sheep in excess of their food needs, which contributes to

the negative opinion of wolves among ranchers (Muhly and Musiani 2009). Between 1987 and

2003, wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming were responsible for the deaths of 219 cattle and

602 sheep. The monetary value of the livestock lost during this time period was less than 0.01%

of the total income of the ranching industry in the affected states. In 2005, data showed that

cattle deaths caused by predators including wolves, black bears, and grizzly bears accounted for

only 3% of all cattle mortality (Muhly and Musiani 2009). Compensation for livestock losses is

usually available to ranchers who experience depredation by wolves. This compensation comes

from either government funds or non-government organizations, such as Defenders of Wildlife

(Treves et al. 2009). Though compensation is readily available and sometimes even exceeds the

cost incurred by the loss of livestock, compensation for lost livestock does not seem to

effectively increase peoples’ tolerance of wolves (Treves et al. 2009). Lost livestock is one of

the primary arguments against wolves, but wolves are actually an insignificant source of

livestock mortality. In addition, compensation is readily available and there are various methods

of protecting livestock from wolf predation, such as fladry barriers around enclosures (Musiani et

al. 2003). The effect of livestock depredation by wolves seems to be mostly psychological, as it
certainly increases negative opinions of wolves but has little real effect on the ranching industry

as a whole.

Another issue people commonly have with wolves is predation on wildlife, particularly

elk. Many hunters feel that wolves are killing so many ungulates that ungulate populations and

hunting opportunities are being significantly reduced. Though elk populations were reduced

significantly in Yellowstone National Park after wolf reintroduction, Yellowstone elk had not

experienced any human-mediated population regulation for a few decades. This allowed elk

populations to skyrocket to much higher levels than were healthy (Ripple and Beschta 2004).

Outside of the national park system, elk populations have been regulated through legal harvest

by hunters. The Fish and Wildlife Service predicted that wolf reintroduction would not have any

significant effect on the number of male elk harvested, and only a small effect on the number of

female elk harvested (Bangs et al. 2005). Whether or not wolves have actually reduced elk

hunting opportunities, their benefits to the ecosystem are still present. These benefits may be

worth more in the long run than slightly better elk harvest rates.

Wolves have a place in Western ecosystems as a natural and historical component, but

they cannot be allowed to go unmanaged. In a world so thoroughly altered by human activity,

some human interference has become a necessity to maintain healthy, balanced ecosystems. All

large mammals in the West are managed through government action and hunting, and wolves

should be no different. While listed under the Endangered Species Act, the primary goal of wolf

conservation was establishing self-sustaining populations in the Northern Rocky Mountains, a

goal which has recently been achieved in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana (FWS 2017). Since the

Northern Rocky Mountains wolves have been delisted, responsibility for their management has

passed to the state wildlife agencies. These agencies have the ability to decide how to manage
their states’ wolves. Idaho, the first of these states in which wolves were delisted, opened a wolf

hunting season (IDFG 2017). Wolf harvest regulated by Idaho Fish and Game has proven to be

an effective management tool, as the populations has remained stable at around 700 to 800

wolves for several years. In recent years, around 200 to 250 wolves have been harvested

annually (IDFG 2017). Sometimes, especially in particularly remote areas, hunting falls short,

and targeted culling must take its place in order for target population numbers to be maintained.

This can be extremely distasteful to wolf supporters, but it has worked well so far.

While wolves are an important component of healthy ecosystems in the western United

States and a valuable member of the historic fauna of the region, changes to the ecosystem

caused by human habitation and modification mean that wolf populations must be managed

carefully through harvest or culling, just like any other game species. Wolf reintroduction is

overall a positive change in the West. However, neither of the extreme ends of the scale of

public opinion can be allowed to have their way. Wolf reintroduction is positive, but wolf

populations cannot be allowed to expand uncontrolled. For this reason, continued management

is absolutely essential, and will continue to be essential for the foreseeable future.

Literature Cited

Bangs, Edward E., et al. "Managing wolf-human conflict in the northwestern United

States." CONSERVATION BIOLOGY SERIES-CAMBRIDGE- 9 (2005): 340.

Beschta, Robert L., and William J. Ripple. "Large predators and trophic cascades in terrestrial

ecosystems of the western United States." Biological conservation 142.11 (2009): 2401-

2414.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). State Wolf Report. By Jim Hayden. Boise:
 Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 2017.

Meadow, Robert, et al. "The influence of persuasive arguments on public attitudes toward a

proposed wolf restoration in the southern Rockies." Wildlife Society Bulletin33.1 (2005):

154-163.

Muhly, Tyler B., and Marco Musiani. "Livestock depredation by wolves and the ranching

economy in the Northwestern US." Ecological Economics 68.8-9 (2009): 2439-2450.

Musiani, Marco, et al. "Wolf depredation trends and the use of fladry barriers to protect livestock

in western North America." Conservation Biology 17.6 (2003): 1538-1547.

Ripple, William J., and Robert L. Beschta. "Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: the first 15 years

after wolf reintroduction." Biological Conservation 145.1 (2012): 205-213.

Ripple, William J., and Robert L. Beschta. "Wolf reintroduction, predation risk, and cottonwood

recovery in Yellowstone National Park." Forest Ecology and Management 184.1-3

(2003): 299-313.

Ripple, William J., and Robert L. Beschta. "Wolves and the ecology of fear: can predation risk

structure ecosystems?." AIBS Bulletin 54.8 (2004): 755-766.

Treves, Adrian, et al. "The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after

recovery." Biodiversity and Conservation 18.14 (2009): 4003-4021.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). “Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus).” Wolf – Western Great Lakes,

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, 12 Sept. 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). “Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus).” Conserving the Nature of

America, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, 26 April 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). “History of the Red Wolf Recovery Program” Red Wolf

Recovery Program, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, 29 June 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). “The Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project” Mexican

Wolf, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, 3 April 2018.

Williams, Christopher K., Göran Ericsson, and Thomas A. Heberlein. "A quantitative summary

of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972-2000)." Wildlife Society

Bulletin(2002): 575-584.

Wilmers, Christopher C., et al. "Trophic facilitation by introduced top predators: grey wolf

subsidies to scavengers in Yellowstone National Park." Journal of Animal Ecology 72.6

(2003): 909-916.