Of everything I've ever read or seen about wolves, the surest truth is that wolves do not deserve the reputation they've gained over countless millenia: that they are evil and should be exterminated. Of course, upon saying that, one must remember that wolves are wild animals. They'll attack, just as any other animal would, if threatened or provoked, and they are predators. Killing is what they do, period. They don't kill out of malice or hatred; they kill to survive.
The biggest issue agaisnt wolves is the lack of education or understanding. People tend to fear what they do not understand, and they want to be rid of what it is they fear. If human beings are more open to learning about and understanding the wild wolf, then the wolf's future would be much brighter (not, actually, that it isn't bright now; the wolf as a species isn't doing too badly).
Furthermore, people tend to forget that without wolves, their beloved canine companions would not exist. Pugs and pomeranians and pekingese and all other dogs are the descendents of wolves, and if one looks closely enough, one can see aspects of the wolf within all of them.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Just the Facts
Here are soem facts concering the background and the statistics of the wolf reintroduction program:
By 1940- Most wolves from Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho had been exterminated.
In 1974, wolves were granted protection under the Endagered Species Act, and in 1986, a family of wolves, who'd natrually migrated from Canada, successfully established themselved in Glacier National Park.
1990- Studies on the effects of reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone began.
1994- The decision to actually bring wolves back is made
~It was announced that 15 grey wolves would be returned to Yellowstone and Idaho each for three to five years.
Some predictions for animals killed by reintroduced wole annually:
~19 cattle
~68 sheep
~1,200 ungulates (maily elk)
Elk consist of 90% of the wild wolf's diet; much more than do livestock
Kill rates in Yellowstone are approximately 15 elk per wolf per year
Typically average about 20 adult deer; 12 adult female elk per year
Wolf watchers bring in about $20 million annually, and the existence value of wolves is estimated to be about $8.3 million
The rate of confirmed livestock losses is 1/3-1/2 the levels originally predicted
Ranchers who have lost livestock to wolves have been compenstated $155,000 (The Defenders of Wildlife plays a huge role in compensating ranchers)
By 1940- Most wolves from Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho had been exterminated.
In 1974, wolves were granted protection under the Endagered Species Act, and in 1986, a family of wolves, who'd natrually migrated from Canada, successfully established themselved in Glacier National Park.
1990- Studies on the effects of reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone began.
1994- The decision to actually bring wolves back is made
~It was announced that 15 grey wolves would be returned to Yellowstone and Idaho each for three to five years.
Some predictions for animals killed by reintroduced wole annually:
~19 cattle
~68 sheep
~1,200 ungulates (maily elk)
Elk consist of 90% of the wild wolf's diet; much more than do livestock
Kill rates in Yellowstone are approximately 15 elk per wolf per year
Typically average about 20 adult deer; 12 adult female elk per year
Wolf watchers bring in about $20 million annually, and the existence value of wolves is estimated to be about $8.3 million
The rate of confirmed livestock losses is 1/3-1/2 the levels originally predicted
Ranchers who have lost livestock to wolves have been compenstated $155,000 (The Defenders of Wildlife plays a huge role in compensating ranchers)
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
What the Experts Say
Here are some quotations regarding the pros of wolf reintroduction:
"When we learned that the last wolves in Yellowstone had been killed in 1926, we hypothesized that wolves might have a significant influence on the growth of aspen through cascading effects. Wolves eat elk and elk eat aspen, so we believed that the lack of wolves actually led to the decimation of aspen." --Bill Ripple, professor with the Department of Forest Resources at Oregon State University
"If it wasn't for the wolves, I probably wouldn't be in business...Before the wolf reintroduction, our staff included one person who was barely making it, and now we have a staff of three to five, year-round." --Carl Swoboda, director of operations for touring organization Safari Yellowstone
"Ninety percent of the people who come here [to Yellowstone] want to see wolves--clients come from as Spain, England, Switzerland, and France." --Carl Swoboda
"[Wolf reintroduction] has caused no land use restrictions that might disrupt traditional human activities, such as logging, mining, livestock grazing, hunting, trapping, or wild land recreation." --Ed Bangs
"There is no documented case of a healthy wold wolf killing anyone in North America." --Betsy Carpenter
"With proper management [humans and wolves can coexist]." --Ed Bangs
"When we learned that the last wolves in Yellowstone had been killed in 1926, we hypothesized that wolves might have a significant influence on the growth of aspen through cascading effects. Wolves eat elk and elk eat aspen, so we believed that the lack of wolves actually led to the decimation of aspen." --Bill Ripple, professor with the Department of Forest Resources at Oregon State University
"If it wasn't for the wolves, I probably wouldn't be in business...Before the wolf reintroduction, our staff included one person who was barely making it, and now we have a staff of three to five, year-round." --Carl Swoboda, director of operations for touring organization Safari Yellowstone
"Ninety percent of the people who come here [to Yellowstone] want to see wolves--clients come from as Spain, England, Switzerland, and France." --Carl Swoboda
"[Wolf reintroduction] has caused no land use restrictions that might disrupt traditional human activities, such as logging, mining, livestock grazing, hunting, trapping, or wild land recreation." --Ed Bangs
"There is no documented case of a healthy wold wolf killing anyone in North America." --Betsy Carpenter
"With proper management [humans and wolves can coexist]." --Ed Bangs
Second Argument--Livestock
First of all, I'm really, really sorry for not having this up sooner, and I'll get the other post I'm behind on up soon!
Anyway, the issue of livestock is perhaps the most bitter of all; this is where the true controversy comes up. Admittedly, the evidence here probably favors the con side, because it is simply a fact that wolves kill livestock, and this is what has ranchers up in arms against the reintroduction program.
After the wolves had been fully released into the park, it was anticipated that wolves would eventually begin to kill cattle and sheep. They're much easier prey than wild game such as elk and bison. Ranchers, under the provisions of the program, have the right to kill any wolf they actually see attacking the animals, but many wolves have been killed illegally by ranchers.
Many biologists believe, however, that sheep would, in fact, be safer with wolves around, because wolves kill coyote, a problem animal for ranchers. Most farmers do not see the wolves as added protection for their livestock, and have fought hard to have the program aborted.
In fact, however, the number of animals killed by wolves has been much less than proponents of the reintroduction plan have anticipated, as wolves tend to prefer their traditional, wild prey to sheep and cattle.
Furthermore, the Defenders of Wildlife, one of the major defenders (pardon the pun) of the wolf program, compensate ranchers for any wolf-related loss of livestock, though it must first be proven that the animal's death was due to wolves and not to attacks by animals such as wildcats, bears, or coyotes.
Anyway, the issue of livestock is perhaps the most bitter of all; this is where the true controversy comes up. Admittedly, the evidence here probably favors the con side, because it is simply a fact that wolves kill livestock, and this is what has ranchers up in arms against the reintroduction program.
After the wolves had been fully released into the park, it was anticipated that wolves would eventually begin to kill cattle and sheep. They're much easier prey than wild game such as elk and bison. Ranchers, under the provisions of the program, have the right to kill any wolf they actually see attacking the animals, but many wolves have been killed illegally by ranchers.
Many biologists believe, however, that sheep would, in fact, be safer with wolves around, because wolves kill coyote, a problem animal for ranchers. Most farmers do not see the wolves as added protection for their livestock, and have fought hard to have the program aborted.
In fact, however, the number of animals killed by wolves has been much less than proponents of the reintroduction plan have anticipated, as wolves tend to prefer their traditional, wild prey to sheep and cattle.
Furthermore, the Defenders of Wildlife, one of the major defenders (pardon the pun) of the wolf program, compensate ranchers for any wolf-related loss of livestock, though it must first be proven that the animal's death was due to wolves and not to attacks by animals such as wildcats, bears, or coyotes.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Subtopic One: The Wolf is a Keystone Organism
Wolves are essential to the environment in which they live; a healthy wolf population promotes the health of the habitat as a whole.
For instance, the removal of the last of the Yellowstone wolves in 1926 coincides with a reduction in Yellowstone's aspen population, and scientists have theorized the the wolf's extermination had something to do with it. It was found that elk, after the wolves were gone, had become less cautious; they would move into areas that they had once avoided, and the plant life of those areas suffered because of that and the simultaneous explosion of the elk population. It was found that the elk would eat aspen before the plants could establish themselves. When wolves were returned to Yellowstone in the mid 1990s, elk populations went down and they were more wary of their surroundings. As a result, the aspen population has rebounded, which in turn has had beneficial effects upon the rest of the environment--beavers have more access to food and shelter, and the shade of the aspen is good for certain types of fish.
Wolves are also good for the elk herds themselves. Wolf predation keeps the herd from becoming over populated, and as wolves prey primarily upon weak or ill animals, the herd as a whole is healthier. Only the animals best fitted to survive are living long enough to reproduce, so each successive elk generation is healthier than the last.
Carcasses of animals killed by wolves provide food for scavengers (ravens, especially) and other organisms. The raven population, for example, has thus risen; some scientists have wondered, upon seeing more of the birds than ever, how the raven has managed to survive in Yellowstone without the wolf packs.
Thus, the wolf is incredibly important to the health of its habitat. The species enhances biodiversity, keeps elk (and coyotes coincidentally) from becoming overpopulated while also promoting its health, and provides food for scavenging animals.
For instance, the removal of the last of the Yellowstone wolves in 1926 coincides with a reduction in Yellowstone's aspen population, and scientists have theorized the the wolf's extermination had something to do with it. It was found that elk, after the wolves were gone, had become less cautious; they would move into areas that they had once avoided, and the plant life of those areas suffered because of that and the simultaneous explosion of the elk population. It was found that the elk would eat aspen before the plants could establish themselves. When wolves were returned to Yellowstone in the mid 1990s, elk populations went down and they were more wary of their surroundings. As a result, the aspen population has rebounded, which in turn has had beneficial effects upon the rest of the environment--beavers have more access to food and shelter, and the shade of the aspen is good for certain types of fish.
Wolves are also good for the elk herds themselves. Wolf predation keeps the herd from becoming over populated, and as wolves prey primarily upon weak or ill animals, the herd as a whole is healthier. Only the animals best fitted to survive are living long enough to reproduce, so each successive elk generation is healthier than the last.
Carcasses of animals killed by wolves provide food for scavengers (ravens, especially) and other organisms. The raven population, for example, has thus risen; some scientists have wondered, upon seeing more of the birds than ever, how the raven has managed to survive in Yellowstone without the wolf packs.
Thus, the wolf is incredibly important to the health of its habitat. The species enhances biodiversity, keeps elk (and coyotes coincidentally) from becoming overpopulated while also promoting its health, and provides food for scavenging animals.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Pros and the Cons
There are many arguments for and against the restoration of wolves to their former, natural ranges throughout the American midwest. Those on either side of the debate, the pro-reintroduction environmentalists and the anti-reintroduction ranchers, are passionate about their beliefs, and this fact has made the plans to return wolves to Yellowstone and other Midwestern areas incredibly controversial.
I, persoanlly, have chosen the pro side of the argument; that is, wolves should be reintroduced throughout their former ranges. Wolves are one of my favorite animals, and man and wolf have much more in common than one might think. Also, evidence proving that wolves are essential to the health of the envrionment is abundant, and I believe that humans should do as much as possible to preserve that natural world; if the envrionment is healthy, then so are people, in the long run.
Some pros:
~Wolves do not kill enough livestock to cause hardships
~Ranchers are compensated for their losses
~Healthy wolves do not kill humans
~Wolves are beneficial to the environment in which they live and are essential to its health (they are keystone organisms)
~Wolves boost tourism
~The program does not distrupt human activies such as hunting or grazing
~Conflicts with domestic animals are uncommon; predation by wolves is less than had been first estimated
~Wolves and humans are capable of coexisting
Some cons:
~Wolves kill livestock (which takes a toll on the finances of ranchers) and pets
~Only a fraction of those animals killed are actually compensated
~Wolf reintroduction is actually a way for the government to control the West and to run ranchers out of their homes
~Wolves are not actually in danger of extinction
~The program restricts the use of land by ranchers
~Wolves are compete with hunters for big game
~Most people do not want wolves returned to the Midwest
~Wolves will try and move onto private land
I, persoanlly, have chosen the pro side of the argument; that is, wolves should be reintroduced throughout their former ranges. Wolves are one of my favorite animals, and man and wolf have much more in common than one might think. Also, evidence proving that wolves are essential to the health of the envrionment is abundant, and I believe that humans should do as much as possible to preserve that natural world; if the envrionment is healthy, then so are people, in the long run.
Some pros:
~Wolves do not kill enough livestock to cause hardships
~Ranchers are compensated for their losses
~Healthy wolves do not kill humans
~Wolves are beneficial to the environment in which they live and are essential to its health (they are keystone organisms)
~Wolves boost tourism
~The program does not distrupt human activies such as hunting or grazing
~Conflicts with domestic animals are uncommon; predation by wolves is less than had been first estimated
~Wolves and humans are capable of coexisting
Some cons:
~Wolves kill livestock (which takes a toll on the finances of ranchers) and pets
~Only a fraction of those animals killed are actually compensated
~Wolf reintroduction is actually a way for the government to control the West and to run ranchers out of their homes
~Wolves are not actually in danger of extinction
~The program restricts the use of land by ranchers
~Wolves are compete with hunters for big game
~Most people do not want wolves returned to the Midwest
~Wolves will try and move onto private land
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Issue--Wolf Reintroduction
For ages, wolves had been an integral part of the Midwestern environment, but by the 1940s, nearly all of the wolves living in the area had been eliminated. In the mid-1980s, wolves migrating from Canada had raised a litter of pups in Montana, and by 1991, plans were being made to study the effects of reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone National Park; by 1995, wovles were back within the park's bounds (and in designated areas outside of the park).
While environmentalists celebrated the return of the wolves, Midwestern ranchers and farmers worried about the effects that wolves would have upon their livestock. They believed that predation of such animals as sheep and cattle by wolves would cause costly problems. The government may compensate ranchers who might have lost livestock, but they must be sure that the animal's death was in fact caused by wolves, and many ranchers feel that government compensation is not nearly enough to cover thier losses.
They, in short, want wolves as far away as possible from their animals and reserve the right to shoot any wolf that comes too close. Environmentalists, on the other hand, believe that the wolf is essential to the health of the ecosystem and are loathe to have any wolf shot. The restoration of wolves to their farmer ranges is a constant tug-of-war battle between conservationalists and farmers.
While environmentalists celebrated the return of the wolves, Midwestern ranchers and farmers worried about the effects that wolves would have upon their livestock. They believed that predation of such animals as sheep and cattle by wolves would cause costly problems. The government may compensate ranchers who might have lost livestock, but they must be sure that the animal's death was in fact caused by wolves, and many ranchers feel that government compensation is not nearly enough to cover thier losses.
They, in short, want wolves as far away as possible from their animals and reserve the right to shoot any wolf that comes too close. Environmentalists, on the other hand, believe that the wolf is essential to the health of the ecosystem and are loathe to have any wolf shot. The restoration of wolves to their farmer ranges is a constant tug-of-war battle between conservationalists and farmers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
