Running head: WOLF REINTRODUCTION
Wolf Reintroduction in the United States: An Analysis
Austin M. Cunliffe
Southern Utah University
1
WOLF REINTRODUCTION
2
Abstract
The Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) has been almost nonexistent in the United States for over 3 quarters
of a century. Their nonexistence was the result of systematic elimination carried out by
individual people and the United States. This absence has altered ecosystems in many ways,
some more easily discerned than others. Starting in 1995, efforts to reintroduce the Gray Wolf
into parts of the United States had begun. This reintroduction stirred up heated controversy. The
largest group objecting to the reintroduction consists of ranchers and livestock owners who are
afraid of losing money due to livestock depredation (the act of preying upon) by wolves. The
largest supporting group is made of scientists and environmentalists who believe wolves provide
much needed services to the ecosystems in which they live. Numerous data have been gathered
and assembled in this paper to give a clearer analytical look into the benefits and detriments of
the newfound wolf population in the United States. The results of this analysis appear to support
the idea that wolves are indeed highly beneficial to their ecosystems and that it would be unwise
to push for their removal once again.
WOLF REINTRODUCTION
3
Gray Wolves have been absent from much of the United States, including Yellowstone
National Park, since 1920 (Jones, 2002). The wolf reintroduction started in 1995 when 14
wolves were imported from Canada and released into Yellowstone National Park (Zumbo, 2003).
This reintroduction had a high level of controversy associated with it. Many ranchers and
livestock owners are very opposed to the reintroduction, claiming that livestock depredation by
wolves could ruin their livelihood. On the other hand, there are many scientists and wolf
supporters claiming that reintroducing wolves is very beneficial to the ecosystems. The Gray
Wolf brings a level of stability to an ecosystem and can help regulate it quite effectively. They
perform important tasks such as top-down predator control (Frank, 2008). In the present paper,
the pros and cons of the Gray Wolf reintroduction in the United States is investigated. It is
hypothesized that the benefits will outweigh the negativities when viewed by a reasonable
person.
In North America and particularly the United States, Gray Wolves have been severely
and unfairly persecuted and slaughtered. In the early 1900’s, wolves in the Rocky Mountains
were being hunted and killed at such high rates as to push them upon the brink of extinction
(Ewers, 2008). While farmers and fearful citizens did a tremendous amount of the killing,
wolves were also targeted by the federal government in an eradication program that included
widespread poisoning of wolves (Brown, 2007). At the time when the wolf was being eradicated
from the United States, it was heavily symbolized as being a demonic entity (Ewers, 2008).
Wolves were often mercilessly tortured and left to die. Many unthinkable and horrendous acts
were done to wolves, acts that were designed to inflict as much pain as possible while still
having the desired result of death. Wolves have behaved just like any other wild animal would
behave, acting and reacting to their environment. Measures should be taken to be able to
WOLF REINTRODUCTION
4
peacefully coexist with wolves rather than the other option of eradicating and permanently
removing them from a delicate ecosystem.
The absence of wolves for almost the past century has caused considerable change to the
ecosystem. This change has, throughout the United States, been consistently negative. One
major factor that contributed to the idea of reintroducing the Gray Wolf was accounting for all of
the benefits they could provide to the ecosystem. Gray Wolves provide a number of services to
the ecosystem and catalyze many components of natural systems. The wolf is a top-level
predator, and in being so is able to limit and potentially regulate the growth and abundance of
prey populations (Millspaugh, Kunkel, Kochanny, Peterson, & Licht; 2010). The ability for the
Gray Wolf to help quell very large herbivore prey populations should not be overlooked.
Herbivore prey populations have to some extent overgrazed many places in Yellowstone
National Park and surrounding wilderness. By reducing ungulate populations (hoofed animals),
the amount of flora will increase. This increase then provides a number of benefits to the
ecosystem. Many ranchers have possibly unnoticed the fact that, by reducing ungulates and
increasing flora, their livestock will have higher quality and quantity of grasslands to graze from.
Predation by wolves can strengthen the prey species. Wolves are one of the most
efficient predators in the world. The Gray Wolf is not a small animal, but it is not the large size
that is commonly associated with top level predators such as bears or lions. What they lack in
size they make up for in locomotion and pack hunting dynamics. Their ability to target a single
prey and chase it down makes them highly potent hunters. Wolves, like most predators, will
target the small, weak, and injured and by doing so add an important element to the ecosystem.
By removing the small and weak and less fit prey, they effectively remove the lesser animals
from the gene pool, thus ensuring the strongest pass on their genes (Millspaugh, Kunkel,
WOLF REINTRODUCTION
5
Kochanny, Peterson, & Licht; 2010). This keeps the gene pool strong, allowing the prey species
to create the strongest offspring possible.
Not only do wolves provide much needed benefits to the ecosystem, they also provide
numerous economical benefits as well. For the visitors to Yellowstone National Park in 1987,
82% of them wanted wolves (Jones, 2002). While wolves were demonized in earlier centuries,
in the 20th Century wolves became a romanticized figure via movies such as Never Cry Wolf,
Arctic Wild, and Dances With Wolves. The public started to view wolves as victims rather than
killing machines. After the Gray Wolf’s reintroduction into Yellowstone, the wolf has surpassed
the American Bison (bison bison), the Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), and the cone-geyser
Old Faithful to become the park’s favored emblem (Jones, 2002). Yellowstone became the wolf
capital of the United States. With tourists travelling to Yellowstone National Park and the
surrounding areas just to see wolves it has the results of increased eco-tourism and benefits local
economies (Millspaugh, Kunkel, Kochanny, Peterson, & Licht; 2010).
There is no doubt that wolves can and will feed upon livestock. The wolf is a very
intelligent hunter and will purposely seek out the injured, sick and young when choosing its
potential targets. Wolves will also pick out the slowest prey they can find, and livestock fit
perfectly into this category. As the gray wolf has been reintroduced across the United States,
there has been an increase in livestock depredations caused by wolves. This increase is a direct
result of the growing wolf population ever since their reintroduction (Lehmkuhler, Palmquist,
Ruid, Willging, & Wydeven; 2007). Livestock owners generally focus upon their maximal
losses due to depredation caused by wolves when they should be more focused upon their
average losses. When livestock owners focus upon their average losses they will be able to
realize that depredations by wolves do not result in a great net loss. The problem the owners are
WOLF REINTRODUCTION
6
expressing, however, is that without wolves these losses would not have to be endured and many
owners feel this is justification enough to keep them out of grazing areas. Livestock is already
preyed upon by other predators, but owners are acclimated to these depredations. If wolves were
given a chance to survive and take hold in the United States, within a few decades the ranch and
livestock owners would adjust to these killings and take it as an inherent risk of the job.
While livestock depredation by wolves is surely going to occur, there are methods that
can be used to significantly reduce the number of livestock lost. Some methods involve the use
of guard dogs to protect livestock. This method, however, is not often very effective because
wolves can kill dogs. This act further exacerbates the relationship between livestock owners and
wolves. Other options that ranchers have are to install substantial barriers such as wall or
electric fence. This method is often expensive and difficult to maintain. One method that has
been tested and supported is the use of fladry barriers (Musiani, Mamo, Boitani, Callaghan,
Cormack, Mattei, et al; 2003). This is simply an anti-wolf barrier made of flags hanging from
ropes to impede wolf access to food and livestock. Fladry barriers are much more cost efficient
than other barrier types. Also, Musiani, Mamo, Boitani, Callaghan, Cormack, Mattei, et al. show
that the use of these fladry barriers is effective in keeping wolves away from livestock. Just like
any other barrier they must be maintained, however they do not require nearly as much
maintenance as an electric fence. Their research shows that there are ways to successfully
protect livestock from depredation by wolves. This also supports the idea that ranchers can
coexist with wolves with reduced livestock and wolf deaths. As ranchers and wolves continue to
exist together, it is also highly likely more effective livestock protection methods will be
developed.
WOLF REINTRODUCTION
7
160
140
Wolf complaints
120
100
80
Verified Wolf Complaints
Total # of complaints
60
40
20
0
199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005
Year
Figure 1. Annual wolf complaints in the state of Wisconsin (Lehmkuhler, Palmquist, Ruid,
Willging, & Wydeven; 2007).
Figure 1 shows the relationship between verified wolf complaints and the total number of
wolf complaints that were registered in Wisconsin. As can be determined from the graph the
number of actually verified wolf complaints has raised gradually over the years of 1994 to 2005.
Since wolves have been reintroduced to Wisconsin over these years and have been given time
and sanctuary to begin repopulating on their own accord, the number of complaints is expected
to increase as the wolf populace increases. What can actually be inferred from this graph is that
as livestock owners become more aware of the growing wolf population and have verified some
cases of their livestock being depredated by wolves, the owners become quick to point the finger
at wolves for other deaths of livestock that wolves have had no part in. This false accusing of the
wolf population has effectively and heavily tarnished peoples view towards wolves. This is
important to understand because if wolves are being falsely accused of killing livestock then
WOLF REINTRODUCTION
8
there is a high probability that many wolves will be removed from the ecosystem by means of
death. It is crucial that ranchers and livestock realize these numbers will stabilize and that
livestock depredations by wolves are not going to keep increasing exponentially.
While there are methods to reduce livestock depredation, not only by wolves but by other
predators as well, it is something that cannot be entirely combated. Despite the best efforts of
ranchers to protect their livestock, some will still be killed. This, however, is something that
should not be taken out of context. In the years between 1987 and 2003, livestock killed by
wolves cost producers in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming approximately $11,076.49 per year.
These costs account for less than 0.01% of the annual gross income for the livestock producers in
these regions (Muhly, & Tyler, 2009). While some livestock owners may be hit harder than
others by depredation, to the industry as a whole it is of very small economic cost. This is
important to realize because much of the controversy entwined with the wolf reintroduction
stems from livestock owners and ranchers. Many ranchers fear that the wolf will bring about the
end of their livelihood (Roberts, 2010). This research strongly supports the idea that ranchers
will not be forced into another profession by the wolves. With livestock depredation by wolves
costing the industry less than 0.01% of its annual gross income per year, it can be stated in
confidence that ranchers will be ranching well into the future.
The Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus canadensis) is regularly preyed upon by the Gray
Wolf. Elk is the favored prey of the wolf. Elk have been living in an ecosystem that lacks this
apex predator for over 3 quarters of a century. It was unknown if elk as a species would still be
able to coexist with wolves without suffering huge losses. It was speculated that if wolves were
to be reintroduced the elk population would be decimated. Prey species, such as elk,
theoretically make behavioral decisions to decrease the probabilities of encountering and being
WOLF REINTRODUCTION
9
attacked by predators, such as wolves (Lima, & Dill, 1990). Such behavioral decisions include
distancing themselves from predators and using habitat structure to hide or evade pursuing
predators once attacked (Bergerud, Butler, & Miller, 1984). It was unsure whether Rocky
Mountain Elk would possess the ability to make these behavioral decisions to defend themselves
against predation by wolves. Research has been conducted and shows that elk have adapted and
changed their habitat selection since the reintroduction of wolves. Research shows that elk avoid
wolves in summer by selecting higher elevations, less open habitat, more burned forest, and
steeper slopes than they had before wolf reintroduction (Mao, Boyce, Smith, Singer, Vales,
Vore, et al.; 2005). In winter, elk antipredator behavior is different than that which occurs during
the summer. Elk do not spatially separate themselves from wolves; they prefer to use other
behavioral strategies such as grouping to keep safe. Another interpretation can be garnered from
this research. It shows that elk still maintain survival instincts when it comes to avoiding
predation by wolves and that elk can still exist with wolves in their ecosystem. This is important
because it illustrates the fact that elk will not be impacted negatively by the reintroduced wolves.
If elk, the wolves favored prey, have instinctual behaviors to evade the wolves, then their
longevity is ensured.
While the predation and deaths of elk caused by hunting wolves are likely to increase,
this increase carries with it subtle but potent benefits to the ecosystem. After a wolf pack has
pursued and taken down an elk, they will strip and consume most of the fat and meat. However,
there still remain many nutrients to be gathered from the carcass. Scavengers are animals that
will consume anything that remains of a carcass that it did not kill itself. Animals that practice
scavenging such as eagles, wolverines, coyotes, bears, chickadees, ravens, crows and more can
benefit greatly from a single elk carcass. This creates an entire web of life completely supported
WOLF REINTRODUCTION
10
by the wolf (Ewers, 2008). This shows the pivotal role that wolves can play in an ecosystem.
By inspecting the little things the wolf can add to its habitat, it becomes increasingly more
apparent that the negativities are steeply outweighed by the benefits.
Many avid hunters, like ranchers, view the wolf reintroduction with disfavor and
negativity. Some will contest that with an apex predator like the wolf now roaming the woods,
they will see a decrease in game animals (wild animals that are hunted for food or taken for
sport) that they can hunt. For most hunters, hunting is their life. It is their passion, hobby, and
often times the single most thing they dedicate their time too. Some feel that their opportunities
to hunt will be severely impacted with the return of the wolf. However, many hunters are
knowledgeable about the ecosystems and readily agree with the wolf reintroduction. The major
concern that hunters have with wolves is that they need to be properly managed (Kramer, 2010).
Managing the wolf population is difficult at best right however. While the wolf population is
being rehabilitated to comfortable numbers, they still remain on the Endangered Species List.
This guarantees that there will not be any state sponsored hunting of wolves until they are
removed from the list. The problem this presents is that wolves cannot be effectively managed
while being protected under the Endangered Species Act. This leaves many hunters and ranchers
feeling powerless. It is important to examine this current situation broadly. Once the wolf
population reaches a suitable number, they will be removed from the list. This will then open the
door for each state to adopt appropriate wolf management plans to manage their own wolf
populations. This includes issuing hunting tags to hunters which legally allows them to hunt
wolves. This is a crucial point that needs to be reached before much of the controversy of the
wolf reintroduction can end. It will please the hunting communities because it opens up the thrill
of being able to hunt this apex predator. It will also please ranchers and livestock owners
WOLF REINTRODUCTION
11
because they know that the wolf population is being managed and they won’t keep seeing more
and more of their livestock being preyed upon by wolves. Until wolf populations have
stabilized, it will be impossible to actively start managing them. It is important to look 5 to 10
years into the future. Both sides must realize this is a process that takes some time; however, in
the end the benefits wolves provide will trump the bad.
Taken together, the points presented in this paper reasonably seem to support the idea
that Gray Wolves provide more benefits to an ecosystem than they do detriments. Wolves are
able to effectively regulate an ecosystems ungulate population (Millspaugh, Kunkel, Kochanny,
Peterson, & Licht; 2010), thus providing a substantial increase to local flora. Wolf predation on
prey species such as elk, over time, will actually strengthen the prey species (Millspaugh,
Kunkel, Kochanny, Peterson, & Licht; 2010). By removing the weakest and smallest, it insures
that only the strongest and fittest will be able to pass their genes on to the next generation.
Wolves can also provide a significant economical boost to local economies surrounded by
wilderness habitat that contains wolves. Many tourists are quite intrigued with wolves and often
congregate in wolf dense areas such as Yellowstone National Park. The Gray Wolf has become
the parks favored emblem (Jones, 2002). However, there is a downside to having wolves
roaming the United States. This downside is increased livestock depredation resulting from
wolves. This issue is at the heart of the controversy brought upon by the wolf reintroduction.
While there will surely be an increase, the important question is how much will it cost the
livestock industry. Supporting research shows that livestock depredation by wolves costs the
industry a miniscule amount, less than 0.01% of the annual gross income (Muhly, & Tyler,
2009). Couple this data with methods to protect livestock from wolves, it is a reasonable
conclusion that ranchers and livestock owners will not be out of a job.
WOLF REINTRODUCTION
12
In conclusion, the facts brought together in this paper support wolf reintroduction and
conservation in the United States. Possible research opportunities stemming from this paper
include exploring more effective livestock protection systems and better wolf management plans.