Wolves may be de-listed from endangered list
Why does the wolf draw out such strong human emotions? This is a question ecologists are asking with legislation pending to remove the Northern Rocky wolves from the endangered species list.
According to the Associated Press report “Wolf Legislation Would Exempt Gray Wolves in Rocky Mountains from Federal Protection,” U.S. senators from Wyoming and Idaho as well as Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch proposed legislation in September that would take wolves off the federal endangered species list, meaning they would lose protection.
The response from the public has varied widely, from those who want wolves completely eradicated to those who want them completely protected.
Eric Gese, research wildlife biologist for the National Wildlife Research Center and associate professor at USU, said some see wolves as a villain, like the big bad wolf, while others see wolves as a hero, like the story of Mowgli from the “Jungle Book,” who was raised by wolves.
“In folklore wolves are seen both as a hero and a villain, so they are a dichotic species. Ecologists try not to view them as either one, but what they can do for the ecological system while realizing they have to be managed,” he said.
Gese said the controversy over wolves seems to be a cultural mystique from Europe that was brought over during the colonization of America, when wolves were eradicated. Gese also said surveys have shown the more rural a person is, the more tied to the land they are, so they are more negative towards wolves. The more urban a person is, the more they are for wolf recovery.
“People in the East, they don’t have to deal with them. We love them until they are in our basement,” Gese said.
Gese said the legislation basis is all political, and there is no biological reason behind it.
“You can’t put a political boundary through a population,” Gese said. “And since Utah is considered experimental and not essential since we have virtually no wolf population, how do you de-list a state that has no population of wolves? It is entirely political.”
He said if it passes, it may go to court because it would be changing the endangered species act for one species for one area. He said no one has ever tried it, and it will be precedent-setting.
Julie Young, USU professor for wildland resources and USDA National Wildlife researcher, said: “I don’t know how much of the hostility some people feel is from historical perceptions versus what they are seeing currently with their livestock. But ranchers do have a small profit margin, so no wonder they are hostile.”
Young said animals can change their behavior, and it may be possible to ‘train’ wolves to do the same. For example, she said coyotes are more active at night in rural to urban areas because they are persecuted, but in Yellowstone, they are active during the day where they are protected. She said it seems wolves should respond the same way.
Currently, Young and fellow researchers are looking at non-lethal methods of management to change behavior. They have developed electric fladry, which looks like a flag football flag, which is hung around corrals. The flags alone scare wolves, and if they do touch it they get shocked. However, Young said this only works in situations where livestock are kept in corrals.
“You can’t flag off an entire forest of public grazing land,” Young said.
Also, she said some ranchers have been given rubber bullets to shoot at wolves and this both makes the wolf run away and makes the rancher feel like they did something to protect their herds.
Wolves will prey on livestock, a common occurrence in some areas, Gese said. Wolves were re-introduced in 1995 to Yellowstone at a population of 70. Now, there are 1,700 wolves, and protected areas are filling up, so as they leave wilderness they spill onto public and private grazing lands.
Utah law mandates that only federal and state agencies designated to do so can remove wolves, unless a rancher catches a wolf in the act of killing livestock. Gese said wolves will not be removed unless there is a conflict. This has to be confirmed by livestock depredation.
Wolves are a predator, which Young said is not as obvious as it may seem.
“A mongoose can be a predator. In my position we look at predators that cause conflict with one of three things: natural resources, humans or livestock. But a predator is an animal that eats another animal in its most basic sense,” Young said.
Because of wolves’ large body size, they hunt large mammals like elk, Young said. Wolves are unique in the canine world because they need large mammals to eat to survive. Smaller predators like foxes are more omnivorous, unlike wolves, which is why wolves come into conflict with humans, she said.
The states and wildlife resources agencies are trying to reach a compromise with ranchers and environmental groups. Gese said wolves can be managed, but the problem is how.
“Some want nonlethal options to be used like having herders out there to keep wolves away, and studies are showing this can be effective, but it is expensive. Livestock producers are on a thin margin of profit, so when you lose stock it is like taking money out of their wallet, so they usually want them just killed for removal,” Gese said.
While wolves can be managed as game species like cougars and bears, wolves are controversial because they were put back after being taken out, whereas bears and cougars have always been there, Gese said.
The philosophy of predator management 100 years ago, Gese said, was just that they were bad and to get rid of them. Then in the 1930s and ’40s, ecologists said they are important to ecological systems.
“They do have a place on the landscape, but there are places where they don’t work out. There are also places where they do belong, and this was impetus to put them back,” Gese said.
Gese said wolves, deer and elk have evolved together. They’ve been around for thousands of years and hence when humans are removing wolves, the whole dynamic of the system has changed.
For example, he said in Yellowstone, the elk population estimate 15 years ago before wolf were re-introduced, was 20,000 elk and now there are 7,000 elk. The elk were over-browsing the vegetation, and elk now don’t camp out in these areas because they are vulnerable to predation. Thus, the over-browsed areas are now repairing themselves.
“The willows in Yellowstone are 10 feet now and they were 10 inches in some places. This in turn increases songbird numbers. Wolves are a keystone predator, and having the wolves back puts all the processes back, too,” Gese said.
Gese’s research on wolves took place in the Grand Teton National Park, looking at the impact of wolves on coyotes and how their presence cascade to pronghorn antelope. He said the antelope are a declining species in the area, and the thought is fawn mortality is caused by coyote predation.
The study has found that wolves control coyotes and this will release pressure on the fawns from coyotes. Fawn populations have tripled. Wolves do not prey on fawns, Gese said, because they are too small. This study has given hunters mixed feelings.
“Hunters are happy to know antelope populations are up, but wolves do feed on elk and large game, so they are unhappy about that,” Gese said.
Wolves outside refuge areas are low in number, and the large game population is not affected much in these areas, Gese said. Management of wolves can be done efficiently outside refuge areas, like killing wolves from areas where there has been livestock depredation.
Environmental groups and other groups, like some Native Americans, are working to help restore wolf populations. Gese said the White Mountain Apache are a partner in the Mexican wolf recovery in Arizona.
Gese said it is anybody’s guess what will happen with wolves in the next 30 years.
Young said, “There are a lot more questions than answers right now on wolves.”
– storee.powell@aggiemail.usu.edu