Welcome Home Canis Lupus

The Wolf

(by Sunny Waters)   1995

Of all the major elements that made the Yellowstone ecosystem function before white explorers visited the region, only the wolf is still missing.  After nearly 60 years of government sponsored programs to eliminate them from 48 of our 50 states, the Grey Wolf is finally being returned to our national parks and their original home.  Returning the Grey Wolf to Yellowstone National Park and other locations in the western U.S. is a step towards preserving the natural environment that sustains us, and is an indication that most citizens realize the value of preserving our wildlife.

The history of the Grey Wolf is one of both success and failure.  At one time, half a million wolves inhabited the earth.  They roamed freely, going about their business with little concern beyond that of finding their next meal and staying clear of their rivals, the bear and mountain lion.  Until the 1870's, the Grey Wolf flourished in several parts of the United States including the northern Rocky Mountains .  It was around this time that their aforementioned success in the Rocky Mountains took a turn for the worse.  With folklore portraying them as evil man-killers, and cattle ranchers damning them for attacking their herds, open season was declared on the Grey Wolf. From the 1870's to the mid 1920's, up to $1 million a year was paid in bounties for dead wolves.  The animals were tortured, burned, and poisoned by the thousands, all the while portrayed as child-eating sneaks.  There were no regulations regarding the killing of wolves.  That, along with the unregulated and relentless hunting of big game (the wolf's main food source), led to the wolf's disappearance in the west by 1930.

Today, biologists estimate that only about 150,000 wolves are left in the wild. In 1973, the wolf earned the status of "Endangered Species" in all lower 48 states with the exception of Minnesota as it provides a home for about 2000 of the 2,200 wolves currently residing in the continental United States. But as we have seen so often with Americans, there are those who will come to the rescue of the underdogs and/or take a stand for that which cannot speak out or defend itself. For more than a dozen years, wildlife biologists, ecologists, Native Americans, The National Wildlife Federation, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The National Park Service, The USDA Forest Service, and members of the general public had been campaigning to return the Grey Wolf to it's native habitat in the Yellowstone Park region, as well as other parts of the western United States.  The proposed reintroduction of the Grey Wolf into Yellowstone National Park and surrounding areas caused a stir among big game hunters and ranchers who have been long-time opponents of the reintroduction program.  With much at stake for the parties on both sides, the welfare of livestock and big-game for opponents, and preserving our wild heritage for proponents, the issue would require a court hearing to resolve.  All were invited to the open court hearings and both perspectives were well represented.

Biologists and scientists alike found the proposed reintroduction of the Grey Wolf to be intriguing regardless of where they stood on the issue.  The American Farm Bureau, representing one of the few disapproving perspectives, made an appearance and used their turn to speak in opposition of the reintroduction.  Members of the general public voiced their opinion both for and against the proposal with the overwhelming majority in favor of the reintroduction.
 To say that the battle was heated is not to suggest that the two sides were balanced.  In fact, it is difficult to find opposition to the reintroduction program other than the American Farm Bureau Federation that represents ranchers, and big-game hunters.  I'm not surprised by that finding (or lack thereof) as I am of the opinion that their argument is weak at best.  The facts simply don't support the basis for their complaints.

For Example:  According to an article in The New York Times , the American Farm Bureau Federation vehemently opposed bringing back the wolf arguing that they would stray from the park, kill livestock, and spread diseases like rabies and brucellosis.  Studies in Minnesota, where nearly 1,700 wolves live among dairy farms, and in northwest Montana, where a few wolves have trickled down from Canada, show that very few domestic animals are killed by wolves.  He goes on to say that in Minnesota, less than one in 10,000 cows is lost or taken by a wolf.  Furthermore, Federal biologists say fewer than 20 cattle and 110 sheep a year would be lost to wolves near Yellowstone.  And if those facts weren't enough to defeat the American Farm Bureau Federation's argument, ironically, according to Stevens, the introduction of wolves to certain regions is expected to reduce the number of coyotes which are a serious threat to sheep flocks.

The other main argument of the American Farm Bureau Federation was that the reintroduction of Canadian Grey wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Idaho would violate the Endangered Species Act because the wolves are not the same subspecies as the native Yellowstone wolves.  I find this to be an argument barely worthy of address.  Even I, as a novice conservationist with considerable interest in, but limited knowledge of, wildlife biology, understand that the process of evolution and cross-breeding goes on constantly, and the fact that Canadian wolves may have a slightly different gene-pool then the original wolves native to Yellowstone Park is hardly an argument for denying their reintroduction.  Furthermore, what's to say that the wolves native to Yellowstone Park didn't originally migrate down from Canada?

Another argument of the American Farm Bureau Federation and ranchers, which is weak at best, suggests that the presence of wolves will create a threat to their children and pets.  To the contrary, "No one has ever documented a fatal attack by a non-rabid wolf on a human in North America, and reported attacks elsewhere in the world have tended to fall apart on close scrutiny.  If ranchers are so concerned about their children, why don't they argue against the presence of dogs whose numerous attacks on children each year are a matter of public record?  It is clear to me that those who opposed the reintroduction program didn't have much of an argument.

The proponents of the reintroduction program, on the other hand, appeared to be the vast majority and had many strong arguments.  The polls showed that both the residents of Wyoming and visitors to Yellowstone Park favored the return of the wolves.  According to Mollie Beattie, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director, "Many Americans want to know that we still have room in our country for wild wolves, even if they themselves will never hear a wolf howl".

Most biologists claim that the elimination of wolves has had a negative effect on the balance of the ecosystem.  Also, biologists predict that wolves will cull unhealthy elk, deer, and bison.  "[The wolves] will kill about 1,200 of the park's near-record populations of bison (4,000), dear (30,000), and elk (60,000) every year. (Absent a natural predator, thousands of the ungulates have starved during tough winters, and there has been no selection pressure to keep deer fast and moose powerful)".  Yellowstone has many reasons to embrace the wolf's return, not the least of which is the expected $20 million increase in tourist revenue.  The wolf's presence will be good for the ecosystem as pointed out in a hypothetical example given by Dr. Mech, a wildlife research biologist:  A wolf kills a moose.  The remains slowly disintegrate and add minerals and humus to the soil, making the area more fertile.  Lush vegetation grows, which attracts snowshoe hares, which in turn draws foxes and other small predators, which coincidentally eliminate many of the mice that live nearby.  A weasel that used to hunt the mice moves to another area and in so doing is killed by an owl.  The chain could be extended indefinitely.

A person need not be a wildlife biologist or ecology expert to understand that removing a vital link in a food chain from a natural habitat will throw the ecosystem out of balance; that's something we begin learning in grade school.  But as significant as the removal of the Grey Wolf from the west has been to ecosystems,  perhaps nothing or no one has been affected more than Native Americans.  The Grey Wolf was/is a crucial part of their customs and traditions, is considered an important member of the animal people, and is believed to carry important spiritual medicine.  Native Americans also learned to hunt big game by watching the wolf hunt, stalk, and capture it's prey. The respect and consideration of natural things by Native Americans is well documented and generally very well known.  Who more than Native Americans deserves the right to speak-out and express themselves about issues that concern the welfare of the Grey Wolf?  The Nez Perce tribe apparently believes they have an ultimate right to do so and made their presence and opinions known at the public hearings in Kamiah, Idaho, regarding the proposed reintroduction of Grey wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.  With all that has been stripped from them over the last century, the Grey Wolf probably represents one of the few ties left to their native ancestry.  The relentless hunting, killing, and torturing of their sacred Grey Wolf must have left yet another deep wound in the hearts of Native Americans.

With strong feelings on both sides of the vote it is clear that this issue was one of enormous significance in the western United States as is expressed by Timothy Egan, a columnist for The New York Times, "That it has taken two decades, 120 public hearings, directives from six presidents, dozens of congressional committees, and $12 million worth of studies to get to a point where wolves could soon run through Yellowstone National Park, tells much about the heavy load of significance that has been saddled on the wolf".  The issue of reintroducing the Grey Wolf to it's original native home in Yellowstone and surrounding areas undoubtedly created a lot of tension and discord before it's resolution.

With the overwhelming majority of those polled in favor of the reintroduction program, it seemed inevitable that the event would take place.  "This is a redress of the things we've done wrong in the past," says renowned wolf biologist David Mech of St. Paul, Minn.  Since the wolf is the only animal missing from the original Yellowstone National Park region, returning it to it's native home just seemed like the right thing to do. In November, 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received the green light to begin the reintroduction process; there was much to be done.  Canadian fur trappers were paid to put radio collars on wolves in Alberta.  The wolves were then  tracked backed to the pack where Federal biologists were to capture 15 for release into Yellowstone National Park and 15 for release into Idaho's Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness; the intent was to release the wolves by Thanksgiving.

It was then that the American Farm Bureau Federation introduced their legal suit to stop the reintroduction process.  On Jan. 3, the U.S. district court of Cheyenne, Wyo., threw out their arguments allowing the 12 wolves captured thus far to begin their journey to the proposed release sites.  Again, on January 11, the wolves' release had been delayed by an Administrative Stay issued by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver while the wolves were en route aboard a United States Government cargo plane from west central Alberta, Canada, to the two release sites .  "We're very pleased.  We got a very fair hearing," says U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Ed Bangs of U.S. District Judge William Downey's decision to deny an injunction to stop the project".

In an effort to make the reintroduction a Win/Win situation, as opposed to Win/Lose, the U.S. Government set up some laws to aid ranchers and farmers in protecting their families and livestock from wolves.  "The illegal killing of a wolf is punishable by up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine", but a wolf may be legally killed if it is caught in the act of killing livestock; Federal officials will remove any that threaten humans or herds.  "To make the return even more acceptable, conservationists put their money where their ideology is.  Private donations paid for the chain-link fence around the Yellowstone pens";  A conservationist club called "Defenders of Wildlife" promised to pay for any livestock killed by the wolves (the group has given about $17,000 to more than 20 ranchers in Montana and Alberta since 1987).  Although these things helped to ease tensions, ranchers remained skeptical.

The implementation and success of the reintroduction process will effect more than just the controversy around wolves.  It will also impact the Endangered Species Act which has come under fire by Republican leaders in Congress as is also suggested by Ralph Maughan when he says, "I believe the hostile western Republicans will have the program killed in congress, so there won't be any additional wolves brought from Canada next winter"; that remains to be seen. But with one last injunction thrown out and all other pending legal issues resolved, the reintroduction process moved forward and was put into full swing.

Under the reintroduction plan, 30 wolves in all are to be released into Yellowstone National Park and Idaho's Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness over the next 3 to 5 years.  "According to the drafted Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the plan, the proposed reintroduction effort would result in a wolf population recovery of ten breeding pairs or about 100 wolves per area for three successive years in and around Yellowstone National Park and in central Idaho by the year 2002", at which point the protection of the Endangered Species Act would no longer be necessary.  It is hoped that over that period of time, more than 150 wolves will be established in the western United States including the Yellowstone and Idaho release sites.  It is estimated that without the help of the recovery program, reintroduction of the Grey Wolf into the western U.S. would take until the year 2025.

Of the first 12 wolves brought to the U.S. for release, 8 went to Yellowstone National Park and 4 went to Idaho's Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness.  The 8 Yellowstone wolves were kept in one-acre pens to help acclimate them to their new surroundings while the Idaho wolves were immediately set free upon their arrival to start their new lives in their new home. For the most part, the released wolves are doing well.  Of the original 15 wolves released in Idaho, there are only 12 left.  One has been shot, one moved to Montana, and one migrated back to Canada.  Most are doing well and adjusting nicely to their new surroundings.  One of the wolves released in Yellowstone National Park has given birth to a litter of pups and all are doing good so far.  The pack released in Soda Butte has had one pup and the Alpha female of the defunct Rose Creek pack (the dominant male was shot) has eight new pups.  It is hoped that the healthy, fully vaccinated pups will be large enough by the fall season to fight off coyotes.

Although the adult wolves appear to be successfully hunting and killing elk, their main food source, one member of the pack in particular needs a little help.  "Normally" says Sharon Rose, a spokeswoman for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, "all members of a wolf pack help a female care for her young.  But because the mother is dependent on others for food while she weans the pups, biologists will bring in a carcass for the group".  The wolves have been seen in the middle of grazing cattle in pastures and have completely left them alone.

After all the years of hard work, preparation, and speculation, it has finally happened.  The Grey Wolf has returned to the western United States.  It is an exciting time for conservationists, biologists, scientists, Federal wildlife bureaus, and those members of the general public who understand the importance of preserving our natural resources.  No one can be exactly sure what impact the reintroduction will have on the current ecosystems or national park systems, but most agree that the potential payoff is worth the gamble.

The consequences of this reintroduction program are ultimately in the hands (or paws) of the wolf as expressed by biologist Mike Phillips, leader of the wolf project, "This process is as much art as it is science.  We have only so much control; they have minds of their own".  There is much to be learned from this event regardless if it ends in success or failure.  Patience will be the key as we watch the progress of the wolf unfold.  As much as biologists and other interested parties will be tempted to intervene if things get bad, they will also want to keep their contact to a minimum so the wolves don't become comfortable around humans. Without having guns to shoot back or motor vehicles to flee in, somehow the Grey Wolf has survived.  By the actions of some who defend those who cannot defend themselves, the Grey Wolf is once again living in it's native home in the western United States.  It's about time since "Until very recently, the score stood at cows, 99,200,000; wolves, 0," Rick Bass wrote in his book, The Nine Mile Wolves.  Hopefully, this event will create an interest in natural resource preservation in people who were not interested before.  This is not an end of the struggle to save our natural things, but a beginning.

Sunny Waters