The Wolf Issue

Michael Campbell

Forestry 423

A. Introduction

Wolf viewing has become a very popular draw for parks like YNP (Yellowstone National

Park). This has only become possible through the reintroduction of the grey wolf (Canis lupus)

into the greater YNP. With these reintroductions many issues were raised such as “the issue of

the impact of wolves on surrounding animal populations” (Montag, Patterson and Freimund

2005) which was what the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) devoted the most attention to.

This issue had been fully researched and studied during the reintroduction with multiple

scientific articles being written about the results of experiments conducted during these studies.

The EIS, however, did not consider “the issue of recreational impacts/opportunities of

wolf reintroduction within YNP” (Montag, Patterson and Freimund 2005). The gray wolf has

gone from being considered the Big Bad Wolf to being considered one of the greatest ecological

heroes (Jones 2010). This change in attitude and the reintroduction of the grey wolf to YNP has

brought a specialized kind of tourist to see them. It would be advantageous to YNP and other

parks to emphasize unique wildlife to attract tourists. It has also brought out the opposition to the

grey wolf from people saying that it is a danger to the tourists who go to view them and is

devastating the hunting experience by reducing game species populations.

Page | 1
Michael Campbell The Wolf Issue Forestry 423

B. Historical Background

The grey wolf once inhabited nearly all of North America. In the early 1900’s wolf

persecutors outnumbered those that supported wolves (Jones 2010). The beginning of the

movement to restore the wolf to YNP occurred at an interagency meeting held in October 1971

in YNP. Biologists and other environmental figures discussed the increased sightings of grey

wolves that were later found not to exist in the area (Fritts, et al. 1997). It was not until 1974,

after the passing of the endangered species act, that a gray wolf recovery plan was initiated. The

reintroduction of the grey wolf was a long process that faced opposition throughout the process.

Due to the public view on wolves and political red tape it was not until 1992 that the

reintroduction plans were even put into the preparation phase. Between 1992 and 1994 the

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) in consultation with the NPS (National Park Service)

and USFS (U.S. Forest Service) went about creating an EIS on the wolf introduction to YNP and

CI (central Idaho). They decided to designate the grey wolf as “non-essential–experimental”

under section 10 (j) of the federal ESA (Endangered Species Act) (Fritts, et al. 1997). Twenty-

nine wolves were caught in southern Canada and released in YNP (14) and CI (15). Studies were

done to determine where best to release them and it was discovered that the wolves were more

likely to occupy areas with increased forest cover, lower human population density, higher elk

density, and lower sheep density (Oakleaf, et al. 2006). These introductions were largely

successful due to the lower hazards in YNP and CI (Smith, Bangs, et al. 2010).

With such low populations one might expect there to be large amounts of inbreeding. In

smaller isolated populations they were generally successful at avoiding inbreeding and maintain

genetic variance. However, the variance started to decline in 1997 (Jankovic, vonHoldt and

Page | 2
Michael Campbell The Wolf Issue Forestry 423

Rosenberg 2010). In larger populations with more mobility the population maintained high levels

of variation and low levels of inbreeding (vohHoldt, et al. 2008).

The reintroduction of Canis lupus to the Greater YNP is considered to be one of the most

successful reintroduction programs ever conducted. It has increased the draw of naturalists and

nature viewers to YNP due to the near consistency of viewing wolves in the Lamar Valley in

YNP (Montag, Patterson and Freimund 2005). Overall the effect on the already existing

populations of ungulates and other populations have come to an acceptable balance with the

exception of the coyote whose population has fallen severely since the reintroduction of the grey

wolf (Smith, Peterson and Houston, Yellowstone after Wolves 2003). The grey wolf was

removed from the endangered species list in March 2008 allowing for the first wolf season in

years (Bergstrom, et al. 2009). Because of this delisting a research wolf was killed, ending a five

year study (Morell 2009). After a fierce legal fight, the U.S. District Court in Montana reinstated

ESA protections (Felicity 2008). The grey wolf was again delisted in May of 2009 (Bergstrom,

et al. 2009) and its future, though optimistic through the immense success of the reintroduction

program, is unknown.

C. Current Status

There are still those who believe that the grey wolf is a destructive entity that should be

slaughtered without regard. These people have often times created personal vendettas against

wolves. Those that believe in this sort of thing are mostly the ranchers, the hunters, and the

uninformed. The ranchers are opposed to the wolves because they kill their livestock (Smith,

Bangs, et al. 2010). However it is in these cases that the wolves usually cull the weak out of

ranchers’ livestock herds. The livestock losses between 1997 and 2000 average $11,300 per year

Page | 3
Michael Campbell The Wolf Issue Forestry 423

and in 2004 and 2005 the losses average $63,818 per year (Duffield, Neher and Patterson 2006).

In most cases, the number of livestock that wolves kill each year is negligible when considering

how many livestock die each year to disease and other factors (Oakleaf, et al. 2006). The hunter

is opposed to the wolf due to their belief that game populations will be lower due to the wolves.

The media is focusing on the lower numbers of elk and saying that there will be too few elk for

human hunters. The issue here is that cougars kill more elk per year than do wolves. Cougars kill

an elk roughly every 9 days whereas a wolf/wolf pack kills an elk every 15 days (Smith, Peterson

and Houston, Yellowstone after Wolves 2003). The uninformed are those that form their

opinions based solely on what the media releases to the public. This kind of person will not dig

deeper in order to uncover the facts that the media has left out or to realize the facts that the

media has overblown. The uninformed believe that the wolf is a deadly killing machine that has

killed many people over the years. These beliefs are built upon media overreacting and blowing

incidents out of proportion. There have, in fact, been no human-wolf interactions that have led to

a fatality (Linnell, et al. 2002).

The wolves alone have been a big draw to YNP in their own right. Initial ideas on the

visibility of the wolves within the park were that they would disperse into the backcountry and

sightings would be sparse (Montag, Patterson and Freimund 2005). However the reality is far

from what the initial thoughts were. “Visibility of the wolves within the park, and public interest

in wolves and wolf-based education programs, have far exceeded initial expectations” (Duffield,

Neher and Patterson 2008). Between 1991 and 2005 the wolf went from being 9th on the list of

species most interested in seeing at YNP to 2nd (Duffield, Neher and Patterson 2008). This is an

obvious increase in interest which leads to an increase of tourism just to see the grey wolf.

Current estimates place a 4.8% increase in visitors due to the reintroduction of the grey wolf to

Page | 4
Michael Campbell The Wolf Issue Forestry 423

YNP (Duffield, Neher and Patterson 2006). There is a $35.5 million increase in the local

economy due to the wolf presence (Duffield, Neher and Patterson 2006).

D. Future Prospects

The future prospects of the wolf introduction will be a hopeful increase in interest due to

increasing coverage caused by their successful growth. They will eventually be taken off the

endangered species list completely and will thrive in the wilderness where they have been

placed. Opposition will still exist so long as there are still encounters between livestock and

predators. The hunters will continue to argue that game is being devastated by wolves since they

do not see a game animal every hour.

E. Recommendations

My recommendation is for parks to figure out what their signature animal(s) is(are) and

to find out the best way to market that animal. For Yellowstone the big draw is to see the bison

and wolves in the wild. This ability to see species that are not commonly found in other places is

a big draw. It can bring in large amounts of revenue from people coming to see these species.

Parks should do marketing campaigns and environmental talks about their signature species in

order to increase public interest. Starting environmentally friendly expeditions to see their

signature animal is also a distinct possibility.

Page | 5
Michael Campbell The Wolf Issue Forestry 423

Bibliography
Bergstrom, Bradley J., Sacha Vignieri, Steven R. Sheffeld, Wes Sechrest, and Anne A. Carlson.
"The Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Is Not Yet Recovered." Bioscience 59, no. 11
(December 2009): 991-999.

Duffield, John W., Chris J. Neher, and David A. Patterson. "Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone:
Park Visitor Attitudes, Expenditures, and Economic Impacts." The George Writght
Forum 25, no. 1 (2008): 13-19.

Duffield, John, Chris Neher, and David Patterson. Wolves and People in Yellowstone: Impacts
on the Regional Economy. Yellowstone Park Foundation, 2006.

Felicity, Barringer. "Judge Returns Gray Wolves to Endangered List." New York Times, July 19,
2008: 11.

Fritts, Steven H., et al. "Planning and Implementing a Reintroduction of Wolves to Yellowstone
National Park and Central Idaho." Restoration Ecology 5, no. 1 (March 1997): 7-27.

Jankovic, Ivana, Bridgett M. vonHoldt, and Noah A. Rosenberg. "Heterozygosity of the

Yellowstone wolves." Molecular Ecology 19, no. 16 (August 2010): 3246-3249.

Jones, Karen. "From Big Bad Wolf to Ecological Hero: Canis Lupus and the Culture(s) of Nature
in the American-Canadian West." American Review of Canadian Studies 40, no. 3
(2010): 338-350.

Linnell, John D. C., et al. The fear of wolves: A review of wolf attacks on humans. Norsk Institutt
for Naturforskning, 2002.

Montag, Jessica M., Michael E. Patterson, and Wayne A. Freimund. "The Wolf Viewing
Experience in the Lamar Valley of Yellowstone National Park." Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 10, no. 4 (2005): 273-284.

Morell, Virginia. "Research Wolves of Yellowstone Killed in Hunt." Science 326, no. 5952
(October 2009): 506-507.

Oakleaf, John K., et al. "Habitat Selection by Recolonizing Wolves in the Northern Rocky
Mountains of the United States." Journal of Wildlife Management 70, no. 2 (April 2006):
554-563.

Smith, Douglas W., et al. "Survival of Colonizing Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains of
the United States, 1982-2004." Journal of Wildlife Management 74, no. 4 (May 2010):
620-634.

Smith, Douglas W., Rolf O. Peterson, and Douglas B. Houston. "Yellowstone after Wolves."
Bioscience 53, no. 4 (April 2003): 330-341.

Page | 6
Michael Campbell The Wolf Issue Forestry 423

vohHoldt, Bridgett M., Daniel R. Stahler, Douglas W. Smith, Dent A. Earl, John P. Pollinger,
and Robert K. Wayne. "The genealogy and genetic viability of reintroduced Yellowstone
grey wolves." Molecular Ecology 17, no. 1 (January 2008): 252-274.

Page | 7