Wolf Hunting Hurts Wolf Packs

  • The gray wolf is slated to be removed from the Endangered Species List. Many are worried this will have a negative impact on wolf packs. (Photo courtesy of Wisconsin Fish and Wildlife Service)

This year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plans to officially remove the northern
Rockies gray wolf from the federal Endangered Species List. The agency will hand over
management of the wolves to states in the region. The states will allow hunters and
ranchers to kill wolves during specific seasons, or even year-round. But scientists and
conservationists are concerned about the hunting plans. Kinna Ohman reports some
conservationists think hunting could disrupt the way a wolf pack works, and even lead
members to seek out easier prey such as livestock:

Transcript

This year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plans to officially remove the northern
Rockies gray wolf from the federal Endangered Species List. The agency will hand over
management of the wolves to states in the region. The states will allow hunters and
ranchers to kill wolves during specific seasons, or even year-round. But scientists and
conservationists are concerned about the hunting plans. Kinna Ohman reports some
conservationists think hunting could disrupt the way a wolf pack works, and even lead
members to seek out easier prey such as livestock:


Biologists in Yellowstone National Park have had an unprecedented opportunity to study
wolves over the last twelve years. They’ve looked at everything from what wolves prefer
to eat, to why wolves kill big prey such as bison. But one topic they haven’t studied
much is how a typical wolf pack works.


Doug Smith is a biologist with Yellowstone’s wolf recovery program. He says they now
understand healthy wolf packs need lots of older, skilled members in order to hunt natural
prey:


“They’re very good at it. They have a lot of teamwork. They switch back and forth
about whose doing what job.”


In fact, studies have shown it takes 3-4 skilled adults to kill an elk. It takes more wolves
to kill a bison. Packs in Yellowstone are naturally filled with large numbers of adults.
But in places where wolves are hunted by humans, skilled adults are in short supply.


Smith says a lack of skilled wolves in a pack could mean they’d be more likely to go after
easier prey including livestock:


“If they don’t have that experienced age structure in the pack, they make do, and so
you will have probably inexperienced killers out there and inexperienced killers are gonna
look for easier prey. The elders of the pack, if there are only 2 or 3 of you,
are much more likely going to go after a sheep or cow than if there’s 7 or 8 of you.”


These concerns could become real when the gray wolf is taken off the Endangered
Species list in the northern Rockies. The states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming will
take over management. Suzanne Stone with the Defenders of Wildlife in Idaho says
hundreds of wolves could be killed as part of state management plans:


“They’re talking about killing now about 500 to 600 wolves after delisting. You
don’t manage any population of wildlife like that. The delisting plan, as it’s written
right now, is just a recipe for failure.”


Stone says the gray wolves were protected to build healthy populations, and how a wolf
pack works should be part of that consideration.


But the government is focused on how sport hunting effects just wolf numbers. Ed Bangs
is the wolf recovery coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He says that
hunting won’t threaten the wolves:


“One thing that does happen everywhere in the world that wolves and people
overlap is that people kill wolves. And the answer is yes, that does have an effect on
wolf pack structure. And it certainly never endangered wolf populations.”


So it’s hard for conservationists to convince officials that the sport hunting of wolves
could change how wolf packs work and even lead to more livestock conflicts. Biologist
Doug Smith says that’s because the decision to delist the wolves is based purely on
numbers:


“Delisting is entirely numbers. Some conservation biologists have made the
argument that delisting should not occur until the endangered species is integrated
back within the ecosystem and functioning as a member as that ecosystem. That is
not how delisting occurs now for the Fish and Wildlife Service. It’s ‘do we have
enough?'”


Many conservationists and activists will soon be arguing that killing 500 to 600 wolves
leave too few. They’ll likely file lawsuits, stressing that the importance of healthy wolf
packs should be considered before hunting is allowed.


Ed Bangs with the Fish and Wildlife Service says he’s confident the agency has followed
the law. He says they’ll meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act by
delisting the wolves and handing management over to the states:


“My deal with the Fish and Wildlife Service is: What is the purpose of the act as it’s
currently written by Congress, have we met those conditions for wolves, and the
answer is clearly yes and therefore we’re supposed to delist them. If people want the
act to say something different, they need to talk to their elected officials, not the Fish
and Wildlife Service.”


But the wolf’s defenders will argue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well as the
states need to understand how the wolf packs work before declaring open season on the
wolf.


For the Environment Report, I’m Kinna Ohman.

Related Links

Live Animal Import Laws

A recent report accuses the federal government of failing to take simple, inexpensive steps that could reduce the risk of live animal imports. Zebra mussels, Asian carp, and pets that get loose, such as Burmese pythons in Florida, hurt native wildlife and can damage the nation’s economy. Lester Graham talked with Peter Jenkins, one of the authors of the report issued by the Defenders of Wildlife. Jenkins says the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of the agencies that needs to do a better job screening for invasive species:

Transcript

A recent report accuses the federal government of failing to take simple, inexpensive steps that could reduce the risk of live animal imports. Zebra mussels, Asian carp, and pets that get loose, such as Burmese pythons in Florida, hurt native wildlife and can damage the nation’s economy. Lester Graham talked with Peter Jenkins, one of the authors of the report issued by the Defenders of Wildlife. Jenkins says the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of the agencies that needs to do a better job screening for invasive species:


Peter Jenkins: They’re charged with protecting native species. They’re charged with enforcing the
Endangered Species Act, which is an important part of this issue because these non-
native species threaten our native species, including threatening endangered species in
many cases.


Lester Graham: In the past, the US Fish & Wildlife Service has been accused of being too
slow to act, even when a problem is pointed out. Would the regulation changes you’re
talking about help speed that process?


PJ: Well, Congress would have to agree to commit more resources to the agency…I mean,
there is only one person, believe it or not, only one person whose job is to assess species
to be listed under that law to keep out of the country. Obviously, we need more than one,
we need some qualified professionals working this area. We don’t need millions and
millions of dollars, but we do need a significant increase, probably five or six or up to ten
professional staff looking closely at these imported animals to assess whether we’re
gonna have problems and which ones need to be restricted.


Now, how’s that gonna be paid for? Well, the industries that are bringing these species in
and that want to benefit from the import trade, whether it be pet or live animals or
biomedical testing or zoos or what have you…Those people bringing these species in
clearly should carry some of the cost of what they’re bringing in and in that way, the
taxpayers don’t get burdened too much.


LG: As you’ve mentioned, this is as much an economic problem as it is an environmental
problem. Why haven’t the dollars and sense of this issue really had an impact on the
politics behind making sure that we can restrict this kind of trade?


PJ: Well, that’s a great question and defenders of wildlife did do a white paper on the
economic impact of animal imports trade. The reason is very simple…the people who
benefit do not suffer the cost when these things go wrong. That is to say, the costs are
suffered by the public in terms of disease or invasive species concern or pests, so these
costs are externalized or passed on to the general public and it’s the taxpayers in the end
who wind up having to pay the costs. On the whole, these species that are brought in,
non-native species, are brought in for the pet trade…That’s by far the biggest reason that
species are brought in. That’s basically a luxury item, that’s not an essential item. Those
that benefit from luxury items should bare the cost.


LG: Now, nature seems to eventually cope with many of these exotic species, even the
invasive species to one degree or another and some people would say that this biological
pollution is nearly impossible to prevent so why fight the inevitable?


PJ: Uh, I don’t buy that argument at all. It’s like saying diseases are natural and people are
going to eventually cope with diseases, so why bother trying to prevent diseases? I mean,
we do it because we want to protect certain values. We want to protect our native species,
we want to protect human health, we want to protect the health of our livestock. Of
course we need to be protective and have adequate standards. I mean, we don’t need to be
operating under a law that was written in 1900 just because some people think it’s futile
to try to deal with this issue…We could cope with it.


HOST TAG: Peter Jenkins was one of the authors of a Defenders of Wildlife report calling on the government to do a better job of screening live animal imports. He spoke with The Environment Report’s Lester Graham. The report is available at www.defenders.org.

Related Links

Federal Protection for Wolves Lifted

  • The federal government has removed protections for the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes region and is considering lifting protections of wolves in the Rocky Mountains. (Photo courtesy of Michigan Department of Natural Resources 2001)

Gray wolves in two regions of the US could
be on the verge of losing federal endangered species
protection. A wildlife group says the next step should
be to reduce public fears about the animal. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Gray wolves in two regions of the U-S could
be on the verge of losing federal endangered species
protection. A wildlife group says the next step should
be to reduce public fears about the animal. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:


The Interior Department is removing gray wolves in the Western
Great Lakes area from the lists of threatened and endangered
species. The federal agency is proposing the same de-listing for
the gray wolf population in the Northern Rocky Mountain region.


The group Defenders of Wildlife support the Great Lakes plan.
Spokesperson Gina Schroeder says as the wolves are removed from
the lists, one task will be to dispel some myths about the
animals:


“…And it’ll be very important that there’s a better
understanding of the biological and sociological aspects of
wolves.”


Schroeder says for example, wolves are extremely unlikely to
attack humans and there are non-lethal ways to discourage wolves
from coming near livestock. But the Humane Society of the US
says if it doesn’t think the wolves are being protected well
enough, it might file a lawsuit challenging the de-listing plans.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach

Related Links

Delisting the Gray Wolf

Some states and Native American tribes in the Upper Midwest
say they’re looking forward to taking over management of their gray wolf population. That’s if a new federal plan to de-list the wolf as an endangered or threatened species becomes law. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Some states and Native American tribes in the Upper Midwest say they’re
looking forward to taking over management of their gray wolf
population. That’s if a new federal plan to de-list the wolf as an
endangered or threatened species becomes law. The GLRC’s Chuck
Quirmbach reports:


The federal government says the grey wolf population in Minnesota,
Michigan and Wisconsin combined is roughly 4,000. That’s large enough
for the Interior Department to recommend letting the states take over management
of the wolves. State or tribal officials could eventually allow
individuals to get permits to shoot wolves that are killing livestock.
Or, the states could even propose wolf hunting seasons. But a group
that has worked to increase the number of gray wolves across the U.S.
wants no hunting allowed.


Nina Fascione is with Defenders of Wildlife.


“This is a population that’s still fragile, even if it is technically
recovered under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act.”


The Interior Department says it would take a close look at wolf kill
projections before going along with any hunting plan. Public hearings
on the proposal to de-list the gray wolf as endangered or threatened
will take place this spring.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

A Midwestern Wolf Hunt?

Wolves have made a spectacular recovery the past twenty years through
protection by the federal endangered species act. But now the
State of Minnesota is debating a public hunting and trapping season. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Nick Van Der Puy reports.