Wolf Reintroduction, a Gloriously Shining Idea Gone Tragically Wrong
Bayard would like to share his thoughts….
 Like all groups trying to get support and financial contributions, environmentalists seek a cause célèbre which will appeal to the imagination of potential supporters. They felt that they had hit on a good one with the reintroduction of the wolf to the Greater Yellowstone area. Indeed the idea had tremendous appeal and a coalition of environmental groups forced the project down the throats of horrified Wyoming residents in what has proved a costly pyrrhic victory. A larger subspecies of wolf was very successfully introduced from Canada in 1995. The wolf was effectively presented to an ignorant public as a magnificent family loving animal living to a great extent off mice and the wanton killer aspect of his character was not mentioned. With a plentiful game supply in and around Yellowstone Park the wolves multiplied more rapidly than anticipated. Strangely, the numbers deemed necessary for a healthy genetic pool also escalated. They can produce litters of eight or more every year and are exclusively carnivores. A wolf weighing 150 to 200 lbs. will kill up to 100 deer and elk in its normal lifetime so it takes plenty of mule deer to keep a wolf going. Of course a large percentage of wolf kills is eventually consumed by ravens, coyotes, eagles, bears and others. The grizzly bear kills some wild game also, but they are extremely omnivorous, eating everything from roots and pine nuts to carrion. Anyhow the bears reproduce very slowly and are far easier to manage.
 A little more than ten years later the situation has become dire. Wild game populations have crashed though it is hard to tell by how much. 50% is probably a conservative estimate though in some places it is closer to 90%. Still more frightening for the future is that almost all the population this year is adults as very few calves and fawns have survived. Pro wolf people have strongly influenced the official figures to come out their way wherever they have been able to. Wolf populations are underestimated and the game they feed on overestimated. I do know from personal experience that I often used to see up to 200 mule deer on my irrigated pastures in the spring. This year I seldom saw more than a dozen. One of the great attractions for guests at our ranch was seeing moose and their calves while out on our rides. Sadly they have been impacted most of all and this summer we have hardly seen any which deprives our guests of great enjoyment and greatly saddens me. Elk herds are down dramatically also and hunting licenses have been drastically curtailed. Wolf people are apparently oblivious to the fact that several thousand families in Northwest Wyoming used to depend on elk and deer for winter meat. This is a concept which city dwellers seem unable to grasp.
 Inevitably the wolves will sometimes take cattle and horses, and as wild animals become more and more scarce they are forced to turn to domestic animals. Naturally ranchers are furious about this intrusion. Some programs are in place to partially recompense them for the loss of stock when this can be proved, but ranchers are usually lucky to discover 50% of their losses in time to prove the cause of death. There is no thought of reimbursement for the weight cattle lose when the wolves run them up and down the mountains.
     Â
 One of the most unfortunate aspects of wolf introduction is that it has grievously split the environmental movement. Twenty-five years ago a coalition of environmentalists, ranchers and hunters was able to put through the Wyoming Wilderness Act which saved huge tracts of land from development. It was a solid achievement which preserved habitat for wildlife and prevented development from destroying the unspoiled nature of some of our county’s most beautiful areas. Ranchers and hunters have now been betrayed by their former allies and are disinclined to help them in projects far more important to wildlife in general and the environment than wolf introduction. The vast majority of Wyoming residents and especially those who live in the country are totally opposed to the wolves. Environmentalists could hardly have found a more effective way to antagonize those they need the most. Most of the rare residents who support wolf reintroduction are well insulated from the adverse impacts. They live in 6,000 square foot houses which they keep well heated in the winter and nice and cool in the summer. Despite this ostentatious flaunting of sound environmental practices, they like to be politically correct and sail under green colors. Â
 Some environmentalists with a hint of understanding of the true situation initially went along with wolf introduction (albeit with reservations they kept to themselves). Now they realize that it has been a disaster. Unfortunately it is hard to back track and as we have seen in Viet Nam and Iraq.Â
 In former times the buffalo were the dominant factor in the wildlife of this area and provided the main food supply for wolves. It would have been worthwhile to consider reintroducing the buffalo to the whole Greater Yellowstone area at the same time as the wolves if we really wanted to get things back to where they were in the old days. How realistic is it to turn the clock back like that anyhow? The wolf people have tried to handle one aspect of that without looking at the whole picture.
 So far the public relations battle has been hopelessly one sided. Individualistic ranchers ill equipped for a propaganda battle of this kind have been pitted against bright graduates of our top universities well funded by a misguided urban public. So far the main stream media have shunned an objective account of the wolf disaster, preferring to sell copy by telling their readers nice stories about the outstanding success of wolf introduction without dwelling on the less palatable ramifications. Ranchers are portrayed as ugly renegades unfit to live in the modern world. It is time for an objective account. Wolves have become a darling sacred cow of the media and it is politically incorrect to say anything remotely uncomplimentary about them.            Â
 When the wolves were introduced there was no attempt to consult with those whose lives would be impacted. The program was carried out with all the arrogance and righteousness of a Rumsfeld going into Iraq. No one sought a dialogue with the dude ranchers and wilderness outfitters whose guests now rarely see elk, deer and moose. No one tried to console those who had depended on elk for their winter meat. Rather they were treated like scum who would put their own interests ahead of those of the noble wolf. To my way of thinking, however, the greatest shame is not the economic impact; it is the fact that we now rarely have the pleasure of seeing the elk, deer and moose which was one of my great joys in living here.
 I believe that if the American public knew the true situation, they would want the current level of wolf predation drastically curtailed.    Â
August 26th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
The fact that one SEES a much reduced number of elk and deer does not constitute reliable evidence of a population decline. The predominant effect of predator introduction in the Yellowstone area has been a change in herbivore behavior, such that they no longer frequent the more open and vulnerable areas, instead remaining more hidden. There has also had the effect of allowing the regrowth of aspens, which had formerly been eaten as seedlings by ungulate browsers. Indeed, the reestablishment of aspens, in the areas where they were formerly abundant, has been directly attributed to the reintroduction of the wolf and the consequent restriction of deer/elk herds to areas with more mature trees where they are better protected from wolves.
Of course, as a lodge owner, I’m sure you would like your guests to see lots of attractive wildlife. That is in your self-interest. This is a VASTLY more complex issue, however, than who should survive: wolves or deer, as the implications on reforestation illustrate. There is impact on all populations within the ecological niche, including rabbits, owls, voles, elk, etc., as well as plants, including grasses as well as aspen.
People on all sides are far too easily swayed by superficialities; reality is more complicated and experience has shown that THE LESS DONE BY HUMANS THE BETTER. Reintroduction of the wolf is simply an attempt to undo mistakes of the past. Unfortunately, it can come at a cost to those whose lives have developed in the absence of wolves, including dude ranch owners and guests. That doesn’t mean it is a mistake.