Wolves had been pursued with more determination than any other animal in United States history. As attitudes towards wild ecosystems changed, people began questioning whether a wolf-less Yellowstone environment was a healthy one. Once the wolves were gone, the elk population exploded and they grazed their way across the landscape killing young brush and trees. As early as the s, scientists were alarmed by the degradation and were worried about erosion and plants dying off.
To protect declining species from the shortsightedness of man, the Endangered Species Act was created. In the gray wolf was added to the list. Biologists in Yellowstone began exploring the idea of bringing Canadian wolves to the park and on January 12, the first eight wolves arrived from Jasper National Park in Alberta, Canada. Now, all of a sudden, you have voices coming from the public, who are often urban and have an environmental passion.
There is a passion that goes deeper than politics. It goes to the sense of, I am in this culture. I belong to the anti-wolf culture, or the pro-wolf culture. One of the ways to change that is to have a conversation. This is Wildlife Services , which the New York Times accused of operating in the shadows of government. Of the 3. In , federal protections for wolves were lifted in six states—Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
The Center for Biological Diversity estimates that, since , in these six states, more than 3, wolves have been killed by private citizens during state-sanctioned hunting and trapping seasons.
This is a disaster for wildlife, all wildlife. And you have a congress that is invested in gutting the Endangered Species Act. I was interviewing a woman last week from Defenders of Wildlife, and she was distraught. She said that in Wyoming, which has just lifted protections for wolves, a man called her to brag that he had gotten on his snowmobile, chased a wild wolf for 30 miles, until the wolf collapsed from exhaustion, and then he shot her. I found that really interesting.
They are now discovering that wolf packs are matrilineal. And women like Amaroq Weiss are on the forefront of conversations about wolves. Because she understands the rural mind set, she also works with ranchers and wolf advocates teaching them how to give testimony on behalf of the wild wolf.
She was very independent. When she disbursed from her pack, which was starving, people thought she would die too, because only 20 percent of wolves are ever alone. But 06 spent a year on her own, which took a lot of guts and courage to survive the winter!
When she finally found her mates, they were two brothers who were young and kind of clueless. But she made a decision that two might be better than one mate.
Over time, she taught them to hunt, and they had many pups together. She was often seen hunting even when she was pregnant or nursing. Eventually, the two brothers caught on and became really good hunters in their own right.
If you got to see 06, you never forgot her because she was so beautiful, handsome and powerful. She could take an elk down alone. This tradition of research continues today; each year the Yellowstone Wolf Project puts out radio collars with the goal of maintaining radio contact with all wolf packs within the park.
The information collected during collaring and regular monitoring has allowed the Wolf Project to study survival, reproduction, dispersal and distribution, sociality and genetics, disease, and predation on ungulates. Yellowstone Wolf: Tracking the Packs. Ecosystems pushed towards alternate stable states in their absence so it cannot be assumed that returning wolves will restore the land to historical conditions. The uncertainty surrounding the wolves within Yellowstone, a well studied and relatively confined region, exemplifies this.
To reduce the scientific uncertainty regarding wolf recolonization we propose a focused review of park data with the intent of removing bias and extending ecological monitoring to the surrounding areas with the goal of tracing widespread ecosystem effects Mech, This will be a considerable undertaking because there is less long-term data for habitat outside the park and wolves have spread to cover a wide geographical area.
A concerted effort on behalf of the US Fish and Wildlife Service in conjunction with state and local governments will be essential to achieving this goal. The nature of compiling long-term data means any meaningful conclusions will be far down the road and that in the interim, management will need to proceed as normal in order to prevent population regression.
Once wolf ecology is better understood, areas for conservation can be targeted and regions with little human contact can be less heavily regulated to allow for equilibration.
The lack of input from nearby residents of the park generates ill will towards wolves. In a study done by Kellert , positive attitudes associated with wolves were from higher income individuals living in urban areas, while negative attitudes were from livestock producers and rural residents.
These residents cited loss of livestock and pets, as well as a reduction in big game populations as major reasons to dislike wolves. Generally, people with positive attitudes towards wolves were those who had the least interactions with them Fritts et al. One way to combat this resentment from affected locals is to have policymakers hold open forums in rural areas.
Local residents have an opportunity to have their voices heard and state their input. Another dimension to the lack of public input is the discrepancy between federal and state management. In order for the state to manage wolves, wolves must be delisted from the Endangered Species Act and the state must have an adequate plan outlining how they are going to monitor them.
Following wolf delisting, states are required to submit annual reports of wolf populations for 5 years. Currently, Montana and Idaho are in control of their wolf management, but Wyoming is not Wolves in Yellowstone, Maintaining these regulations, while also dedicating more staff to manage state populations would benefit the ecosystems. Education on the role of wolves as apex predators in the ecosystem would allow for a more tolerant outlook by those affected by the wolves and those who want the population levels decreased.
The systematic negative perception of wolves as harmful was much of the premise for the initial extirpation of the wolves in Yellowstone National Park. It would seem logical that by remedying this view, one would remedy the current negative perception of wolves. In addition to this negative perception, there is also little understanding of what it takes to balance an ecosystem. Its complexity lies in the dynamics between wolves, elks, beavers and young willows which are a main food source for both elks and beavers — a competition which the elks are winning.
Thus the instabilities that were caused by the removal of the wolves are still present as the issues with the elks, beavers and young willow trees still remain.
Although huge strides have been taken to overcome the instabilities that resulted from the initial removal of the wolves in Yellowstone, it has become obvious that there is no immediate solution. This ought to be communicated in order to give those affected a proper understanding of the issue at hand.
Even if the strides taken to inform communities about the role and value of the wolf does not sway negative opinions, the dialogue would still be brought to a more informed level — applying logic and reason rather than emotion.
This dialogue and education about wolves could present as a proxy for a better understanding on wider environmental concerns. As mentioned, a core issue that has developed as a response to the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park is the relationship between local stakeholders and larger governing bodies.
The majority of ill perception toward the wolves is from local farmers and hunters who are directly affected by a decrease in big game and predation on livestock Kellert, In order to mitigate issues between localities and the federal government, as well as their states, we suggest coordination for game and livestock protection together with improved, and more punctual, payouts for depredation. Multiple components play into the negative viewpoint held by livestock producers affected by depredation, including financial losses and unwanted stressors Bangs et al.
A common means to alleviate the impact of livestock depredation is through compensation programs. This is directly reflected by the success of reimbursement programs in and around Yellowstone. Figure 5.
0コメント