The Gray Wolf: Myth vs. Fact

Myth: Wolves are extremely dangerous to human beings.

Fact: According to Yellowstone wolf biologist Doug Smith, the danger to humans from wolves is vastly overestimated. Smith said that, whereas a bear or a mountain lion will attack a human on first contact, wolves are naturally fearful of humans and pose very little danger unless they are conditioned to overcome this natural fear.

Myth: Wolves kill livestock “for the fun of it.”

Fact: According to Smith, the large majority of wolf hunts are unsuccessful, and because they take large prey, such as elk, deer and moose, they are risking their lives with each attempt. Smith said many wolves are seriously injured or killed in their attempts to bring down large prey.

Myth: Wolves kill large numbers of cattle and sheep.

Fact: According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than 6 million head of cattle live in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the three states where the majority of wolves in the West live. For those states in 2014, wolves killed 136 head of cattle, or 1 cow out of every 44,853. In the same three states, where 820,000 sheep live, reports show wolves killed 114 sheep, or 1 in every 7,193, in 2014. However, because these losses are unevenly distributed, they can take a toll on a single producer.

Myth: The wolves that were reintroduced to Yellowstone and central Idaho in the mid 1990s were non-native Canadian wolves.

Fact: While some of the wolves released into Yellowstone and central Idaho did originate in Canada, the wolves that historically ranged much of North America are of the same species, Canis lupus, as “Canadian” wolves.

Myth: Reintroduced wolves are killing all the elk and deer.

Fact: In Montana, one of the largest wolf recovery areas in the nation, the elk population, while variable, has, on the average, held steady through the 20 years since reintroduction. And while some elk herds in Wyoming have experienced decline, the reintroduction of wolves is likely only part of the reason. A three-year study conducted by the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Wyoming, which concluded in 2013, found evidence that the Wyoming elk decline was based on a complex set of variables, including habitat, weather, hunting, bears and wolves.

An Experiment in Privatizing
Public Land Fails After 14 Years

High Country News by Tom Ribe Published Feb 15, 2105

It is no secret that some state legislators in the West want to boot federal land management agencies from their states. They argue that agencies like the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service cost too much and are too detached from local values, and that states could make money by running our vast open spaces like a privately owned business.

The Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based libertarian think tank, is of that opinion and has developed models to replace federal agencies with private interests. What many people don’t know is that Congress implemented one of the Cato Institute’s ideas in 2000, on the 89,000-acre Valles Caldera National Preserve in New Mexico. For some critics of the federal government, this was the experiment in land management that would signal the end of the BLM and Forest Service in the West.

The Cato experiment in New Mexico, however, failed, chewed up by the friction between monetizing the “services” that landscapes provide — recreation, timber, grass, wildlife — and fulfilling citizens’ expectations for public access and protecting natural resources. For example, New Mexicans had very little tolerance for paying high fees to visit public property that had already been paid for using federal Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars.

The Valles Caldera experiment began after a Texas oil family expressed interest in selling its large property atop a dormant volcano near Santa Fe. A reluctant Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., agreed to federal ownership, but only if the property was not managed by traditional federal agencies. The Valles Caldera Preservation Act, which was passed in 2000, was designed to create an alternative model of management.

Under this act, the Valles Caldera National Preserve was managed by a “Trust” and mandated to become “financially self-sufficient” by 2015. The Trust was authorized to replace federal appropriations with income from recreation fees, resource extraction, and any other means that could be found. A mostly private-sector “board of trustees” made decisions and supervised the staff. 

At first, Congress instructed the Trust to pay for all wildland fire operations at the preserve out of its own budget. A later congressional amendment made firefighting once again the responsibility of the Forest Service. Soon after, two large fires burned 53,000 acres in the preserve and cost the federal government $56 million dollars in suppression costs alone.

Despite the efforts of many trustees and the staff for 14 years, the preserve never managed to earn enough money from hunting, grazing and tourism to pay even a third of its bills. Heavy logging and overgrazing had depleted forests and grasslands well before the preserve became public land. High fees and restrictions on public access kept the income from recreation low, and to a large extent, the public continued to perceive the preserve as private land. Elk hunting paid well, but the preserve broke even on cattle grazing only by charging ranchers more than seven times what other federal agencies are charging.

Privatization supporters may say that if Congress had waived all federal natural and cultural resource protection laws for the Trust — as Sen. Domenici had urged back in 2000 — the staff could have been a fraction of its size, and the Trust could have made money developing lodges and putting thousands of cattle on the high-altitude meadows without public review or bureaucratic process.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., however, refused to excuse the Trust from environmental laws. The National Environmental Policy Act, for example, requires federal agencies to study the impacts of proposed development and to consult with the public before decisions are made. Complying with these laws may be expensive, but without them, publicly owned land is public in name only.

For more than a decade, the Trust labored at becoming solvent before it admitted to Congress that it would never achieve “financial self-sufficiency.” For many critics of the experiment, the statement was a long time coming.

“We just wanted to access our preserve without all the restrictions and fees and without being called customers,” said Monique Schoustra, who works with a group called Caldera Action. 

Ultimately, many factors led New Mexico’s congressional delegation to dump the “experiment” last December and transfer the Valles Caldera National Preserve to the National Park Service. What have we learned from this failure of privatization? For those who want states to take-over federal lands, there are certainly questions that must be answered first: Will states shoulder the costs of fighting large fires? Will states obey the wishes of ranchers and continue to subsidize ranching? Will states charge the public to visit once-public lands, and will states protect and restore archaeological sites, watersheds and wildlife habitat?

Then there’s the real question: How will states manage the public frustration of Westerners who live in a region where our public lands are at the heart of our cultures and economy?

Tom Ribe is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a column service of High Country News. He is a writer, fire manager and outdoor guide based in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Nat'l Park Service to take over management
of Valles Caldera Preserve

Albuquerque Journal
By T. S. Last / Journal Staff Writer
PUBLISHED: Friday, December 19, 2014 - 

With a stroke of the President’s pen, management of the Valles Caldera National Preserve is expected to soon shift from a trust that has been overseeing the preserve since it was created by an act of Congress in 2000 to the National Park Service.

But will the change make any real difference to the visitor?

Supporters say yes, contending it will bring more attention and better programs while safeguarding preservation of the 89,000 acres of high country in the Jemez Mountains.

Critics are more skeptical, especially those who want to be assured of hunting access to the property, which is rich in elk and other wildlife. Mountain streams also attract anglers there.

The management change is part of a Congressional compromise, embedded in the defense spending bill that has passed both chambers and awaits the President’s signature.

The bill also designates the Columbine-Hondo area within the Carson National Forest in northern New Mexico as wilderness, and establishes the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Los Alamos and other sites.

The package has been pushed by New Mexico’s Democratic delegation.

Sen. Martin Heinrich said in a news release that it “will help grow our economy in the energy, tourism, sporting and recreational sector.”

Heinrich and Sen. Tom Udall sponsored the bill to shift authority of the preserve to the Park Service, picking up on an effort initiated by former Sen. Jeff Bingaman before he left office.

Not only does the act transfer the management of Valles Caldera from the trust to the Park Service, but it also assures hunting and fishing will be maintained (a huge concern for sportsmen), along with grazing rights for ranchers.

While Jemez Pueblo still lays claim to the land, the property was given to the Baca family in return for a terminated land grant in 1876 and, for more than a century, was known as the Baca Ranch. It changed hands several times before the federal government bought it in 2000.

In recent years, the Valles Caldera has offered recreational opportunities, such as cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, hiking and mountain biking, and has hosted tours, workshops and special events, drawing about 100,000 visitors a year.

People stop along N.M. 4 to take in some of the views of the Valles Caldera National Preserve. (Eddie Moore/Albuquerque Journal)

Smooth transition promise

The Valles Caldera Trust said in a statement last week that it was committed to a smooth transition to the Park Service, an event that will take place within six months of the President signing the bill.

Jorge Silva-Banuelos, executive director of the trust, said he was proud of what the trust accomplished in the face of budget cuts and recovery from two major wildfires. The trust’s management was set up under 2000 legislation to be financially self-sustainable within 15 years, or come up with a solid plan to do so, which Silva-Banuelos said was probably an untenable goal from the start.

“That being said, I think the trust’s legacy will set the stage for the Park Service to come in and build on our successes,” he said, pointing to science and education programs, and forest and watershed restoration projects. “I think we’re handing it off in much better shape than we received it.”

Though the original act included a sunset provision that opened the door for the U.S. Forest Service to take over management of the preserve in 2020, a spokesperson with the Santa Fe National Forest said there were no hard feelings.

Julie Anne Overton said, “The Santa Fe National Forest’s working relationship since the ranch was purchased has been really positive. We plan to continue that positive relationship, both assisting with the transition to the National Park Service and after the transition, as well.”

Silva-Banuelos expressed hope that most of the trust’s 50 or so staff members would keep their jobs.

“Generally speaking, the trust employees work at Valles Caldera for a reason: They are passionate about it and want what’s best for the preserve,” he said.

Unanswered questions

James Doyle, chief of communications and legislative affairs for the intermountain region of the National Park Service, said staffing levels have yet to be determined. That is among a number of unanswered questions that will be decided in the coming months.

“This legislation was just enacted Friday and there are a lot of moving parts,” he said. “All the affected parties are still trying to understand what all this means to them.”

Doyle noted that the appropriation bill keeps operation of the preserve in the hands of the trust through fiscal year 2015.

Until then, “we’re working in collaboration with the trust and the Forest Service,” he said. “We’re all kind of working frantically to figure out how this transfer will occur. I can tell you it’s not something that will happen overnight.”

The Valles Caldera National Preserve is expected to become part of the National Parks. (Eddie Moore/Albuquerque Journal)

Not everyone happy

Not everyone is thrilled with the Park Service takeover.

Kerrie Romero heads the New Mexico Council of Outfitters and Guides, a nonprofit groups she says works on behalf of the 250 outfitters and 1,500 guides working in the state, as well as the interests of 25,000 hunters and anglers.

While there are those among them who support the transfer to the Park Service, Romero said the majority don’t.

“From our standpoint, we want to see the hunting and fishing remain intact,” she said. “While the Park Service does many other beneficial things across the country, they have not always been super-supportive of hunting.”

Romero said she is grateful that hunting will remain intact for the foreseeable future, but “the concerns I have are things that have taken place in the Grand Teton (National Park) – ammunition restrictions, the whittling down of hunting opportunities and generally more stringent restrictions.”

She said as many as 25 sportsmen organizations went on record with a letter to Congress expressing opposition to Park Service management.

The state Game Commission also opposed the Park Service taking over management of the preserve, making its own bid to do so.

The Game Commission, whose members are appointed by the governor, presented a plan it said would turn an annual $2 million to $3 million deficit into positive revenue of up to $1 million per year.

The commission, which sets policy for the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, expressed concern that language in the Heinrich-Udall bill could negatively affect wildlife management, as well as hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities on the preserve.

In response to the concerns of sportsmen groups regarding hunting, Silva-Banuelos said, “The legislation mandates that hunting, fishing and grazing continue, and the National Park Service has a pretty good record for hunting at these preserves.”

Ducks take off from a small pond on the Valles Caldera National Preserve on December 16, 2014. The Preserve is expected to become part of the National Parks System. (Eddie Moore/Albuquerque Journal)

Everyone wants what’s best

One group that is happy about the switch to the Park Service is Caldera Action, a citizens group advocating for the long-term protection of the preserve.

“This is exactly what we wanted,” Tom Ribe, the group’s executive director, said. “It’s good for the place and it’s good for the New Mexico economy.”

Ribe, himself a guide, said the preserve can probably expect an increase in visitors under Park Service management.

“When you see something that’s managed by the Park Service, you know it’s special and worth a visit,” he said.

Its proximity to Bandelier National Monument, one of the top tourist attractions in the state, should stimulate tourism at both sites, he added.

Ribe pointed out that Valles Caldera would become the 19th preserve managed by the Park Service.

“The Park Service is experienced with managing places like this,” he said. “I would say the biggest thing from my perspective is the Forest Service is a multi-use agency, dealing with grazing, logging and mining. It’s utilitarian about using resources, whereas the Park Service has a tradition of valuing cultural properties and the landscape.”

Ribe pointed to a 2011 study by Harbinger Consulting Group that concluded: “The National Park Service is more likely than the U.S. Forest Service to maintain a high and consistent level of funding, staffing, visitor service, and resource protection.”

Ribe said he doesn’t expect hunting opportunities to decline. One of the current issues, he said, is the elk are staying in the high country and feeding off aspen shoots, stunting regeneration.

“The Park Service wants to see that area recovering and the best way to do that is reduce the elk herd,” he said.

Time will tell what impact the Park Service taking over management of Valles Caldera National Preserve will have. What’s sure is everyone is hoping for the best for one of New Mexico’s treasures.

“… I think that sportsmen and environmentalists agree it’s a special place and neither one of us wants to see anything negative come of it,” Romero said.

The Rewilding Institute Comments on Gray Wolf Delisting and Peer Review

TRI Comments on Gray Wolf Delisting and Peer Review

Originally published March 25, 2014 - The Rewildlige Institute

Attn: FWS–HQ–ES–2013–0073

Division of Policy and Directives Management
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive MS 2042-PDM
Arlington, VA 22203

The Rewilding Institute (TRI) appreciates the opportunity to comment on: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by Listing It as Endangered and the peer review of that document.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of availability and reopening of comment period.

These comments have been prepared by TRI’s Carnivore Conservation Biologist, David R. Parsons. Mr. Parsons served as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) first Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator from 1990-1999 and was the primary author of the original rule that established a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico. Mr. Parsons has continued to follow the progress of the Mexican wolf recovery program from his retirement from FWS in 1999 to the present day. Mr. Parsons holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in Wildlife Biology, served as a career wildlife biologist for FWS for 24 years, and has lectured nationally and internationally on wolf biology, ecology, and conservation.

We remain concerned about ongoing and potential further delays by the FWS in advancing the conservation and recovery of the critically endangered Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi).  The FWS has acknowledged that at even the currently authorized population objective of 100 wolves in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA), Mexican wolves will remain in danger of extinction.  At a most recent population estimate of only 83 wolves with deleterious levels of inbreeding, Mexican wolves need aggressive recovery actions immediately.

Currently, the proposal to list Canis lupus baileyi as an endangered subspecies is an integral part of the proposal to remove all other presently listed gray wolves (Canis lupus) within the United States from the list of endangered species, and thusly end their protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

A FWS-initiated peer review has concluded that the science that the FWS relied upon to support their proposal to delist gray wolves is not the best available science.  This makes the proposed delisting of gray wolves in violation of the ESA mandate that decisions made pursuant to the ESA be based on the best available science.

Given that FWS has reissued for a second public review the exact same proposal found by the peer reviewers to be scientifically deficient, it is not clear if FWS plans to make any substantive changes to the proposed delisting rule before issuing the final rule.  We are assuming here that FWS will either (1) issue the final delisting rule without substantively addressing the scientific deficiencies found by the peer reviewers, or (2) further delay the release of a final rule to allow FWS biologists time to address the scientific deficiencies found by the peer reviewers.  Either scenario will have adverse consequences for the critically endangered Mexican gray wolf as we explain below.

We note, however, that the peer reviewers and the FWS are in agreement that Canis lupus baileyi is a unique and taxonomically distinct subspecies of Canis lupus deserving of separate protection and recovery actions under the ESA.  And in fact, FWS has proposed the separate listing of the Mexican wolf within this proposed rule.  The only disagreement between the peer reviewers and the FWS is over the probable historic range of the Mexican wolf.  This disagreement is essentially rendered moot by language in the proposed list rule declaring Mexican wolves to be endangered “where found.”

Disagreement over the extent of the Mexican wolf’s historic range is best addressed by the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team using the best available science and settled in a final Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, not in this proposed rule.  The work of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team, suspended since November 2011, needs to be resumed immediately.  While not procedurally necessary, it appears that FWS is waiting for the promulgation of the final rule placing Mexican wolves on the endangered species list before resuming work of the recovery team.

History has shown that proposals by the FWS to remove gray wolves from the endangered species list have always been litigated, often delaying or even reversing actions proposed by the FWS.  And history has shown that the FWS tends to suspend legitimate recovery actions for Mexican wolves in the face of litigation over proposals related to other gray wolves.

Furthermore, there is no scientific disagreement over the FWS’s proposal to list Canis lupus baileyi as an endangered subspecies of the gray wolf.  And Mexican wolves are in critical need of recovery actions that are hampered by current regulations and the lack of a current recovery plan based on the best available science (see comments submitted by TRI on the draft proposed rule for Mexican wolves dated 10/24/2013 and incorporated in their entirety here as Appendix A of these comments).

Therefore, to enhance the likelihood of survival and recovery of Mexican wolves, it follows that FWS must decouple the proposal to list Canis lupus baileyi from the proposal to delist gray wolves elsewhere.  No legitimate purpose is served by continuing link these two distinct actions into one combined process that is destined to be litigated solely over the gray wolf delisting part of the proposal.

As for the proposal to delist Canis lupus, TRI recommends that the FWS honor the independent peer review process and base its final decision on the best available science.

As for the proposal to list Canis lupus baileyi TRI recommends that FWS issue an expedited final rule completing this action separate from the gray wolf delisting proposal.  And we further recommend that the existing Mexican Wolf Recovery Team be reactivated immediately with a goal of completing a science-based recovery plan as soon as possible.

As always, The Rewilding Institute appreciates this opportunity to comment on these proposals.

Sincerely,

David R. Parsons
Carnivore Conservation Biologist

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, INCLUDING APPENDIX A

- Read more . . .  

Wolves and the Ecology of Fear

Video Story by Michael James Werner for QUEST Northwest on Mar 06, 2014

Does “the big bad wolf” play an important role in the modern-day food web? In this video we journey to Washington State’s Cascade Mountains, where the return of wolves could have a profound impact on a vast wilderness area. We meet up with biologist Aaron Wirsing to explore why wolves and other top predators are needed for diverse ecosystems to flourish. Using a simple video camera (a “deer-cam”) Wirsing is gaining a unique perspective on predator/prey relationships and changing the way we think about wolves.

Wolves in the Crosshairs:  Q&A with conservationist, Fred Koontz

Dr. Fred Koontz

Gray wolves are in the crosshairs of a heated conservation debate, with the federal government trying to strip all protections for them in the continental U.S. Dr. Fred Koontz, vice president of field conservation at Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle, has worked in conservation for three decades and has studied the wolf issue. We talked with Dr. Koontz about the future of wolves in the U.S. and the role they play in maintaining healthy ecosystems.

Wolves may be the most polarizing animal in North America, more so than other large carnivores like cougars or grizzly bears. Why?The gray wolf is one of the world's most adaptable and widely distributed mammals, ranging over much of Asia, Europe, and North America. Wolves, the size of a German shepherd, are pack-hunting predators that sometimes kill livestock. Combined with wolves’ nocturnal behavior and haunting howling, this has resulted in a long history of conflict with people, especially as human numbers have increased exponentially in recent centuries and agricultural lands expanded into wolf habitat. There are, however, very few documented cases of wolves attacking people, but the rare times it’s happened it’s been sensationalized and blown out of proportion.

How have your perceptions or understanding of wolves changed over the years?At an early age, my mother read with much theatrical expression “Little Red Riding Hood,” which, like many children, left me fearing the “big bad wolf.” This negative image was reinforced with similar wolf-themed horror movies that I ashamedly spent far too much time watching in my youth. Only when I studied ecology and animal behavior in college and as a wildlife professional did I see a different image of the wolf. Wolves are important regulators of prey numbers and behavior, and as such, influence a web of ecological interactions that enrich biological diversity. I learned also that among many adaptive traits enabling their evolutionary success, wolves have a rich social life and extraordinary set of communication behaviors. The more I learned, the more fascinated I became in understanding how wolves and people might live together for their mutual benefit.

Gray wolves have been taken off the federal endangered species list in some states, such as Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. And a recent federal proposal would strip all gray wolves in the continental U.S. of their federal protection. How did this come to be? What kind of politics are at play?

Gray wolves can come in an assortment of colors, such as these all-white wolves. Photo courtesy of Ryan Hawk, Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle.

Under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1974 first listed gray wolves as endangered in the lower 48 states. Now they propose to remove them from the ESA list. This idea follows from three decades of actions undertaken by federal, state, and local partners that resulted in population recovery and delisting in 2011 of wolves living in the western Great Lakes states and northern Rockies. With about 6,000 wolves residing in these two recovery areas, USFWS believes that the gray wolf population in general is well established and stable enough to warrant delisting. Many state wildlife officials welcome the move as they are eager to take back the management authority for animals within their political borders.

However, many conservation scientists and wolf advocates believe that more time on the endangered species list — and [under] federal protection — would allow wolves a greater opportunity to reclaim more of their former territory and grow the number of their populations. This is important because, despite wolf recovery success in the Great Lakes states and Rocky Mountains, there is still a lot of their former range not yet occupied. Expanded range and more populations, in turn, will provide greater species resiliency to unexpected environmental disruptions like climate change and emerging diseases and also improve long-term wolf survival in the U.S.

An independent review panel recently found that the federal government used uncertain science when it proposed removing the gray wolf from the endangered species list across the lower 48 states. What could that mean for the future of wolves?
This is important because under Endangered Species Act law the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is obligated to use the best available science. The Service claimed that new genetic research indicated that wolves living in the eastern U.S. were actually a different species, and thus should not be considered as part of the original listing or part of the historic range. The expert panel said the genetic research was uncertain and based largely on one paper. The panel’s report has reopened the debate about delisting gray wolves, and I suspect it will extend the time wolves remain listed. The final decision on delisting is yet to be determined — public comment is encouraged. [Note: deadline is March 27, 2014]

In the long run, the debate about delisting wolves invites larger questions like, what constitutes full recovery of any endangered species, and does the legal framework of the ESA reflect current conservation science and principles of sustainable living? Most importantly, there needs to be agreement at the onset about the ultimate purpose of recovery — is it simply species survival or restoring ecological function? There are no easy answers.

Mule Deer photo courtesy of Lauren Sobkoviak.

Is it possible for wolves and humans to coexist? What needs to change for that to happen?
I think that wolves and humans ultimately will coexist by sharing land in two key places — protected areas and rural areas managed for the benefit of people and wildlife, for example, park buffer lands, multiple-use public lands, and designated wildlife corridors. For the reconciliation between wolves and humans to prove fully successful, we will first need a broader understanding of the role that apex predators play in creating healthy ecosystems and why healthy ecosystems are needed by people. In other words, there must be a broader understanding of why saving wolves is essential to sustainable living. Greater public will to save wolves will result in increased public spending needed to conduct science and carry out sound management actions. For example, we need more research on improving ranching practices to minimize wolf predation of livestock, and insurance programs that compensate ranchers for unavoidable losses. There is already good evidence from pilot efforts that such research and management programs are possible — and that they work!

Why should people care about the fate of wolves?
The fate of wolves is tied directly to the greatest challenge facing humankind this century —  sustainable living! With more than seven billion people consuming resources at an accelerating pace, this generation of world citizens must transform our societies to sustainable ones. We must, among other things, protect a wide variety of animal and plant species — scientists call this “biodiversity.” Many conservation scientists believe that apex predators (animals at the top of the food chain), like wolves, are necessary to maintain habitats rich in life. In turn, high levels of biodiversity bring many direct benefits to people — everything from providing food and fiber to protecting water supplies and enriching recreation.

Biologist Aaron Wirsing for the University of Washington (right) and graduate student Justin Dellinger (left) radio collar deer with video cameras in order to better understand predator-prey dynamics. Photo courtesy of Greg Davis.

Understanding the links between apex predators and biodiversity is a growing area of research for scientists like Aaron Wirsing of the University of Washington. Since 2008, wolves have been returning to Washington and have reestablished populations in the U.S. northern Rockies. This has provided a unique research opportunity for Wirsing and other scientists. For example, deer populations in Washington have likely over-browsed plants for decades in the absence of gray wolves. One consequence of deer eating trees along streambeds is less habitat for birds, and streams that are more likely to harbor fewer cold-water fish like trout because they are filled with sediments from soil erosion and overheated because of lack of shade. With wolves back in the state, Wirsing is leading a study to document how wolves are changing mule and white-tail deer populations, which in turn affects forest landscapes.

Why do you care about wolves?
I care about wolves because as apex predators they contribute significantly to enriching biodiversity needed by people for sustainable living. I also care about wolves because I admire them! Wolves are amazing for many reasons, but I am especially fascinated by their complex social behavior and adaptable lifestyles, two traits that they share with humans. Also, one of the most important reasons I care is that wild wolves in the U.S. are a symbolic way of keeping our American heritage of wilderness alive.

The NRDC's Non-Lethal Methods to Prevent Conflicts Between Predators and Livestock

Every year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services program kills thousands of predators as a taxpayer-funded subsidy to the livestock industry, using controversial and inhumane methods such as poisons and aerial gunning. Wildlife Services largely ignores the many non-lethal ways to prevent conflicts between predators and livestock. In fact, a small, but growing number of ranchers are turning away from Wildlife Services’ “sledgehammer” approach and emphasizing non-lethal conflict-prevention techniques because they recognize that predators are an integral part of the landscapes where they ranch.

Wildlife Services needs to end the use of inhumane, hazardous, and environmentally harmful poisons—specifically, Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide—to kill predators. Instead, the agency should employ non-lethal conflict prevention methods. Specifically, Wildlife Services, and the private parties it assists, should be required to use, or attempt to use, nonlethal deterrence methods before resorting to lethal control. 

Click here to download more information 

about non-lethal methods from the NRDC.

Support the NRDC

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

By Boone and Crockett Club

Natural resources, including wildlife represent the health and wealth of a country and its people. We are fortunate in North America to have a proven system that not only recognizes these values, but also provides for and directs the proper use and management of these resources.

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is anchored by a Supreme Court decision that decreed that wildlife belongs to the people, and not government, corporations or individuals. It further directs how this natural resource is to be used and managed under sustainable guidelines for the betterment of wildlife and people. It is the reason why we still have abundant, wildlife populations in the U.S. and Canada and the opportunity to freely hunt, fish or enjoy this wildlife each in our own way.

The Model is guided by seven principles. It developed over time out of necessity to reverse the negative effects from the unregulated over harvesting of many species of wildlife and early attitudes that these resources where there for the taking and inexhaustible. Sportsmen and women, led by the efforts of the Boone and Crockett Club and its members helped to either establish, popularize, mobilize support for, and/or defend each of these guiding principles over the past 125 years. The results are unprecedented in the history of mankind.

In the Public Trust – Wildlife belongs to the people and managed in trust for the people by government agencies.

Who owns wildlife was determined by a Supreme Court decision at the time the New World was flexing its new independence from European rule. The Public Trust Doctrine is the pillar of North American conservation, but it took time for citizens to fully understand the responsibilities that came with this ownership.

Many of the Boone and Crockett Club’s early efforts were focused on awakening the people to the plight of their wildlife resources, and that these resources did indeed belong to them, and were in their care. These efforts were in concert with the conservation laws the Club and its members were proposing to aid in the recovery and protection of wildlife. Once the public realized it was their wildlife being irresponsibly eliminated their outcry was so great that conservation legislation passed with ease.

Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife – It will be illegal to sell the meat of any wild animal in North America.

The harvesting wildlife for commercial markets contributed greatly to the extinction of some species of wildlife, and the near extinction of others. With the Boone and Crockett Club rallying the public and political support needed, Club member Senator John F. Lacey of Iowa was able to present and pass the Lacey Acts of 1900 & 1907, which prohibited a commercial value to wild game meat, spelling the end of market hunting, allowing our wildlife to recover and flourish.

Allocation of Wildlife is by Law – Laws developed by the people and enforced by government agencies will regulate the proper use of wildlife resources.

The mere presence of man on the landscape can negatively affect wildlife and the habitats that support them. The rule of law instead of the rule of chance will be used to govern the appropriate use of these wildlife resources.

The Boone and Crockett Club proposed laws and rallied public support for these new rules of order. The Club helped establish government agencies like the U.S. Fish & Wildlife and National Forest Services that were needed to oversee the proper execution and enforcement of these laws. The Club’s Fair Chase statement also became the cornerstone for game laws established by the states.

Opportunity for All – Every citizen has the freedom to hunt and fish.

Public access to wildlife, regardless of social or economic status, including hunting, fishing, and trapping is a right of citizenship. This access fosters individual stewardship and provides the funding necessary to properly manage wildlife resources in a sustainable manner.

Boone and Crockett Club founder, Theodore Roosevelt believed strongly in wise-use conservation and fought aggressively against preservationist, or non-use proposals. The Club also believed that those who use the resource should pay for its care and maintenance. The Club lobbied for the laws and institutions that provided this funding, including a federal excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition and the federal Duck Stamp program. Sportsmen ands women subsequently stepped forward and gladly accepted their role in funding conservation

Non-frivolous Use – In North America we can legally kill certain wildlife for legitimate purposes under strict guidelines for food and fur, in self-defense, or property protection. Laws are in place to restrict casual killing, killing for commercial purposes, wasting of game, and mistreating wildlife.

The rules of proper use, both in written law and personal ethics, did not exist in commercial market and sustenance hunting cultures. As these activities faded, what remained was recreational, sport hunting. What separated a true sportsman from market gunners was an ethical code of personal conduct that was defined and promoted by the Boone and Crockett Club. These same tenets of Fair Chase were used as the cornerstone of modern-day game laws. Club member, Aldo Leopold is credited with framing the concept of a land ethic and managing entire biotic communities. Combined, the foundations for the proper use of The intricate nature of ecosystems and biotic communities, of which all wildlife and man belong, will be managed under the knowledge of science rather than opinion, or conjecture.

wildlife and the habitats that support them was put in place to support conservation, defined by Club member, George Bird Grinnell as,” wise use without waste.”

International Resources – Because wildlife and fish freely migrate across boundaries between states, provinces, and countries they are considered an international resource.

The proper management of certain species of migrating wildlife is to be managed by international treaties and laws.

Sportsmen where among the first to recognize the need for international treaties and laws to save what was left of decimated waterfowl populations.  Wildfowl that nested in Alaska, Canada and the Lower 48 States, and then migrated as far south as Mexico, could only be saved if restrictions to the loss of their wetland nesting habitats and hunting reached across international boundaries.  The Boone and Crockett Club responded with the establishment of the National Wildlife Refuge system (1903) and the passage of the Migratory Bird Act of 1913 & 1917, the Reclamation Act of 1902, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 all contributed to the recovery and future prosperity of migratory species.

Managed by Science – The best science available will be used as a base for informed decision making in wildlife management.

The intricate nature of ecosystems and biotic communities, of which all wildlife and man belong, will be managed under the knowledge of science rather than opinion, or conjecture.

Boone and Crockett Club founder, Theodore Roosevelt was a strong advocate of science, and that only the best science available was to be used to make critical decisions on natural resource management. The Club began by providing seed money for some of the first wildlife research projects. Under the leadership of member, Aldo Leopold the Club began formulating flexible scientific management policies for wildlife and natural resources to achieve an ecological balance. The Club also called for the first President’s Conference on Outdoor Recreation, which lead to the establishment of the National Recreation Policy, which coordinated resource management at federal, state, and local levels.