Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
Full Post
Posted Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:14 AM

Call of the Wild--But Maybe Not for Much Longer

Sharon Begley

Nature is “red in tooth and claw,” the poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson, wrote in In Memoriam, A.H.H., and an awful lot of sheep ranchers and cattle are sick and tired of it—so sick and tired that they have pushed the federal government to remove the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf from the list of endangered species, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did last month.

But there could be a great deal more death as a result—and not only because wolves will once again be fair game for hunters.

The decision to remove the northern gray wolf from has been challenged in court by 11 environment groups. But if it stands, states will take over authority for wolves in the northern Rockies—Wyoming and part of Montana and Idaho—on March 28, which de facto means that wolves will be hunted again.

The wolves’ crime? Being wolves, which many lifelong westerners view as a capital offense in and of itself. The species was wiped out in the lower 48 states, including Yellowstone National Park, in the 19th and 20th centuries, surviving only in northern Minnesota and Michigan’s Isle Royale, before being restored to Yellowstone beginning in 1996.



Everything in an ecosystem is connected, and if wolves are hunted again the domino effect would work like this. Healthy wolf packs keep coyote numbers down, because of direct predation as well as competition for resources. Coyotes like nothing better than a nice pronghorn fawn. Pronghorns, unique to North America, resemble African antelope. More coyotes mean fewer pronghorn, conclude biologist Kim Berger of the Wildlife Conservation Society and colleagues in a paper in the journal Ecology. Wolves rarely hunt pronghorn fawns themselves—the little things would hardly serve as an hors d’oeuvres for a wolf. Or as Berger says, “It would be like trying to feed an entire family on a single Big Mac.” So more wolves mean fewer coyotes and more pronghorns.

For the study, Berger’s team radio-collared more than 100 fawns in Grand Teton National Park. They compared survival rates in areas with and without wolves. Result: 10 percent of fawns survived in wolf-free/coyote-full zones, while 34 percent survived in areas where wolves were abundant and coyotes scarce.

Federal law allows hunting of wolves that attack livestock, so it’s not as if the animals are getting off scot-free. Last year, 102 wolves were killed. Government trappers killed 63, while citizens killed seven that were chasing or attacking livestock; another four were killed after confirmed livestock losses. The rest were apparently hunted illegally. Wolves killed 75 cattle in 2007, up from 32 in 2006; 27 sheep, up from four; as well as two llamas, 12 goats and three dogs, the Daily Inter Lake reported last week.) If the gray wolf is delisted, Wyoming and Idaho have said, they will launch a hunt to reduce the wolf population by 50 percent and 80 percent, respectively. There are an estimated 300 wolves in Wyoming and 700 in Idaho.


Advertisement
You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: Blue Porcupine (March 5, 2008 at 7:14 PM)

It seems like the key here is defining what constitutes a non-endangered population.  If it takes 300 animals in Wyoming and 700 in Idaho to ensure a healthy population, one should only allow hunting that reduces populations in excess of that number, otherwise the population would fall back into the endangered area.  If the two states remove 500-700 animals between them as the article suggests, the wolf population would hardly be thriving or impacting the ecosystem (deer, elk, coyotes, etc.).  Of course, the re-listing would take years to put in place again,and the hunting would continue.  One could even envision the animals becoming extinct  in the interim.  This may suit the economic interests of the ranching community, but not necessarily those of the public.  It seems to me that like the predatory losses hardly justify such a mass slaughter of wolves.  Raising cattle especially in areas of Montana and Idaho has to be difficult at best, even without wolves, so perhaps more should be done to persuade the ranchers that raising cattle in these marginal areas makes little sense.  Perhaps some of the money used to support the wolf program could be used to buy up ranches instead.


Posted By: popslashgirl (March 4, 2008 at 4:22 PM)

So, I'm guessing this is how it would go.

We kill all the wolves. Coyote populations go up. So do elk, deer, and bison populations--after all, no one's eating them. Greater occurrance of tick-borne diseases, as there are now that many more ticks. Animals start to starve as they overgraze their environment. Coyotes start to invade more urban areas due to competitive pressures. The population of pronghorns goes down. So do the population of small rodents. Hawks and eagles can't find enough to eat.

So we kill the coyotes. After all, they're almost as bad as wolves, right? And they might eat young livestock too, if they had to. Pronghorn populations go back up. Rodent populations explode. Deer, bison, elk, and pronghorns start eating all our livestock's pasture and snack on our hedges.

That means we now need to kill all those excess elk, deer, bison, pronghorns, and assorted rodents (prairie dogs, ground squirrels, marmots, etc) because they're overpopulated, diseased, invading urban areas, or starving. That's if their high numbers don't cause a spontaneous population crash. Bubonic plague goes up, because coyotes aren't eating the mice that carry it. Forests are choked with uneaten undergrowth. Fire seasons are memorable.

Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't it be simpler to just leave the damn wolves be?

And--you're kidding me. Wolves killed seventy-five cattle? Out of, what, twenty million head that we've got in this country? And a whopping twenty sheep? Gosh. I hardly feel safe in my own bed.


 
The Peek
 
 
PROJECT GREEN
NWK Caption: At the Excel High School in Oakland, California a group of students, their teacher and members of community groups pose with air pollution monitors in front of a mural at the school.  July 26, 2008.       Left to Right:   Randy Colosky, a member of Global Community Monitor  wearing brown shirt ,Juan Hernandez, student (seated) ,   Ina Bendich, teacher Danyale Willingham,student in blue top).Elizabeth de Rham far right, member of the Rose Foundation.

Young pollution sleuths and community activists fight for healthier air.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
PAKISTAN
nuclear pakistan khan kabul bomb
Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu