Wolves are becoming a problem delisting needed
At one time, wolves (especially the gray wolves) were an endangered species in the U.S. especially in Montana, Idaho, Michigan and Washington State among other states (Chasan, 2010). This forced the state and federal wildlife officials to move in and protect the wolves from potential extinction. It is however unfortunate that the increase in wolves have come along with a number of problems. Wolves have constantly been a problem to other wildlife such as the elk, moose and the deer whereby these animals are fed on by the wolves in an ecologically imbalanced manner. In addition, wolves have been associated with injuring and killing livestock thus posing more conflicts. In addition to being a danger to wildlife and livestock, wolves have also conflicted with human beings whereby human life is endangered by the wolves. These are some of then problems that have caused uproar on the increasing wolves across the country. In essence, wolves ought to be delisting of wolves across the country should continue due to the effects the wolves are causing on other wildlife like elk and deer, livestock as well as being a threat to human beings.
Why delist wolves
Wolves ought to be removed from the Endangered Species list since they are back in enough numbers. The western United States especially in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are popular with the wolves with gray wolves being the most common type of wolves.
The gray wolves are known to be predators and they reproduce fast in presence of abundant prey with a maximum rate of increase being thirty percent annually. A higher rate of increase is expected whenever wolves are reintroduced in areas with abundant. It is for this reason that wolves populations have increased in Idaho after a reintroduction of 15 wolves in 1995 followed by a further increase of 20 wolves in 1996 (Ryan, 2002). The danger of allowing wolves to reproduce uncontrollably lies in the fact that they feed mainly on ungulates. The Idaho Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee (2002) indicates that up to 63 percent of all the ungulates that formed wolves diet in northwestern Montana as from the 1980s was deer the elk formed 30 percent of the ungulates diet whereas 7 percent of the ungulates diet was from moose. It is notable that this diet is mainly a winter diet and the preference for white-tailed deer is higher compared to the preference for elk or moose. This illustrates the risk at which deer are put into when wolves are allowed to thrive uncontrollably.
Wolves have continued to pose a threat to the ungulates with studies showing that wolves cause significant mortality on deer, moose and the elk. The Idaho Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee (2002) continues to indicate during the winters of 1995, 1996 1997, wolves killed up to 89 percent of all the elks that were killed. Worse still is that this has been the trend with 87 percent of elks killed by wolves in 2000 whereas 3 percent and 1 percent of deer and moose respectively were killed in Yellowstone National Park. The cows and the calves are the main victims of wolves killings thus threatening the reproduction of the elks. In fact the prey on calf elk is identified to be high beyond the number of the elk in the population. Whereas wolves feed on other animals during other seasons, the predominant source of food remain to be the ungulates. Winter season however is the period when most ungulates end up being killed by the wolves. It is no doubt that letting wolves to thrive in large numbers may prove difficult to manage as they are likely to overfeed on the ungulates. Going with the kill rate which primarily depends on many factors including the pack size, density and how vulnerable the prey is among other factors is high enough to cause alarm. For instance, it is estimated that in a single winter season, wolves can have a kill rate of approximately 12.4 kills per wolf per year. In a predation study carried out in Yellowstone, the kill rate was found to be about 10.7 kill per wolf per year over a period of three years with up to 90 percent of killed elk being as a result of wolf kills.
Perhaps some may argue that hunters are also a great threat to the ungulates as much as wolves may be a risk. Whereas there may be some truth in this, it is no doubt that the pattern of killing by the wolves is riskier than killing by hunters. It is recorded that wolves choice in northeastern Montana for instance is primarily on both younger and older elk and deer in disproportional numbers. Either there is an excessive prey on older deer or an excessive killing of elk calves.
Other than posing danger on other wildlife, wolves have been associated with attack and killing of domestic animals especially livestock. According to Idaho Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee (2002) there has been an increase in livestock losses related to an increasing number of wolves. In a span of five years for instance (1996-2000) up to 176 sheep and 35 cattle had succumbed to wolf prey with yearly sheep losses being estimated to be 7-57 sheep whereas 1-15 cattle have been killed annually. Of course there are other indirect losses in livestock related to uncontrolled wolves. For instance, the presence of wolves in a certain livestock feeding area leads to abandonment of the grazing area to avoid depredation. Failure to abandon the grazing area results into missing livestock which is primarily due to wolf depredation. Determining the number of kills made on livestock may prove hard taking into consideration the difficulty encountered in finding carcass as wolves usually consume the whole livestock carcass (Chadwick, 2010). Chadwick (2010) also reports that cattle farmers in Montana Hot Spring complain of increasing loss of livestock from five calves to about 25 calves as wolves increase. It is also thought that wolf predation on livestock leads to an increase in stress and stress-related problems such as loss of weight and abortion among pregnant cattle. As cattle flee from wolf-laden grazing areas, they interfere with grazing management plans which result into losses and possible penalties as a result of land mismanagement. It is for instance estimated that up to 49,746 was paid to livestock farmers as from 1995 to 2000 as a result of wolf- related problems. Such compensations are saved with delisting of wolves. This may be very frustrating to livestock farmers leading to total abandonment of the livestock industry since. This would happen because a farmer is never compensated he does not present evidence of killed livestock yet wolves tend to kill cattle without leaving any carcass evidence. Delisting wolves would enable individuals to protect their livestock from wolves thus enhancing livestock farming.
The wolves also make the cattle suffer leg injuries and subsequent infections as they run away from the wolves. Chadwick (2010) highlights that injuries result into losses for pastoralists as injured and sickly animals are unmarketable. In addition, mother cows tend to be overprotective of their calves in fear that calves may come after them. This makes it harder for the farmer to handle such a cow especially in the pens when considering the use of herding dogs. The woes among cattle farmers as they have to incur extra costs in trying to keep guard of their stock otherwise they would lose their entire herd to the wolves. The call for delisting of wolves therefore serves to make pastoralists carryout their economic activities peacefully and profitably.
Delisting of wolves is also based on the harm they cause on other domestic animals such as the dogs. It is well known that wolves are an enemy to domestic dogs and an encounter between wolves and a domestic dog usually leaves the dog dead. An increase in the number of wolves is therefore expected to result to an increase of wolfs attacking domestic dogs. Guarding dogs are the most prone since they are most likely to come across a pack of wolves. Ta pack of wolves is daring enough to scare a mountain lion killing them at times. This indicates that wolves are not only a danger to prey species but also to competing species. In addition to threatening mountain lions, wolves kill coyotes and scare bears. Despite the fact that this may seem as normal competition within an ecosystem, a large and uncontrolled wolf population is likely to introduce an imbalance in the ecosystem.
Calls for continued delisting of wolves across the country are also as a result of the threat that wolves have constantly posed on human beings. At least hunters can narrate distraught experiences with wolves. They are a danger to human life especially when they are in a pack. Smith (2009) narrates a hunters encounter with the wolves in Eveleth. In this narration, Smith (2009) explains that a group of four to five wolves threatened a 48 year old hunter daring to take the hunters deer catch. Worrisome enough is that the wolves seemed not to be frightened even with the firing of a gun as the hunter explains that he was scared that despite firing several shots to try to scare away the wolves, they lurked, sometimes howling and barking (Smith, 2009, para 3) at a close distance. The incident that happened in northeastern Minnesota should be an eye opener unto what menace the wolves can cause even to human life if their populations go unchecked. In fact such ordeals are said to be increasing especially among deer hunters and reports from the Department of Natural Resources in Minnesota indicate that an increase in wolf population in the state is in correlation with increasing cases of human-wolf encounters. Perhaps one may argue that the wolves are simply in a normal food competition but this is an indicator that the wolf population is increasing to an unsustainable level.
An increase in wolf population after their reintroduction in 1995 has been correlated with increasing fears among persons who earlier on enjoyed the woods especially sportsmen and families in general. They are more who among the Westerners who usually complain of lack of safety and fear of enjoying a walk with their families in the woods citing wolves as killer animals and danger to human life. Chadwick (2010) cites how people threaten to take action into their herds if wolf populations are not managed more so in the northern Rocky Mountains. Several instances of wolves attacking humans can be cited to emphasize the danger that wolves pose on humans. Remington (2010) highlights the case of special education teacher who was attacked and killed by wolves in March 2010 in Chignik Lake, Alaska. An earlier incident in October 2009 saw Taylor Mitchell being killed by wolf-coyote hybrids in Provincial Park as she was hiking. Kenton Carnegie was also killed by wolves in November 2005 as he was hiking in northern Saskatchewan. Important to note is that in all the three attacks, the wolves were not sick with rabies. The wolves seem to be animals that take pleasure in killing and controlling them through delisting and subsequent actions would appropriately control them.
It has been argued that reintroduction of wolves is meant to check the growing population of the ungulates especially the deer, elk and moose. Of course it is arguable that introduction of wolves in the Yellowstone National Park led to flourishing of the bush shrubs among other vegetation that was being overfed by a growing population of elk, deer and moose. The reintroduction of wolves effectively controlled the elk and deer population but the initial aim of using wolves as primary predators (Hunters Against PETA, 2010).
Whereas the initial aim was to remove the weakly ungulates, this has not been the case as the wolves population has grown tremendously to a worrying population. The wolves have not balanced the ecosystem of other wildlife since their large populations and feeding habits has led to overfeeding on the ungulates as a result of unbalanced predatorprey ratio. It is evident that the reintroduction of wolves in 1995 saw the population of elk in northern Yellowstone drop from 19,000 to about 6,000 by 2008 with the population being thought to be even lesser than 5000 elk. It is also observable that the population of moose had gone to less than 1,000. Other statistics show that whereas the elk population in District 10 of Lolo Basin, Idaho was about 9,727 in 1995, this dropped to about 1,473 by 2010. District 12 also experienced a drop in elk population from around 3,832 to about 705 elks (Petition Site, 2010). This is enough evidence that the initial goal of reaching a balanced ecosystem went overboard. It is therefore important to back the efforts of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommendations of delisting wolves and considering wolves as any other predator. This should be supported on a state and federal level.
It is recognizable that wolves are an important wildlife and ought to be conserved just like any other wildlife. It is for this reason that delisting wolves should not done unsystematically but rather guidelines have to be followed in order to maintain the right population of the wolves. In fact delisting wolves should be seen by those opposing the move as a way of managing wolves rather than the prevailing mentality that the wolves are being eliminated. It is well known that a management plan among other regulatory procedures have to be provided by any state that would like to have a federal go ahead in delisting wolves. Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are some of the states that are struggling to control the population of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. There should be no fear that wolves will be brought into extinction going by the federal denial of approval to Montana as the management plan does not meet the set standards thus making wolves in northern Rockies not be delisted. Idaho and Wyoming have on the other hand received federal approval and have removed wolves from the Endangered Species list. With states delisting wolves, it becomes possible to keep a sustainable wolf population (Montana Government, 2010). Most of the problems associated with wolves would therefore be controlled. For instance it would be possible to maintain an ecological balance contrary to the danger of elk extinction brought about by uncontrolled wolves. There should be no fear that wolves will be brought into extinction since hunters would be allowed to kill an acceptable number of wolves only thus wolf population would be brought under control.
There is no doubt that wolves ought to be handled with special care considering that they had been absent for about fifty years thank to their reintroduction in mid 1990s (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2008). Nevertheless, their negative effects should not be allowed to outweigh their benefits. Seeking to strike a balance between the benefits and the risks of keeping wolves should be the aim of governments. Such a balance would constitute bringing down the now high number of wolves that is causing havoc to a manageable and less risky free level. It would not be wise to maintain a very high population of wolves in the name of endearing the once rare species at the cost of ungulates, livestock and other domestic animals as well as human life. Although there are other predators of deer, moose and elk, it should be noted that checking the population of wolves (who mainly feed on younger and older prey) would ensure population growth among the ungulates which would otherwise be endangered with unchecked wolf population. In fact wolves appear to be the dominant predators of the ungulates considering that wolves are a threat to mountain lions among other prey competitors. Failure to restrict the growth of the wolf population would therefore extend extinction risk to the prey competitors. Conclusion
A check on the population of wolves is definitely required across the country. While it is understandable that wolves are supposed to be protected as a wildlife which had at one time disappeared, it is important to reconsider the possible harms. It is evident that wolves are a menace to their prey specifically the deer, elk and moose. Having been reintroduced withy the aim of striking an ecological balance, wolves have reproduced to destructive levels. In addition to risking the extinction of the ungulates, wolves have brought unfair prey competition to competitors like the bear and the mountain lions. It is also evident that wolves have made livestock keepers experience losses due to killings on cattle associated losses due to stress and injury. Worse still is that wolves have gone to the extent of attacking and killing humans. It is therefore appropriate to control wolves from a federal and state level in order to ensure smooth coexistence with wildlife and human beings. This is the call for all states, of which Idaho and Wyoming have responded to by following set wolf management plan.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment