Gray wolf reintroduction and management is a rather controversial subject here in the tri-state area of Idaho, Montana (where I live), and Wyoming. The issue is particularly contentious this year. Idaho and Montana are holding wolf-hunting seasons (currently in progress) for the first time since wolf reintroduction in 1995 and the subsequent delisting of the gray wolf as an endangered species in these states.
Since reintroduction of the gray wolf into the Northern Rockies, wolf recovery has been one of the fastest wildlife comebacks on record. The estimated wolf population in the tri-state area has burgeoned from 29 individuals reintroduced in Montana and Idaho in 1995 to an estimated 1500+ individuals and nearly 100 breeding pairs. These tallies far exceed the legal minimum recovery goal of 300 individuals and 30 breeding pairs for at least three consecutive years. In fact, that goal has been exceeded every year beginning in 2001. It’s a success story as far as the wolves go, but what should be done going forward is very much a matter of public debate.
People’s opinions are all over the map on this issue, but I would like to focus on the efforts of one prominent group of wolf defenders. Actually, they don’t just defend wolves. They are Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C.-based environmental activists who among, other things, champion the Endangered Species Act and frequently operate through the legal system and on Capitol Hill to push their causes.
That said, I really do like a lot of what this group has done. Some of their efforts have been on the right track and deserve public praise. Defenders of Wildlife has been commendably proactive in peacefully trying to address the concerns of folks who have been most directly and negatively impacted by reintroduction.
In 1987, Defenders of Wildlife created a privately-funded Wolf Compensation Trust to compensate ranchers for livestock losses resulting from wolf predation. The establishment of the fund put only voluntarily-contributed money on the line in an effort “to eliminate a major factor in political opposition to wolf recovery and to shift the economic burden of wolf recovery from livestock producers to those who support wolf reintroduction.” Regrettably, the state of Montana has taken over livestock compensation in my state, and it is no longer entirely privately funded. However, I do think it is important to credit Defenders of Wildlife with originating the idea, implementing it, and also for continuing private compensation elsewhere.
But let’s back up even further. To avoid these costly conflicts in the first place, Defenders of Wildlife has spent nearly a million dollars of private money since 1998 through their Proactive Carnivore Conservation Fund “to prevent conflict between imperiled predators and humans by supporting the use of preventative measures, including nonlethal deterrents and best management practices.” Over 240 projects have received support from the fund including the following:
-Employment of range riders to monitor livestock and purchase of radio telemetry equipment to help them prevent wolf-livestock conflicts.
-Cost-sharing the purchase of livestock guarding dogs.
-Contributions to research on wolf population monitoring methods.
-Cost-sharing of alternative pastures and supplemental feed to move livestock out of areas ripe for conflict with wolves.
-Private funding of research and field work to prevent wolf-livestock interaction.
Because of voluntary, private efforts such as these, I am in many ways a fan of Defenders of Wildlife. Good faith outreach and practical assistance are essential to developing a sustainable, long-term co-existence between local residents, both human and lupine. By working with those who would otherwise disproportionately suffer the consequences to relieve them of some of that burden, Defenders of Wildlife has taken key steps toward nurturing a friendly and cooperative relationship with the locals upon whom success of wolf reintroduction will necessarily depend.
Where I think the organization unfortunately goes off track is in the use of government to enforce its will where its non-coercive efforts have not achieved all of its goals. Currently, the delisting of gray wolves in Montana and Idaho is being battled out in court. Defenders of Wildlife, along with several other organizations, filed suit to reverse that delisting and to get an injunction against this year’s wolf hunting seasons. As of early September this year, the court had declined to halt the hunts in Montana and Idaho while the case is being resolved.
Litigation to maintain federal control predictably has had the effects of stirring up a fair bit of negative sentiment and of damaging Defenders of Wildlife’s reputation in the minds of many in this area. Seeing outsiders come into the community and lay down the law from on high does not sit well with most folks here or elsewhere. That understanding may be one reason some early wolf biologists did not support wolf reintroduction as it has taken place and instead supported natural recovery and repopulation.
It is a common perception that if current success well above and beyond the minimum requirement is not enough, then nothing will ever be considered successful enough for wolf management to be put back into local hands. There’s a sense among many tri-state residents that the battle will keep ending up in court or in Washington, D.C. where outsiders will continue to force their will on locals who have little or no say in the matter as has been the case elsewhere in the United States. The discussion has shifted from primarily finding viable ways for humans and wolves to coexist to focusing on basic property rights and control of local resources. This is, I believe, to the detriment of all parties involved.
Beyond the ethical arguments (which are beyond the scope of this post) against using government to perpetrate force upon one’s neighbors, there is an obvious sustainability problem in depending on government to command one’s will by way of threats and force. As soon as “the other side” gets control of the government, the solution can be quickly undone and worse.
For evidence of this, we need only look to the history of the wolf population in the United States. By the early 20th century, gray wolves were nearly eradicated from the lower 48 states thanks in large part to government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded eradication programs at both state and federal levels. For example, in the late 1920’s, the Minnesota state government offered $15 for full grown wolves and $6 for pups. The state of Montana paid wolf bounties of $3-15 on and off between 1883 and 1927, and by 1930 wolves had been completed eradicated from the state (.pdf). In fact, as recently as 2007 then governor Sarah Palin tried to use taxpayer dollars to fund $150 wolf bounties in Alaska. Federal predator control programs funded by taxes began in 1914 and were ultimately responsible for the eradication of wolves from Yellowstone National Park (.pdf).
Government policy can and does change very rapidly. It is unsustainable as long-term protection for a recovering species such as gray wolves. Moreover, every day in court and every other step taken to bring the government into the picture destroys hard-earned good will built through private, voluntary and cooperative programs. That good will ultimately will be needed when government policy inevitably veers off in some other direction, but it’s not going to be there if things continue down the path of calling in the government to force compliance time and again.
There are non-confrontational, non-coercive means by which to promote environmental conservation as Defenders of Wildlife itself has aptly demonstrated. Any ethical and sustainable means by which to facilitate ongoing human co-existence with wolves must necessarily be grounded in respect for individual rights and, indeed, for individuals themselves. This respect must be demonstrated through negotiation, persuasion, and cooperation rather than by threat or use of force.
Kirsten blogs at 
Issues such as these are really tough for me as I do really enjoy nature and wildlife a lot. I lived in the White Mountains of Eastern Arizona when they re-introduced wolves there just south of Alpine. The problem with these Western States goes way back to the absurd Open Range grazing policy. I really think that ranchers in these arid areas should have been permitted to homestead larger tracts of land rather than have that Open Range policy. The adoption of the Open Range policy was anti-private property and, though the LibSocs think that the tragedy of the commons is a myth well… They’re wrong.
This was a really great summary of the issue, Kirsten.
The Mexican wolf reintroduction in the southwest kind of fascinates me.
In the Northern Rockies, we have 1500+ gray wolves up from 29 when we started in 1995. There are thousands more around the world including several thousand in Alaska.
On the other hand, Mexican wolf reintroduction has been a big flop. There are only 200 Mexican wolves in captivity and only 50 or so in the wild after reintroduction in 1998 to the southwest. That’s only about half the number that were reintroduced.
Yet you go to Defenders’ home page and what do you see first and second at the top of the lefthand column? Save the wolves in Alaska and save the wolves in the Northern Rockies. No mention whatsoever of the Mexican wolf situation. How does that make any kind of sense?
This week wolf population counts were released for 2009. This is significant for the tri-state area where litigation (mentioned above) is on-going after the first year that Idaho’s and Montana’s wolf populations were removed from the Endangered Species list and these two states held their first wolf hunting seasons since reintroduction.
The results were encouraging for those of us who are not entirely hostile to the presence of a wild wolf population, but also do not want government regulation to allow that population to grow unsustainably out of control.
Populations, pack numbers and breeding pair numbers continued to increase, but at a much lower rate than when growth was unchecked by fair-chase hunting. And for the first time there are now confirmed breeding pairs in eastern Washington and Oregon- animals that were not specifically placed there by government action.
In spite of two states allowing hunting, the wolf population continues to grow and spread to the point where the Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2009 Interagency Annual Report concludes:
“By every biological measure the NRM wolf population is fully recovered. Resident packs now appear to saturate suitable habitat in the core recovery areas and dispersing wolves routinely travel between them and breed. Consequently, genetic diversity in the NRM remains very high. The 3 subpopulations function as a single large NRM metapopulation (Figure 1). Lone dispersing wolves travel beyond the core recovery areas and have gone into most adjacent states. Numerous research projects are underway examining: wolf population dynamics, predator-prey interactions, wolf interactions with other wildlife species, wolf diseases and parasites, possible wolf-caused trophic cascades, and livestock depredation by wolves. Biological restoration of wolves to the NRM has been completed.”
Defenders of Wildlife is likely to have a hard time trying to use the courts successfully to push an anti-hunting stance given that this species continues to thrive in the Northern Rockies. And I think it’s only going to damage their cooperative efforts the longer they keep it up.