9 important keys to gray wolf recovery in the United States

1. Increased public awareness of the true nature of the wolves and the impact they have on their ecosystems

The natural world is always being challenged by the human desire to expand and develop. This makes long-term conservation very difficult, and even more so when the species trying to be protected conjures up images of evil and ruthless murder in the minds of a significant minority of the population. Wolves have been demonized since the invent of human civilization as the “big bad wolf”; it is just within the last 100 years or so that humans have begun to look at this animal as not just a blood-thirsty killer, but also as a family-oriented, extremely intelligent species which has an tremendously positive impact on its ecosystem, and is actually naturally very afraid of humans (there has only been one confirmed case in the last 100 years of a wild healthy wolf killing a human in North America). There will always be myths and folklore about wolves, but as people learn more about the true animal, people will begin to see that the “big bad wolf” is a purely fictional character. Therefore, it is important that those who know the truth about wolves, such as wildlife education and conservation facilities, spread the word and educate the masses.

2. Limit livestock grazing on public lands within wolves’ (potential) range

Possibly the most significant impediment to wolf recovery in the United States is the amount of cattle and sheep on land which is otherwise considered to be prime wolf habitat. Although wolves take much less livestock than human thieves, weather, bears, coyotes, or domestic dogs, they do still occasionally eat livestock and ranchers tend to “cry wolf” when they see that one of their animals has been preyed upon. There are many non-lethal control methods which can be used to prevent livestock depredation, but as long as privately-owned livestock remain on publicly-owned land in wolf country, wolves will be blamed for livestock depredation and livestock owners will demand revenge.

3. Stop slaughtering wolves to boost ungulate populations

There has not been any scientific evidence to show that wolves single-handedly negatively affect their ungulate prey populations. Since wolves eat ungulates, such as deer, elk, bison, and caribou, many people assume that less wolves means more ungulates; what they don’t take into account are the types of individuals that wolves go after…the sick, weak, old, injured, and very young (and these young animals grow VERY quickly). By taking out the vulnerable animals, wolves make the herds healthier and stronger, and in turn actually allow for the herd to be better adapted to avoid other causes of mortality. Wolves do, however, keep their prey on the move so the elk, deer, caribou, etc. are generally harder to find after wolf re-colonization, although that does not mean they are not there. The slaughter of wolves to increase wild ungulate populations is not backed by scientific facts and is actually anti-intuitive in many situations. There are other solutions to boosting ungulate numbers (for example, less human hunting, since humans, unlike wolves, tend to go after the biggest and strongest animals) that would be much more impactful and much less cruel.

4. Limit human development within wolves’ (potential) range

Unless humans can learn to live harmoniously alongside wolves and other large predators (and possibly even if we can), Homo sapiens and Canis lupus make a volatile mix and should therefore maintain a comfortable distance. Human persecution has been the number one cause of wolves coming to the brink of extinction in these past two centuries and although humans are generally much more supportive of other predators now than we were in past centuries, there is enough hostility towards the large canine to put its survival in jeopardy.

Even if humans do collectively decide that we can live alongside wolves, it may not be good enough at this point. With such a large human population within the United States, we have only saved room for pockets of wilderness- untamed land which is crucial to wolves being able to live as they have for millions of years. Development further fragments potential wolf habitat and creates “island ecosystems” which are not conducive to the survival of large animals. Island ecosystems also prevent gene flow, causing a higher chance of inbreeding and a genetic bottleneck effect, and force animals to live in closer proximity to one another, increasing the likelihood that diseases will become more prevalent within the population. All of these could have dire consequences for wolf recovery.

5. Expand the definition of “endangered” as it pertains to Canis lupus

In early 2011, under the federal endangered species list, there were approximately 1600 gray wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Now that they have been removed from the list, those three states only have to maintain 100 wolves each in order to prevent the federal government from once again taking wolf management into its own hands. Montana and Idaho have both sanctioned public wolf hunts, which have been underway since late 2011. As of February 1^st, 2012, over 400 wolves have been legally killed or trapped in those two states. 300 wolves is a huge improvement from the handful of wolves that existed in this region 20 years ago, but such a small, fragmented population could be very vulnerable to disease, weather, or poaching. In addition, wolves currently exist in only 5% of their historic range. The “endangered” status should be not just determined by the population size in the area, but by the extent of the regional range as well.

6. Federal reintroduction of gray wolves into Olympic Peninsula and southern Rocky Mountains

It is believed by some researchers that wolves could thrive on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington and in the southern Rocky Mountains if they could only make their way over there. These areas are part of the gray wolf’s historic range and, especially in the case of the southern Rocky Mountains, are plagued by overabundant elk populations. US Fish and Wildlife Service is actually currently looking into the option of a federal reintroduction into the southern Rockies in order to reduce the vast amount of elk. If handled like the Yellowstone/ Central Idaho reintroduction, with the potential for range expansion and less lethal management (as opposed to the Mexican wolf reintroduction), there is little doubt that these wolves would survive and expand in this region.

7. Establishment of wildlife corridors between gray wolf populations

The connection between wildlife corridors and long-term sustainability of large mammals has been proven to be crucial in recent years. Without wildlife corridors, genetic flow ceases and the population loses the ability to effectively adapt to unexpected events. “Island” (unconnected) populations have also been shown to have a significant negative impact on larger animals, such as wolves, which require large tracts of land to live on. In order to have a greater likelihood of finding a desirable, unrelated mate, it is very beneficial for wolves to have a corridor between their population and other populations.

8. Allow Mexican gray wolves to expand out of Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area

Under their designation as an “experimental/non-essential population”, a classification which was designed to prevent political controversy and poaching, Mexican wolves are not allowed to roam outside of the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA), in addition to being more likely to be lethally managed for livestock depredation (despite this being federally-owned public land). The Mexican gray wolf is the most critically-endangered mammal in North America and is being set up for disaster by being forced to stay within an area that may not even be able to support 100 wolves, the initial population goal of the Mexican Wolf Species Survival Plan, using current management methods.

9. Begin reintroducing Mexican gray wolves on New Mexico’s (larger, less developed) side of the BRWRA

Mexican gray wolves are currently only released on Arizona’s side of the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, due to New Mexico’s resistance to the reintroduction since the beginning of the program. Despite the fact that the Blue Range is on national forest land, and despite the fact that there are less than five dozen Mexican wolves left in the entire world, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has given in to New Mexico’s demand that no wolves be released on their state’s side of the wolf recovery area, so all releases are performed on Arizona’s side. Arizona’s side of the wolf recovery area is much smaller and has more roads, creating a much more hostile climate for the wolves. More roads means more people, and more people has unfortunately meant more poaching and vehicle collisions for wolves.