Nadeau 1 Hannah Nadeau Tyler Nickl English 2010 April 21, 2013 The Big Bad Wolf: Effectively

managing American wolf populations My, what big eyes you have, Grandma! The better to see you with, my dear. For centuries, variations of the Little Red Riding Hood fable have been told across North America and Europe. The terrifying story of the young girl who visits a wolf instead of her grandmother warns of the dangers of the wild forest. There are many literary interpretations of the story, but every one of them portrays the wolf as a villain. Little Red Riding Hood is not the only fable which portrays wolves in a negative light. The Boy Who Cried Wolf and The Three Little Pigs also warn of The Big Bad Wolf and the dangers of associating with him. Fables are one of the many ways employed by cultures to pass on their traditional beliefs to future generations. Stories about villainous wolves continue to be told to this day, indicating the historical fear and dread many cultures have regarding wolves. Such fearful and vengeful attitudes have influenced the management of wolf populations worldwide. Although policies for wolf management should be based on pure science, this did not occur until the later half of the twenty-first century. Instead, many people used fear, cultural tradition, and the need for livestock protection to rationalize the widespread slaughtering of wolves across the globe. Because of conflicting scientific, cultural, and historical beliefs, wolf management is now one of the most controversial natural resource issues in North America. This paper analyzes the historical and cultural significance of wolves and wolf management in order to provide insight into current management procedures in the United States. This analysis will illustrate that despite

Nadeau 2 controversy, the methods employed by the federal government are indeed effective in managing and protecting wolves in America. Around the world, fables and folktales portraying a wolf as the antagonist were typically passed on by oral and written tradition and were built upon a foundation of rational fear. These tales eventually made their way to the Americas through immigration. Cultures who relied heavily on agricultural and livestock production as a means of maintaining a livelihood were threatened by wild carnivorous predators such as wolves, lions, and bears. It is logical to assume that this practical fear lead to the creation of exaggerated tales intended to reflect the current beliefs of the culture, as is the case with many folk tales (Bottigheimer 211). This combination of global cultural beliefs influenced the mindset of Americas first settlers. Roderick Nash published a book titled, Wilderness and the American Mind in which he describes how early American settlers viewed the wilderness as unknown, disordered, and dangerous something that must be tamed and settled before it could be profitable. They believed that civilization was far superior to the wilderness and held the view that it was better for something to be tamed than to remain wild. Therefore, they thought their tamed dogs were superior to wolves, their cultivated wheat was superior to wild grass, and their cows were superior to the deer that roamed free across the land. Basically, early settlers were firmly convinced that the controller (the settlers) was far superior to the controlled (the wilderness and its individual components) (Nash xii). Settlers used this domination mindset to rationalize extensive predator removal. In the early 1800s, the demand for wolf pelts soared and hunters set out to kill every wolf they could find. As ranching slowly spread across the western states, ranchers protected their livestock by killing any wolf they saw. Eventually, wolf killing became a profession. Both

Nadeau 3 federal and state governments offered bounties on each wolf that was killed. President Theodore Roosevelt was in full support of the complete eradication of wolves in America after the US Biological Survey the precursor to the present day US Fish and Wildlife Service declared extermination of the wolf as a top government priority. In a seven year span, wolf bounty hunters killed 385,000 wolves. Yellowstone National Park, the first national park in America, was created to preserve public lands for future generations. Ironically, government hunters killed the last wolves in Yellowstone in the 1940s so much for preservation! By the late twentieth century, wolves were nearly completely exterminated in the contiguous United States. (Alliance for the Wild Rockies) This threat of complete extinction created a significant complication. Wolves are a keystone species, which means they play a vital role in the maintenance of their ecosystem. Predators are a keystone species in most ecosystems because they manage population growth of prey species and provide necessary balance to the food chain. When wolves became locally extinct in Yellowstone, elk and deer populations soared, which caused significant overgrazing of water vegetation. This led to decreased water quality in the area and destroyed habitat for animals that depend on these riparian areas for food and shelter. (Keystone Conservation) Despite the nearly complete extinction of wolves across the Lower 48, Americans began to realize the effects their actions had on the ecosystems around them and as a nation they began to change their mindset. Although progress towards preservation and conservation was being made by the formation of national parks and national forests, it took years for the growing nation to realize that the wildlife living in parks and forests must be protected as well. In 1940, the US Fish and Wildlife Service was formed under the Department of the Interior, signaling a slow

Nadeau 4 movement towards a more positive form of wildlife management based on a foundational conservation mindset. The later half of the 1900s saw an increase in government legislation designed to create more stringent rules regarding land and wildlife management. In 1964, the Wilderness Act was passed, initially designating 9.1 million acres of land as wilderness. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers act was passed in 1968 and implemented specific guidelines intended to preserve the character of rivers across America. Five years later, in 1973, President Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which designated several species of wildlife across America, including wolves, as threatened, endangered, vulnerable, or extinct. The ESA also implemented harsh federal penalties for the killing of any listed species. This act laid the foundation for population renewal and eventual reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone National Park in 1997. So began the controversy. The entire ESA itself was, and continues to be, plagued with criticism: it is too strict, it is not strict enough, it violates private property rights the list is endless. However, criticism of any government act or policy is inescapable. The more important evaluation of the policy lies in the hands of the two major groups trying to influence the current status of wolves on the list. Ranchers across America are one of the primary stakeholders in the wolf debate. They tend to hold a more traditional view on the wolf issue, believing that wolves are a great evil to be conquered. When a herd of cattle or sheep grazes across a large area, wolf attacks are inevitable. Clearly, the predation of livestock has serious financial repercussions for all affected ranches. Jon Robinett, a rancher following the tradition of his great-grandfather in Wyoming says, When wolves are hitting your place, they chew into your thin profit margin (Wilkinson). The large

Nadeau 5 economic holes which wolves tear into ranchers pocketbooks give ranching communities a strong foundation for fighting the laws protecting the Big Bad Wolf. Although it is possible for ranchers to be compensated by the government for their livestock losses, it is time consuming and is hardly worthwhile in the long run. Ranchers must apply for a special license to hunt large predators that prey on their livestock and must somehow prove that a wolf did kill sheep or cattle. Because of these complications, ranchers would prefer to have a free ability to hunt any and all wolves who may or may not have attacked their livestock. Most ranchers are strongly set against any protection of wolves and it may be said that they hate the ESA with a passion. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), one of Wyomings strongest opponents of any type of wolf protection resorted to almost ad hominem attacks against wolf advocates and his fellow senators by saying, The interest groups and bureaucrats advocating keeping the animal [gray wolf] on the list [ESA] wouldnt know a gray wolf if it blew their house down (Barrasso: Wyoming Prevails on Wolf Decision.). These are valid concerns, especially for individuals whose income depends on halting livestock predation. However, instead of removing all wolf protections in order to satisfy the ranchers, state and federal governments should reform wildlife policies by continuing to protect the wolves while simultaneously making it more efficient for ranchers and wildlife officials to remove rogue wolves that are actually preying on livestock. If this were done, it is logical to assume that ranchers would be less aggressive about their stance against the ESA because it appears that their primary resistance is based on the income loss caused by wolf predation. Wildlife interest groups, such as Defenders of Wildlife, are another significant player in wolf management. However, wildlife interest groups usually take a stance completely opposite to the one held by ranchers. Both ranchers and the interest groups are so passionate about their

Nadeau 6 personal beliefs that they have taken the wolf issue to court. Defenders of Wildlife urges citizens to contact their representatives to request that they fight any legislation to remove protection of wolves. They do not believe that the wolf populations are large enough to warrant a removal from the ESA. It appears that they fail to accept the fact that when wolves are delisted in any area of a given state, that state must immediately draft a wolf management plan and have it approved by the federal government. The management plan must show how the state plans to protect a certain number of wolves to continually ensure that the wolves continue to be able to reproduce and maintain healthy pack numbers. Both ranchers and wolf advocates have substantial logic and passion behind their arguments. True, wolves are pests and make ranching even more complicated than it already is. Conversely, wolves are a beautiful keystone species. Wolves should not be eradicated, neither should they be allowed to singlehandedly destroy a ranching familys livelihood. It is important that wolves are managed effectively and with proper balance, taking into consideration the effects on agriculture, livestock, and the ecosystem by giving each area equal deference. Earlier this year, wolves were removed from the ESA (delisted) in the majority of the northwestern US and Wyoming, requiring these states to draft management plans immediately. Many of these states were grateful for the change because it allowed them to manage all state wildlife more efficiently. Before wolves were removed from the ESA, states were unable to manage wolf populations. Every state has a department of natural resources, which is responsible for monitoring populations of mammals and predators for the sake of protecting the current numbers and setting hunting limits for large mammal hunts. Before wolves were delisted, the mammal populations of multiple states were being preyed upon by the wolves, and the states were unable to remove problem wolves. Now, states can manage wildlife more effectively and

Nadeau 7 are allowed to remove wolves as they see fit. However, it is critical they do so in a way which preserves the wolf population (Kaste)! Not only does this delisting process create a more simple strategy for state wildlife agencies, it also allows power to be given back to the states a concept foundational to the constitution. In the Tenth Amendment, the US Constitution delegates all powers not reserved by the federal government to the states. As stated previously, individual state agencies generally manage wildlife. However, when there is a species crisis, the federal government steps in to protect any species that is under threat of becoming extinct by placing it on the ESA. While some argue that the ESA is unconstitutional or that it violates private property rights, I believe that it is absolutely necessary for Americas natural resources to be protected. It is better that the federal government is able to temporarily step in and protect those resources via the Endangered Species Act instead of standing idle while America loses her unique wildlife. After a species recovers, management may then be returned to the states once they have met federal management qualifications. Listing an endangered species on the ESA is no less constitutional than deploying the National Guard to assist in a state affected by a natural disaster. Both actions are for the greater good and are only temporary. The Endangered Species Act is clearly necessary when it is used to prevent utter extinction of a species. However, the line is very thin between correct management intended to prevent extinction, and management so restrictive that it causes problems for other keystone species. The wolf is one of the only species that has been so controversially listed and delisted. It is also one of the few that has been locally delisted in such a concise manner. As controversial as it may be, the decision to delist the gray wolf in areas where the population met the required level appears to be the correct choice.

Nadeau 8 However, management of the wolf by the federal government is not flawless! The government could implement several additional, noninvasive techniques to more adequately address the valid arguments against wolf management. There are still wolf predation problems in areas where wolves are not yet delisted, and they need to be more effectively addressed by the government. One major flaw with the current system is the lack of proper compensation for ranchers. If the government were to create a more efficient program that allowed ranchers to apply for compensation more easily, it seems logical that ranchers would be less offended by what may come across as an uncaring bureaucracy. Supposedly, the federal government does have a compensation program, but if the horrendous lack of accessible information is any indication, it is terribly managed. Not only does this program need to be more accessible, it also needs to be more efficient. Defenders of Wildlife used to provide a compensation program that was deactivated after the federal government instituted their own. The government would have more support from ranchers if federal policy reflected the Defenders of Wildlife policy. If a rancher suspects wolf predation when he or she finds a dead calf or lamb on his or her property, clear, concise photographs would be taken within a very specific timeline and the photographs would be sent to a third party biologist who would be designated to take charge of only wolf predation cases. If this biologist determines that the livestock was killed by a wolf, they could then approve the case and transfer the case to a state or federal wildlife officer who would verify the physical evidence. Finally, financial loss would be calculated by calculating the current market value for that specific type of livestock and the rancher would receive equitable compensation (FAQs About the Wolf Compensation Trust).

Nadeau 9 Another necessary policy improvement would increase the accessibility of wolf management education for ranchers, wolf supporters, and the general public. If these three groups have a greater knowledge of the importance of wolves in ecosystems, the opinions of other groups, and the history of wolf management in general, it will be easier for them to understand the need for efficient wolf protection and management programs. Although some ranchers and special wildlife interest groups are not impressed with the current management and protection procedures, compared to other federal policies, the management of wolves via the ESA and state policies has been quite effective. Improvements are necessary, but the ESA effectively began the reversal of a cultural mindset. It provided the opportunity for Americans to give the Big Bad Wolf a second chance. For most Americans, wolves are now a respected animal, instead of a terrifying threat to humanity. Because of the Endangered Species Act, a species previously faced with extinction has been reborn states with no wolves in the mid-nineteenth century now have several complete wolf packs. The Northern Rocky Mountain regions, as defined by the US Fish and Wildlife service, has seen an increase in wolf populations since implementing the ESA. Although wolves were near extinction for 70 years, populations in the Northern Rocky Mountain region have increased to 1,651 individual wolves as of 2010 because of federal involvement. (Gray Wolf Population in the United States) Despite heated contention, the current federal wolf management policy is clearly effective in bringing a keystone species back from the brink of extinction. Every government policy contains flaws and needs slight improvement; the ESA and the policies of individual states are no exception. However, the current federal policy allowed one of the worlds most elegant species, the North American Gray Wolf to make a comeback I will gladly accept that

Nadeau 10 alternative over complete extinction. The wolf recovery process is by no means complete; wolves are still endangered in some areas of the US, but I believe we are steadily progressing on the path to a balanced, brighter future, thanks to federal intervention.

Nadeau 11 Works Cited Bottigheimer, Ruth B. Fairy-Tale Origins, Fairy-Tale Dissemination, And Folk Narrative Theory. Fabula 47.3/4 (2006): 211-221. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 Nov. 2011. Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. 3rd. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982. Print.

The Eradication of the Wolf. Wild Rockies Alliance. Alliance for the Wild Rockies, n.d. Web. 17 Nov 2011. <http://www.wildrockiesalliance.org/issues/wolves/articles/ history_of_bounty_hunting.pdf> What Are Keystone Species. Keystone Conservation. Keystone Conservation, n.d. Web. 1 Dec 2011. <http://www.keystoneconservation.us/keystone_conservation/keystonespecies.html>. Wilkinson, Todd. Wolf Wars: Can Man and Predator Coexist in the West. Christian Science Monitor. 03 June 211. Web. 21 Nov 2011. Kaste, Martin. Gray Wolf in Cross Hairs Again After Delisting. NPR.org. NPR, 23 June 2011. Web. 21 Nov 2011. <http://www.npr.org/2011/06/23/137172486/gray-wolf-inhairs-again-after-delisting.>. FAQs About the Wolf Compensation Trust. www.defenders.org. Defenders of Wildlife, n.d. Web. 21 Nov 2011. <http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/ wildlife_conservation/solutions/wolf_compensation_trust/ frequently_asked_questions.php>. Gray Wolf Population in the United States. www.fws.gov. US Fish and Wildlife Service, October 2011. Web. 22 Nov 2011. <http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/pdf/ graywolfpop10to11.pdf>. Barrasso: Wyoming Prevails on Wolf Decision. www.barrasso.senate.gov. John Barrasso, 21 Feb. 2008. Web. 22 Nov 2011. <http://barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? cross-

Nadeau 12

FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=3d99403ffd76-fcad- d661e172bf7fa0ed&Region_id=&Issue_id=>.