Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
hold toward wolves. To put the matter in perspective, losses from wolves in the greater Yellowstone
area have been less than one-thousandth of annual losses of cattle and less than one-hundredth of sheep
losses. Indeed, a few ranchers have even testified that their losses have diminished with the advent of
the wolves. Why? Because wolves largely displace coyotes, and wolves are easier than coyotes to keep
away from the sheep.
Several steps have also been taken to compensate ranchers for livestock depredation by wolves.
First, problem wolves are either trapped and transported elsewhere or killed. Second, ranchers grazing
livestock on public lands have been granted reduced grazing fees to compensate them for such losses.
And, third, Defenders of Wildlife, a private organization, reimburses ranchers for losses proven to have
been caused by wolves.
It should be noted that trapping and removing problem wolves hasn't proven very successful. Once
wolves have learned how easy it is to kill livestock, they often return or seek other areas where they can
prey on cattle and sheep, and these wolves ultimately have to be killed. Moreover, many translocated
wolves often die. In either case, most of the problem wolves end up dying soon after their removal. It
appears, therefore, that the best solution to problem wolves is simply to kill them in the first place.
Although livestock losses to wolves have been fewer than expected, an occasional rancher has
suffered financial loss despite safeguards and compensation. A few have complained that they couldn't
locate livestock that they suspected was killed by wolves, or couldn't find it in time to prove that wolves
were the culprit, so that they could be compensated. This problem is being addressed by putting a radio
tag on each calf; when a calf dies, it can be found quickly enough to see whether or not compensation
is warranted.
Despite some complaints, the system of killing problem wolves and compensating farmers for losses
has worked quite well in Minnesota for a number of years. Clearly, adoption of this system in the West
isn't problem-free, and undoubtedly needs tweaking a bit here and there to fit local conditions, but the
difficulties should be manageable in a way that fairly compensates ranchers for losses and yet allows
wild populations of wolves to exist.
Now the Northeast seems to be the next likely source of wolf controversy. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is preparing a wolf recovery plan for the region—a plan that could ultimately recommend the
release of wolves in remote areas, most likely in northern Maine and in the Adirondack Mountains of
New York. Predictably, heated opposition is already lining up, even though the lengthy planning pro-
cess has hardly begun.
Reaction from New Hampshire was swift, and the legislature passed a law banning the release of
wolves within the state. At least part of this reaction was based on fear and sheer ignorance; one legis-
lator even raised the ludicrous specter of packs of wolves attacking tourists and hikers at night! Some
farmers' and sportsmen's groups are also opposing any wolf release in their respective states.
On the other hand, thirty-one environmental and conservation groups have formed the Eastern Tim-
ber Wolf Recovery Network. These include the National Wildlife Federation, which is the nation's
largest private conservation organization, and in aggregate they form a powerful pro-wolf lobby. They
