Federal Regulation of Wolves in the United States By Kyle Hamilton, NS241, Fall 2011 The early American view on wolves was mostly shaped by Britain. Since much of the economy was dependant on herding sheep, cattle, etc. it was seen as a necessity to exterminate as many wolves as possible (Mech at 318). Perhaps because of this, the wolf became a symbol for evil within the Catholic Church and was often depicted negatively within their folklore and writings. Id. at 293. By the early sixteenth century, England’s last wolf had been killed. Id. at 318. Almost immediately after the pilgrims had reached America’s shores a fresh elimination of wolves began. In 1630, twenty-one years after the first livestock arrived in Jamestown, the Plymouth Colony enacted a wolf bounty, which was then replicated in all other settlements on the eastern coast. By 1700, all the wolf populations in New England had been eliminated. Id. at 320. A large part of the mindset behind this massacre was that it was the settler’s manifest destiny to conquer and control nature according to their own needs. As civilization spread west, so did the practice of herding, which necessitated even more killings. Between 1870 and 1877, around 100,000 wolves had been killed in Montana alone and by 1890 there were 1.1 million cattle and 2.2 million sheep in the state. Id. at 320. In 1915, the United States government established the Division of Predator and Rodent Control (PARC) and hunters were paid full time to kill wolves. The purpose for the division was to eliminate large predators from all federal land and the reason behind it was the threat to livestock (and in turn the lively hood of many farmers) that these animals posed. Id. at 294. By 1930, wolves had disappeared from all but three of the forty-eight contiguous states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Id. at 321. However, in 1973 Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which gave protection to the remaining wolves in the three states mentioned above and then to any wolves found in the other forty-five contiguous states in Id. The purpose of the Act, according to Fish and Wildlife Service, is to Provide a program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened species as well as a means whereby the ecosystems upon which such species depend may be conserved. The Act also mandates that the Secretary of the Interior shall develop and implement plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species. It is further declared to be the policy of congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. (Pg. iv of the Preface of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan) This helped lead to the next step of wolf reintroduction, which was the drafting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. While the plan was created in 1987, wolves were not reintroduced into Yellowstone until The reason for this is that the plan was heavily debated and so the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to take its time. “Over a 32-month period, some 130 public meetings were held, 750,000 informational documents distributed, and 170,000 comments received from the public.” (Mech 324). The reintroductions were a success; so much so that future introductions that had been planned were cancelled. By 2002 there were 250 wolves in the Yellowstone area and 260 wolves in Idaho. As a direct result of the reintroductions, 97 cattle and 426 sheep have been killed; however, this is only a fraction the amount that had been projected. Id. Another plan had been drafted previously in 1982, named the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan. This plan had been created out of necessity when the population of Mexican wolves was down to only five (with only one of them being female). They were captured and bred, but were not released until There are now over 50 Mexican wolves now in the wild. Id. These plans for reintroduction show that the government has succeeded in reversing the wolves’ fate of man made extinction, but it can be seen from the numbers that were killed in previous centuries and the numbers that now remain that there is still a long way to go. There has been a large amount of controversy on whether or not wolves should be reintroduced onto American land at all. Many different individual farmers and non-profit organizations all over the country have compiled persuasive evidence of why it would ultimately be for the betterment of human society for wolves to disappear. The oldest and most pervasive reason that wolves are bad for society is that they incessantly kill livestock. Eighteen days after the wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone the first livestock killing by wolf was reported and, by September of 1996, 20% of the released wolves had been involved in similar killings (Mader 4). In most cases, wolves only kill one domesticated animal per attack (Mech 308). However, there have been reports of something that has been called ‘surplus killing’ where even a single wolf will kill several animals and not eat any. It’s been hypothesized that wolves occasionally slaughter domesticated animals en masse because, in nature, they kill whenever they have the opportunity- as they cannot know when their next meal will come; thus, when they find a trapped flock of turkeys or herd of sheep, they give into a sort of natural bloodlust. Id. at 145. For instance, there was an incident in Denali National Park where six wolves killed over seventeen caribou in 1991; though it was later reported that the wolves dug up many of the carcasses a few months later and began eating them. Id. It should also be noted that the above numbers only indicate known killings. Sometimes, a carcass is eaten completely by nearby scavengers or is covered by heavy vegetation (Mader 6). The killing of domesticated animals results in a direct monetary loss for their owners, which has led to compensation programs and state insurance having to offset the losses. In 1997 alone, $81,270 was paid out for wolf killings in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho (Mech 309). This leads to the second reason why many individuals are against wolf reintroduction: Economic loss. It has been estimated that wolf reintroduction in the U.S. Northern Rockies will be 12 million dollars over a three decade period. It’s also been predicted that there will be, “$187,000- $465,000 in lost hunter benefits, $207,000-$414,000 in potential reduced hunter benefits, $1,888-$30,470 in livestock losses. However, the yearly gain would be $23 million per year in increased tourist expenditures.” Id. at 299. Agencies, non-for profit organizations, and numerous environmentalists have consistently stated that reintroducing the wolf produce an essential amount of biodiversity back into their former habitats. Studies have shown that since the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone very positive changes have been made in the ecosystem. Prior to their return, there was a high density of elk in the park, which were depleting an alarming amount of vegetation- subsequently reducing the habitats and food supply of other animals, like beavers, birds, and moose (Smith 334). After the reintroduction, the elk population fell low enough that hunters complained about reduced hunting opportunities, but it then rose back to healthy levels. Species of plants that have been rare in the park during the last 120 years like willow and aspen have begun spreading again and more common plant varieties are back to normal levels of growth. Id. at 338. However, it will take many more decades before it can truly be measured how much the wolves have impacted the habitat. Id. at 339. Bad for Society?Benefit to Biodiversity Works Cited Mader, T.R.. "The Wolf: Myth, Legend & Misconception." Abundant Wildlife Society of North America. N.p., Web. 14 Nov Mech, L. David. Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. 1. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Print. Smith, Douglas W. "Yellowstone after Wolves." BioScience (2003): Web. 14 Nov U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. Rockville: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service, Web. It would seem that conservation has been implemented and will continue to be maintained by various agencies of the federal government. And while there has been controversy over the concept of reintroduction, it has mostly been caused by farmers and ranchers- 90% of whom disapprove; the general public has consistently shown support for modern wolf regulation (Mech 295). It may be centuries until a balance is discovered between where the wolf population was and where it can be within a modern United States, but the government has, for the moment (and foreseeable future), decided that biodiversity is in the countries best interest and has reversed a pattern that may have convenient for society in the short run, but would have been tragic and disastrous for future generations. Conclusion