Ultimate Sacrifice:
Defending the truth about wolves and looking toward the future
by Renee Van Camp
Wolf Program Director, Alliance for the Wild Rockies

"A lot of animals have adapted to humans - like coyotes, who've expanded their range. Wolves haven't budged an inch, and the price they pay is their lives." - Dr. Douglas Smith, Yellowstone Wolf Project Leader

Once the most widely distributed large predator in North America and listed in 1974 as endangered, wolves are giving the ultimate sacrifice trying to survive in less than 2% of their native territories. These lands are now filled with roads and cars, hi-rises and skyscrapers, factories and mining operations, ski resorts and RV hookups, shopping malls and parking lots, and humans with all of our material possessions and our mind sets that leave little room for wildlife and their wilderness needs. We have pushed wolves out of our lives for decades by illegal, and what's worse?.LEGAL hunting, trapping and poisoning that caused their extirpation in the 1930's from all but a handful of lone wolves hiding out in tiny pockets of wilderness in the lower 48 states. Historical records indicate a take of 100,000 wolves per year between 1870-1877 in Montana alone. We had essentially erased them from existence.

Until 1995, ecosystems slid off balance, valleys became heavily overgrazed beyond recognition, and ungulate populations grew so rapidly that many died of starvation and coyotes and smaller predators overpopulated an increasingly shrinking wilderness, oftentimes winding up in backyards or city lots. Even entire stands of aspens in Yellowstone withered away from over grazing never to be seen again??..

However, in 1995 and 1996 66 wolves from Alberta and British Columbia began what would be the ultimate sacrifice for their species. The reintroduction of the grey wolf into the Northern Rocky Mountains. With helicopters, dart guns, leg hold traps, tranquilizers, and steel crates these wolves were brought down to create what would begin the recovered population of the grey wolf. Unfortunately, the lands that they used to roam had changed, and as equally unfortunate the mind sets and attitudes of humankind had not. Many people did welcome the wolves back with more than open arms, they let them into their hearts and souls, however, still many demanded their removal and at the very least a heavy-handed management of the wolves. As if the wolves had not paid enough of a price for existence, they were now in line for lives full of monitoring, ear tagging, collaring, more darting, more tranquilizers, destroyed pack connections, limited territories, invisible boundary lines, more steel crates, more leg hold traps and even continued legal killing of their kind. All of this in the name of MANAGEMENT of this endangered wild species.

This management went hand in hand with an experimental/non-essential status that would take away many federal protections and make it much easier to control the wolves if and when they walked across the imaginary lines of the recovery zones. This classification also seriously endangered the few existing wolves that happened to be surviving in the wilds of the Northern Rockies when the 66 wolves were delivered. Reintroduced wolves discovered the existing wolves. It became next to impossible to distinguish between a naturally-occurring wolf and a reintroduced (or non-essential) wolf. Not to mention offspring of a pair of this sort.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service responded to many hostile, viscous, unwarranted and simply uneducated comments regarding what they would do in certain situations where these reintroduced wolves would come in contact with ranches, livestock, farmers, domestic property and rural lifestyles. Their answer was MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL! If we can tell you where the wolves are and punish them when they do not behave to your liking, then will you be satisfied and allow the wolves to remain and therefore allow the reintroduction program to be considered a success.

The majority of the concerns focused on the following situations: 1. Livestock/wolf interactions and depredations 2. Financial responsibility of losses due to wolves 3. Wolves effecting the number of available game animals 4. Human/wolf confrontations

To bring some perspective to the depredation complaint is the fact that the amount of domestic animals wolves prey on is only a fraction of animals lost every year to countless other causes. The USFWS reports that in the NW Montana recovery area from 1987 to 2000 there have been 63 sheep lost to wolves and 480,500 lost to other predators with an additional 1,487,000 lost to weather, disease, birthing difficulties, poison and theft. In Idaho, sheep and lambs lost to wolves are less than half of one percent of total losses. In 2001 11 cattle and 62 sheep were killed by wolves in the Central Idaho recovery area. In comparison, 2,600 cattle and 11,600 sheep were killed by other predators including 60% taken by coyotes and 9% by domestic dogs, according to the US Department of Agriculture. Additionally, 30,400 sheep were lost in 2000 in Idaho due to non-predator causes. According to USFWS, in the greater Yellowstone area, annual cattle losses number 8,340, however wolves COMBINED with other predators equal only 3% of those losses. Between 1995 and 2001 wolves in the Yellowstone area killed 41 cattle and 256 sheep and an average of 8,300 cattle and 13,300 sheep die every year of various unintentional causes. To sum things up, as reported by the USFWS 2002 Annual Wolf Report, in all three recovery areas, at the end of 2002 there were 664 surviving wolves with 39 wolves killed due to control issues. In comparison there were 5,910,000 cattle surviving out of the 52 lost to wolves and 985,000 sheep surviving out of the 99 lost to wolves. In the Northern Rockies during 2002, there were 8,900 cattle and 9,949 sheep for each and every surviving wolf.

So, there have indeed been losses caused by wolves. That is not, and has not ever been the argument. Wolves are predators, they kill to eat and they eat to survive. However minimal, there are depredations on livestock and domestic animals when natural prey base is unavailable or if hunting as a pack is not an option. In response to this, from 1987 to 2002 Defenders of Wildlife has shelled out $279,292 to 237 ranchers in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. But unfortunately, compensation is not the final answer in many cases. Finality only comes at the cost the loss of life of an endangered species. In 2002, 39 wolves were killed by lethal control actions. This includes all 10 Whitehawk pack members who resided in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area that is designated wilderness and is required to place wildlife and recreation needs over ranching and grazing needs. 2003 proved just as deadly with 57 wolves being killed including the entire Halfway Pack and Castlerock Pack near Avon, MT. During the first 3 months of 2004, 25 wolves have been lethally controlled, including the entire Fox Creek Pack near Polaris, MT, and the Sentinel and Ennis Lake Packs in the Madison Valley of Montana. It seems strange that the ones who are complaining about the cost of the few depredations are the ranchers, who are receiving compensation and in addition 23,600 of them are able to rent PUBLIC federally owned forests, deserts and meadows from the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management for $1.43 per cow each month, that is barely one-tenth of the cost to rent private land for grazing. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, Public land ranchers WEST of the Mississippi River provide just 3% of America's beef. The complaints simply do not add up to the hardships that they are claim to be suffering.

Livestock and Wolves can co-exist but it takes a commitment to take additional responsibility for public and private land users.

What can be done?
* Limit grazing and livestock practices to ONLY areas that are not critical habitat for wolves and other wildlife. * Buy out grazing permits that belong to producers that are grazing on known wolf territory or on land that is not conducive to grazing. * Protect designated wilderness areas for wildlife use, not grazing. For example, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area is designed for wildlife and recreation BEFORE livestock practices, these areas are crucial and must be protected much more than they are currently. * Limit use on land around denning or rendezvous sites during times of the year when it is crucial to a certain pack's breeding future. * Practice safe husbandry on your ranch or livestock operation including: ? Keeping calving close to buildings and shelter ? Immediately remove carcasses of downed livestock. ? Surround your property with structurally sound fencing. ? Install RAG boxes that will emit alarming noises that have proven to deter wolves. ? Actively use guard dogs on your property. ? Effectively use lights surrounding your property. ? Install fladry (ribbons on fencing) in well-known wolf-livestock interaction sites.

It is not effective to remove entire packs from good wolf habitat, there will simply be others that re-populate that area and the cycle will start all over again. For example, according to Dr. Ralph Maughan, Wolf Recovery Foundation, there have been 27 wolves killed (4 packs) in the same area of the Stanley Basin in Idaho over the last 3 years. Instead, livestock must be removed from these areas if it can't be effectively separated from wolves and other wildlife.

Not only do wolves receive unjust hatred when they do occasionally run into livestock, they also become public enemy #1 with hunters and outfitters when they take down natural prey. Not only must they share their native territories with RV's and cars, hikers and skiers, hunters and ORV's, they also have to share their prey. Wolves do not kill simply for the thrill of it, they kill because they need to eat and they need to feed their pack. It takes an immense amount of energy to take down an elk or even a deer, not to mention a moose. Consider this, a bull elk weighs 750lbs and a very big wolf weighs 130lbs. Imagine trying to take down someone 6 times your size. They continually put themselves at risk or injury or even death with each hunt and continually deplete their energy supplies without any sort of guarantee that there will be a meal at the end of this particular hunt. In a recent study in Yellowstone, wolves were only successful 20% of the time while hunting a herd of elk during the winter, and only 2-3% successful when chasing individual animals that are not in a herd. So, at the very best, only one in five hunts result in a meal for the wolves and their pack. There is no guarantee. Wolves are opportunistic feeders, therefore, they are resourceful in their hunting and feeding. They will feed on what they can find and what they can hunt, which 90% of the time, is elk. Wolves are an umbrella species contributing food to many other species that may be less able to take down large prey. Wolf kills provide food for bears, coyotes, cats, foxes, eagles, and ravens. Butterflies even receive nourishment from wolf scat. They are an integral part of the increasingly fragile food chain. Wolves seldom kill what they won't or can't consume. They will gorge for several hours, rest and then revisit the site to continue to feed on what is remaining. They will eat everything given the time and opportunity. The few occasions of documented surplus kills have occurred in and around elk feed lots where the instinct of a wolf tells them that there are far too many elk for this one area to support. Wolves feed and hunt according to availability of prey and terrain.

Wolves normally prey on weak, sick and old animals. Hunters normally prey on the largest, the healthiest and the most dangerous animals. Wolves actually force elk and deer herds to become stronger and therefore larger with their presence, oddly enough catering right into the hands of the trophy hunters. However, the argument that wolves are depleting all of the large prey animals continues to loom over the canis lupis. In fact, the seemingly endless drought that is affecting much of our nation has had severe impacts on elk, deer, moose, bison, and all wildlife?.including wolves. If there is not enough moisture to nurture the grasses and shrubs that the ungulates survive on, then they are simply going to run out of food and be faced with starvation. This drought has been increasing year after year and elk population numbers have reflected this. However, this decline in elk numbers does not seem to be dipping into the tallies turned in by area hunters. According to Idaho Fish & Game, approximately 18,500 elk were harvested by hunters in 2001. Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks reported 19,684 and Wyoming Game & Fish counted 22,772 elk taken by hunters throughout 2001. According to research conducted by Dr. Doug Smith in Yellowstone, wolves eat and kill less in summer months, however in the winter when prey is at its weakest and wolves are in their peak hunting season, and with everything in the wolves' favor, each wolf would kills an average of 1.8 elk every month. Therefore, with 563 wolves reported at the end of 2001, they could have been responsible for only 12,000 elk in all three states combined. Compare this to nearly 61,000 harvested by hunters each year in the same area. The difference being that hunters do NOT count on the elk for survival, however, the wolves do.

Hunting does not only interfere with the wolves' prey base, it also interrupts their lives in a fatal way. 9 wolves were illegally and deliberately hunted down and killed in 2001. Wolves, on the other hand do not hunt humans. Wolves are instinctively terrified of humans, and rightfully so. Wolves are by nature extremely skittish and will most likely turn and run from you the second they lay eyes on you. Wolves very rarely can become habituated towards people and our lifestyles that can mean an easy meal. Food conditioned wolves returning to the campsite, worksite or backyard for the same reward, are often revered as a nuisance and as preying on the very people that habituated it in the first place. According to the Humane Society of the United States, every year over 4 million people are bitten by dogs and a person dies every two weeks as the result of a dog attack. There has never been a documented case of a healthy wild wolf killing a human in North America. Humans do not represent prey for wolves, instead, we represent a threat and wolves instinctively do whatever it takes to protect themselves and their pack from danger. The rabid, man-eating canine that lingers outside your window at night waiting to suck the very breath out of your sleeping children or snatch you right off your front porch exists only in fairy tales.À

Currently there are about 700 wolves in the three state recovery areas, with a combined total of 41 breeding pairs. A breeding pair consists of a male and female and at least 2 pups that have survived until December 31 of that year. Therefore, according to the "final rule" governing the reintroduction, the wolves were recovered, as far as numbers speak anyway. The delisting process began with downlisting in the spring of 2003. The USFWS divided the US into three DPS (Distinct Population Segments) units for this downlisting, each with an "anchor" wolf population. The Western DPS includes Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, California, Nevada and the northern half of Utah and Colorado. There are approximately 700 wolves in this DPS most if not all living in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. The Eastern DPS includes 21 states west of the Montana in the Midwest and northeast. Within this DPS, there are approximately 3,000 wolves, all surviving in the Great Lakes Regions of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. In these 28 states wolves are now listed as threatened instead of endangered. In the southern DPS, which includes New Mexico, Arizona, southern Utah and southern Colorado, wolves are still listed at endangered. The anchor population of Mexican wolves in NM and AZ are struggling with population numbers only reaching around 40 wolves. Mexican wolves are known as canis lupis baileyi. They are gray wolves but simply a different subspecies than the gray wolves in the Northern Rockies. In the Southeastern US, wolves have not ever been listed as endangered because this was not traditional territory for wolves. There is however a surviving population of red wolves, canis rufus in North Carolina numbering 75-100 in the wild and 150 in captivity. Canis rufus is a different species than the gray wolf (canis lupus) in Montana.

However, before the grey wolf can be completely delisted and removed from the federal protection of the Endangered Species Act, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana must submit acceptable management plans to the USFWS clearly stating their intentions to ensure the future survival of this species at acceptable levels. The USFWS has to approve all three plans in order to move forward towards delisting.

Montana's final plan, crafted by the Montana Wolf Management Advisory Council and introduced by Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks, was accepted by USFWS and classifies wolves as "a species in need of management" if numbers fall below 15 breeding pairs statewide. Wolves will be listed as big game/furbearers if numbers exceed 15 breeding pairs. If there are over 15 breeding pairs, licenses could be issued for wolf hunting. In addition, federal agents will continue their slaughter against wolves involved with domestic livestock. In the first half of 2003, 25 wolves, including 2 entire packs, were lethally controlled in Montana alone. Imagine these numbers when the only thing between a hunter and a legal trophy on the wall is a wolf tag.

Minimum population numbers in Montana will be based on 15 breeding pairs. Scientific studies have indicated that a breeding population of 500 is very conservative in ensuring species survival throughout an ecosystem. With Montana containing parts of the Yellowstone and Idaho recovery zones, the state should be responsible for maintaining 1/3 to 1/2 of the total wolf population in the region, amounting to 83-125 breeding pairs of wolves, a far cry from the 15 being offered in the management plan.

Idaho's plan was also accepted by the USFWS. In Idaho, wolves will be classified as big game/fur-bearer. Idaho has agreed to maintain at least 15 packs. However, lethal control will be favored if there are at least 10 packs. Currently there are nearly 35 packs. Idaho defines a pack as a male and female producing pups. According to the plan, two-thirds of these packs could be destroyed before non-lethal means of control were even considered. With an average of 5-7 wolves per pack in Idaho, private citizens and Wildlife Services agents could hunt wolves down to numbers close to 50-70, compare that to the 400 that are currently surviving within state boundaries. Realizing that not all packs will breed and counting pup mortality that can reach 88% (USFWS 1994), this could equal to much less than 50-70 surviving wolves throughout the entire state of Idaho. How can the possibility of losing more than 300 wolves within the state be on the same lines as ensuring a surviving population, as their plan promises?

And now there is Wyoming with its recently released plan. Limiting commenting to a couple of one-hour meetings in hostile territory, the Commission and Wyoming Game and Fish Department finalized their plan quite easily and quickly. Wyoming has agreed to maintain 15 packs within state boundaries. Wyoming also defines a pack as a male and female producing pups. The catch is this; Wyoming meets its promise if eight packs are surviving within Yellowstone and a few surrounding wilderness areas and as little as seven packs are present in the entire rest of the state. What is worse?.the packs outside of the park will be given predator status, allowing anyone at anytime to shoot and kill them for any reason, no license necessary. The packs in the wilderness areas directly outside the park will be listed as trophy game animals, so they don't escape hunting either, all one will need is a wolf license. If wolves in the park cross into predator areas, they too can be shot and killed at anytime. Wyoming state officials estimate that 90 percent of the home range for wolves outside the parks is in areas where wolves would be classified as predators. Most, if not all, wolves in Wyoming could be designated predators depending on where they roam. Fortunately, USFWS denied passage of Wyoming's plan and sent it back to the state for revisions and to drop the predator status. Wyoming is now promising a lawsuit against USFWS and is not budging on their plan.

Recovery rules state that all three states must have approved wolf management plans in order for delisting to take place. Wyoming has put this on hold. However, USFWS is proposing to reward Idaho and Montana with increased controls because they have drawn up acceptable management plans. USFWS is willing to give these states all the control associated with delisting, with one exception being hunting, while the wolves are still listed as endangered on the ESA! This proposal would affect wolves in the recovery areas, listed as experimental/non-essential. Wolves roaming outside of recovery areas already lost these protections in the spring of 2003 when they were dropped from endangered to threatened status. In other words, if this proposal is approved, and with the recent loss of endangered status, wolves statewide in Idaho and Montana no longer have to be proven guilty of depredations to be killed. They can be shot by private citizens on private land for simply begin a perceived threat. These same landowners can request a permit that will allow them to kill ANY wolf on their property for an entire year, threat or not.

With these management plans on the horizon, I wonder how long it will take to turn back time 70 years to a time when bounties were rewarded and wolves were hunted to near extinction all in the name of unfounded and unjustified fears. It has been said time and time again, what you don't know you fear and what you fear you will eventually destroy. I just hope that the wolf proves to be resilient, elusive, strong and intelligent enough to outwit this destruction. And I hope that mankind can be educated and realistic enough to accept the blessing of this majestic creature once again roaming their native wildlands.À

I remember, as if it was yesterday, the first time I heard the howl of a wolf?I said to myself, "this sound is one I will never, ever forget, it is so precious and important to me that my ears will take it in and store it away in my soul for me to recall whenever and whenever I need." This I take with me always. -Renee