Conflicting Values in the Management of the Overpopulation of Wolves - Essay Example

Conflicting Values in the Management of the Overpopulation Background of the Species: Gray wolves (Canis Lupus) belong to Canidae family, under the category of Carnivora, and are also the “most morphologically primitive” among carnivores (Paque & Carbyn 2003: 482). Though closely related to jackals and coyotes, the western gray wolves do not “hybridize” with them while the eastern gray wolves do (482). The western gray wolves have evolved from “a common canid ancestor” and are believed to have inhabited North America a couple of million years ago and evolved there (482). They have occupied habitats throughout the North America other than areas such as “southeastern US” and parts of “California” (483). However, the increasing human population, coupled with the extensive development of agriculture, caused a decrease in their numbers and by the beginning of 20th century gray wolves “nearly vanished from eastern United States” (483). Being “ecosystem generalists” they have distinct concepts about their surroundings and they choose their habitat based on availability of prey, especially ungulate populations (487). In areas where their population density is high, they become a threat to humans, ungulates and other livestock. Thus, their ultimate fate depends on the ability of humans to coexist with them and protecting their “biological requisites” (497). With a current approximate population of just over “50000,” the gray wolf has been placed under the category of “threatened in Minnesota and endangered” in all states other than Alaska (497). The Controversy about Gray Wolves: During 2009, the Interior Secretary Kan Salazar has approved the Bush Administration Rule that authorized the removal of species protection to gray wolves in Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) without any “independent scientific review” of its propriety, which has kicked off a lot of controversies (Bergstrom 2009: 991). Similarly, the reintroduction of gray wolves into the Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and Idaho as well as the colonisation of dispersed wolves from Canada into its surrounding areas has always remained “embroiled in regional and state politics” and a powerful lobby with vested interest vehemently opposed this native species’ return (991). Researchers such as Smith, Peterson and Houston (2003), point to historical evidence of Isle Royale, where restoration of gray wolves about sixty years ago has entailed the complete elimination of coyotes apart from reducing moose population. Therefore, they argue that the restoration of gray wolves to YNP will also result in “similar effects to a degree” (Smith, Peterson & Houston 2003:330). On the other hand, several others contend that the delisting of NRM gray wolf has been a premature action. Further, they consider this step as insufficient to “address deficiencies” in the wild life management policies and suggest that it will impair the maintenance of a “viable meta population” of wolves and expose them to the risk of extirpation (Bergstrom et al 2009: 991). It is also relevant that gray wolves, as predators, play a key role in the ecological balance by removing “sicker and weaker” animals of other species (Delisting the Gray Wolf 2013: 1). In the present situation, where the population of gray wolves keeps decreasing, it becomes necessary to maintain a meta population of this species as they are highly significant for balancing the ecological system. Analysis of the Controversies: Research evidence suggests that there has been a “95% decrease” in the historic range of the gray wolves that once have been abundant in the US (Curran 2011: 3). The evidence further attributes this decline to the “predator control programs” that have been sponsored by the US government (3). The subsequent efforts, in the early 1970s, to declare wolves as an endangered species and to restore them, can be construed as the federal government’s response to their own misdemeanour. Thus, the recent delisting of the species again in 2009 raises questions about its propriety, especially in the light of the fallen rates of population of these species. Therefore, the whole issue illustrates the complexity of “political compromise” than validate the efficacy of laws such as the Endangered Species Act (5). Another controversial issue is that the delisting of gray wolves in 2009 has not considered any independent scientific opinion. Therefore, many people allege that it is a case where the “whims of politicians” rather than science dictated the rights or suitability animals for conservation, which undermines the basic principles of American wild life conservation (5). On the other hand, scholars like Katelyn Larsen maintains that the delisting of gray wolves from the purview of Endangered Species Act (ESA) can have positive impacts on the “policy agenda of managing wolves” (Larsen 2011: 1). Providing historical background of the issue, the author contends that due to the extermination practices on wolves in the early 1900s, the number of wolves in the Yellowstone ecosystem has decreased, facilitating an increase in the population of ungulates. By 1930s, wolves have become so rare in the area that it became difficult to contain the population of elks and bison, due to which they had to be “trapped or shot from helicopters” (1). Thus, the authorities have reintroduced wolves into the area retrieve ecological balance. This brought the elk population down to a healthy level and thereby “allowed vegetation...to grow” (1). However, on the flipside, this has negatively impacted livestock and certain other mammals and, subsequently, wolves were delisted in “2009 for Montana and Idaho” (6). Thus, it transpires that the process of listing and delisting wolves under ESA has always been done depending on a certain aspect at a specific point of time, without applying appropriate management strategies that provide long term positive outcomes. Evidence further identifies gray wolves as the first species claiming protection under the ESA, but during 2003, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) enacted special rules that permitted the killing of Western DPS wolves found in the “act of attacking livestock” (15). As a consequence, finally by 2008, “more wolves” have been killed than and by 2008, the wolf population declined to “1463” (16). This trend suggests that whenever any relaxation to the ESA coverage to wolves has been implemented, it invariably has had negative outcomes for the wolf population. Despite the efforts to protect wolves from time to time, “extreme hostility” towards them “continues to threaten” the survival of this species (Harbine 2009: 195). It, therefore, needs no emphasis that the vested interest of human beings is the main danger for wolves and this reflects in the controversies surrounding its protection. Similarly, when the species confronts a real threat to its survival, their delisting from endangered and categorization as DPSs by the FWS in 2007 and the US Solicitor’s concurrence to their “authority to determine” this status raises questions regarding the true motives behind such a move (Bernhardt 2008: 19). But, despite the grim situation that wolves are in, the trend remains that “politics rather than science” decides the status of periled species ant thus setting a “dangerous precedent” for endangered animals (Wolves at a Crossroads 2011: 19). Suggested Best Management Practices: The analysis of an array of literature, reviewed during the process of this study, reveals that “conflicts...between wolves and people” are the main threat to this species (Niemeyer n.d., 287). Therefore, the wolf management programmes need to focus on resolving such conflicts rather than changing policies intermittently to serve the political agenda of people with vested interests. To better serve practical purposes, the government needs to have a clear understanding of the public “perception of wolves” and embark on effective restoration programmes (289). The main problem so far has been the extreme misconceptions of the citizens such as “children would be killed at bus stops” and livestock and ungulate population would be “decimated” prior to the restoration in New Rocky Mountain (289). Similarly, the FWS needs to ensure that they take adequate measure for safeguarding and maintain a “viable long term population” of wolves and consider reliable scientific evidence to “conserve (this) imperilled species” (Harbine 2009: 204). Similarly, they need to undertake a review of the existing policies and their legal validity so as to devise and implement appropriate long term scientific measures for the protection of endangered species such as gray wolves. Conclusion: The delisting of western gray wolves from the endangered species status has kicked off a major controversy in the United States. Historical data shows that time and again the authorities have alternated from including and excluding the gray wolves from the endangered species list. On most of the occasions, the delisting has been done by flouting the protocols prescribed the ESA for the protection of animals. Evidence examined during the course of this research has substantiated the involvement of political lobbies and other vested interest parties in kicking off the controversy. Especially, the recent delisting of wolves without scientific consultation exposes the complicity of senators, congressmen and even “state governors” (Wolves at a Crossroads 2011: 15). Similarly, materialistic interests of human beings are also a significant threat to the wolves. Under the circumstances, the FWS needs to focus on taking appropriate measures for the management of the wolf population, to protect this species which has a key role in maintaining the ecological balance. References Alexander, K. & Corn, M. L. 2010. Gray Wolves under the Endangered Species Act: Distinct Population Segments and Experimental Populations. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved October 19, 2013, from Bergstrom, B. J., Vignieri, S., Sheffield, S. R., Sechrest, W., & Carlson, A. A. 2009. The Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf is not Yet Recovered. Bio Science, Vol.59 (11): pp.991-999. Retrieved October 18, 2013, from Bernhardt, D. L. 2008. Memorandum. Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of Interior. Retrieved October 19, 2013, from Curran, M. L. 2011. Congress’ Delisting of the Western Gray Wolf Sparks more Questions than Answers: Who, Exactly, is Afraid of the Big, Bad Wolf? Animal Law Committee News Letter. Retrieved October 19, 2013, from Harbine, J. K. 2009. Gray Wolves in the Northern Rockies again Staring down the Barrel at Hostile State Management. Ecology Law Currents, Vol.36 (195): pp.195-204. Retrieved October 19, 2013, from Larsen, K. 2011. The Endangered Species Act and Its Impact on Gray Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone National Park. UWL Journal of Undergraduate Research. Retrieved October 19, 2013 from Niemeyer, C. C. n.d. The Good, Bad and Ugly, Depending on your Perspective. Transactions of the 72nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Retrieved October 19, 2013, from < http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/10-The%20Good%20Bad....pdf Paquet, P. C. & Carbyn, L. N. 2003. Gray Wolf: Canis Lupus and Allies. Feldhammer. Retrieved October 18, 2013, from Smith, D. W., Peterson, R. O., & Houston, D. B. 2003. Bio Science, Vol.53 (4): pp.330-340. Retrieved October 18 2013, from Wolves at a Crossroads: The Endangered Species Act in Peril. 2011. Living with Wolves. Retrieved October 19, 2003, from Read More