Bringing Wolves Back into the Wild - Research Paper Example

Bringing Wolves Back into the Wild Teacher               Bringing Wolves Back into the Wild The gray wolf, or Canis lupus, is the largest wild member of the dog family (Chowdhury, n.d.). The wolf is usually a member of a pack and is believed to be a dangerous animal that can attack livestock as well as humans. This is the reason why they were once extirpated at the beginning of the 20th century, and that “the last wolf was killed in 1926” (Frank, 2012). However, since the latter half of the century, efforts have been implemented in order to restore the wolf in its original habitat in the wild. The organization Wolf Haven International seeks to “conserve and protect wolves and their habitat” and it does so by providing sanctuary, education and conservation of the C. lupus species (Wolf Haven International, 2013). Wolf Haven International is also largely responsible for the advocacy of the wolf restoration programs and for their implementation once the law has already approved them. More importantly, however, the organization seeks to defend the claims that wolves are harmless creatures and should therefore be restored back to their original sanctuary in the wild (Wolf Haven International, 2013). Several reasons for this include the benefits of wolves to the ecosystem and the lack of evidence to support the alleged danger of wolves. According to Frank (2012), a new research study in Yellowstone claimed that the restoration of wolves into their original wildlife sanctuary resulted in “many parts of the ecosystem [becoming] more vibrant and multifaceted.” There is actually nothing mystical or supernatural about this claim. The explanation is that the presence of wolves in their natural sanctuary has led to their consumption of the elk population in the area. Thus, this has resulted in the thriving of aspens, cottonwoods and willows because of such reduction in the elk population, which is considered their main consumers. Moreover, this has also led to the growth of more diverse trees and plants in the area, thus not only increasing the diversity of the ecosystem and producing a much cleaner environment. The increase in the diversity of the plant species and the reduction in the elk population in the sanctuary of the wolves produced higher oxygen levels and therefore cleaner rivers and streams. Thus, these bodies of water have become a better habitat for beaver and fish, which in turn served as food for bears and birds. Furthermore, there was also a relative increase in the number of bisons because they used to compete with elks in the area before the wolves were reintroduced. The reduction of the elk population from 15,000 in the 1990s to 6,100 in 2010 has indeed brought with it numerous benefits to the restoration of ecological balance. There is, however, some concern regarding the possibility that the wolves might consume too much of the elk population faster than the latter can grow and reproduce. According to Yang (2003), based on research from the University of California at Berkeley, the benefits of wolves in wildlife also include the fact that “even a relatively large pack of about 15 wolves can’t finish off an adult elk [that weighs] 500 to 700 pounds.” This fact means that the wolves’ consumption of elks does not pose as a threat to the extinction of the elk population in general. Moreover, another advantage of wolves is that, unlike bears and lions, they leave the carcass of their prey after they have consumed what their bodies needed. It means that other carnivorous animals may simply just feed on these carcasses left by wolves, instead of having to kill other animals. In fact, according to the findings of the California-based research study, “Wolves tend to leave more meat for others to share” (Yang, 2003). This means that the presence of wolves, due to their eating habits, indirectly brings about the survival of more species of prey in order for these animals to reproduce and grow before some of their species are killed. Additionally, according to Yang (2003), wolves tend to attack only weaker animals like weaker elk, deer and moose, especially those that cannot reach vegetation on the ground during winter. This means that wolves are never that aggressive so as to launch an attack on relatively more active and stronger animals. Based on the report from the California-based study, wolves consume only those animals that are already weak and are most likely to die any moment later. According to Chowdhury (n.d.), although the wolf may actually prey on ungulates like elk, deer and moose, wolves are still opportunistic feeders that will even resort to feeding on rodents, carrion or fish. Thus, from this information, one realizes that Despite the fact that anti-restoration or anti-Wolf activists are claiming that the wolf population is threatening the entire cattle industry, much of their evidence is actually exaggerated and lends itself to the slippery slope fallacy. According to Maughan (2013), in Montana, for example, among the 2.6 million cattle, the wolves killed only 74 in the entire year of 2011, thus they killed a mere 0.003 percent of the entire cattle population. Moreover, in 2009, only 74 out of 494,100 cattle were killed; thus, resulting in a reduction of 0.015 percent of the total cattle population in that year. Naturally, it is devastating to have such losses, especially to the cattle rancher who considers every one of his animals important. Nevertheless, the fact that wolves cannot even kill 1% of the total cattle population in an area means that “the [cattle] industry is [actually] not at risk” (Maughan, 2013). This information implies that wolves are not that economically threatening after all and are not that cruel as predators in contrast with what some anti-Wolf activists are claiming. The Nelchina caribou in southcentral Alaska was once thought to have been wiped out by wolves. However, it was later on found out that the calves naturally did not survive because of the severity of winter, and the adults were hunted. Thus, there was no possible way for wolves to have consumed most of the herd (Van Ballenberghe, 1986). In fact, this is only one of the instances where wolves were thought to have attacked certain groups of animals but actually did not. The prejudice of people against wolves somehow led to the conclusion that for any unexplained killing of animals or people, people would think that it was the wolf that caused it. Still, there are also claims that wolves pose as a threat to human lives. However, based on a 2009 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, during a four-year period in the last decade, it was livestock that killed around 108 people in four different states. During this period, wild wolves have not killed anyone, and even in the last 80 years, only two fatalities allegedly caused by wolves are known. This implies that wolves are actually a species that are not as harmful as anyone would think, and the findings of the CDC also imply that other animals, even domesticated ones, may even prove themselves to be more harmful. Moreover, even if wolves are not naturally harmful and aggressive to human beings, certain organizations are monitoring wolves and their populations. For example, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, or MFWP, watches over the wolves, monitors their population, directs problems associated with wolf control, and organizes research and education programs regarding wolves. Moreover, gray wolves such as those in Montana primarily prey on deer, elk and moose, and it is the job of the national park organizations to make it a point that wolves stick to their prescribed diet (Sime et al., 2007). This means that just in case wolves are dangerous to humans and pose a threat to their lives, there are authorities that will definitely watch the movement of the wolves and their pack. Moreover, local authorities must also be efficient in guarding the safety of all citizens. Moreover, sometimes the wolf is almost of no concern to people because wolf packs generally have a high mortality rate as it grows bigger because wolves are more likely to die as the pack grows bigger and as more and more wolves wander into the wilderness (Apollonio et al., 2004). Moreover, although there is a general claim that wolves are dangerous, this remains as a misconception in most cases, because “wolves do not attack humans without a reason,” and this rule in wolf behavior also include even those which are not human (Wolves: The Great Enigmas of the Animal World, 2013). This means that when one hears of someone who claims to have been attacked by a wolf, they are mistaken that the wolf was aggressive – unless perhaps it was extremely hungry or unless it was mentally deranged. In that case, then the wolf only acted just like any other animal which felt an actual or imagined threat. It means that some wolves known to have attacked humans did so perhaps because they were being shot at a short distance or when people seem to fear them. In fact, “Humans kill more wolves every year than wolves attack humans” (Wolves: The Great Enigmas of the Animal World, 2013). Moreover, wolves have a tendency to isolate themselves from humans as much as possible (Wolves: The Great Enigmas of the Animal World, 2013). Based on the preceding information, wolves actually behave just like any other ordinary animal or human being would. Besides, it only seems logical that wolves attack only when threatened. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with an animal simply trying to protect itself. Perhaps, the sad part is that most human beings would challenge wolves and would hurt them just to get what they want. In such a case, no one would ever think that a wolf would still have to think twice before launching an attack. Moreover, there are also claims that the wolf immediately attacks its prey, but in such a case, the wolf will still display signs of warning. For example, if the wolf is confused or afraid, it will first try to warn off a stranger whom the animal perceives as threatening. The ambivalence display that the wolf shows as a reaction to this perceived threat is the act of “baring the gums and tongue, and pressing the tongue forward between the incisors,” thus using a threatening appearance which is really effective. This display of ambivalence is actually a message to the person in front of it – the wolf simply demands that the human being or the animal in front of him must respect it as much as it “[demands] the respect of submissive wolves, [animals or human beings]” (Lupine Behavior, 2010). Moreover, the wolf also displays a body posture that suggests a “defensive threat,” where it crouches to prepare for a possible attack by a stranger (Lupine Behavior, 2010). Moreover, wolves are “intensely territorial,” which implies that when its territory is threatened by anyone, human or animal, then it would just be logical and reasonable for the wolf to fight back and reclaim what it believes it has (Conger, 2012). The above information is only trying to tell us one thing about wolves – they are normal animals that only feel threatened by man or other animals. In the wolf, and just like in any other animal species, the imagined threat translates as a tendency to fight back and even kill. Moreover, the above information implies that the main reason for wolf attacks on humans is perhaps the tendency of humans to subdue the wolf either for fur or for any other purpose which is destructive of the animal. Moreover, the wolf may express its territorial nature by howling and growling, thus informing the passers-by that the wolf is simply trying to defend its territory. The howling sound is therefore a reminded or warning against those passing by that a wolf is in there and has already gotten hold of a particular territory and would not want to be subdued, questioned, or threatened (Chowdhury, n.d.). This also implies that the wolves’ attacks on humans may have only been brought about by the fact that not all human beings were actually familiar with the wolf’s warning and territorial signs. Naturally, in such a situation, the wolf would bite and would even kill. The next problem is people’s perception and prejudice. It means that when people witness a scene where a wolf is pouncing upon a human being, people begin thinking that it was the wolf that caused the harm and that it was the one that attacked the innocent person. There is somehow an instinct of all animals to protect another of its own kind. Nevertheless, based on scientific data, for every wolf attack on humans, it seems that the reason behind it is most likely human ignorance or stupidity. The problem is that “there are fixed states of behavior that are recognized by wolves as conveying moods of alertness, aggression, submission,” and other emotions (Gray Wolf, 2013). This means that what may be considered by human beings as harmless movements may in face be already interpreted by wolves as dangerous, threatening or insulting to their territorial nature. The wolf then decides whether to reasonably attack the other person or animal that is perceived in this way. A useful implication of the preceding statement is that it is essential that one should learn more about how wolves behave in order to be able to understand it completely and to avoid making it upset, thus the purpose of learning about the wolf could even be survival. Perhaps, the ultimate criticism of the recovery program for wolves is the idea that since wolves have the tendency to kill human beings, then wolves should be extirpated from the wild and should therefore be kept only in zoos. The sad thing is that there is a human tendency to exaggerate and to forever remember with resentment even just one negative thing that a wolf did to humans. Although human casualties due to wolf attacks are rare, undocumented and even isolated, humans tend to sensationalize this one case of attack and blow it up to huge proportions. If these anti-wolf activists use the media in such sensationalism, the result is overwhelmingly against the welfare of the wolves. Moreover, ignorance on the part of the public somehow would make matters worse, as ignorant people would normally just agree with whatever makes sense to them and whatever appeals to their emotion, without even confirming whether the information was backed by scientific evidence or not. There is therefore no other way to deal with such prejudice except through a radical change in philosophy and psychology. However, since this radical change in the attitude of man towards wolves, it can only happen gradually through the inculcation in man of the desire to live in a world diverse with animals and all other forms of life. According to Lynn (2002), “If then, we can recognize in wolves, as we so easily do in dogs, a continuity of consciousness and well-being with ourselves, what does that say about the moral boundaries and connections that emerge from our joint animality?” Such a rhetorical question actually poses as a challenge to the human race in general as to give wolves a chance in our lives just as primitive man once gave a chance for dogs to be domesticated under them. What is therefore needed is openness in one’s belief system. As long as humans continually harbor a grudge against and live in fear of wolves, then it means that there is no way that laws on the recovery programs of wolves can be implemented, and that there is no way to bring wolves back into the wild. Moreover, Lynn (2002), “Speaking for myself, my moral identity means that I care not only for members of my own species, but also for a community of life, including wolves.” He further adds that “being fully human means living in the presence of wolves…living with a diversity of animals.” This statement of personal philosophy means that the question of accepting wolves as a part of the human ecosystem is always a matter of personal perspective, specifically on whether one believes he is human and he should defend only his own species, or one believes he is human and that he should destroy anything that threatens his own species. The choice that each human being has to make will largely determine the outcome of the restoration programs for wolves. What some people do not realize is that the wolf is not as dangerous as it looks or as people have always believed it was. In fact, there are much more people in this world that are more dangerous than wolves. One last thing and defense of the recovery programs for the restoration of wolf in wildlife is to gain much historical knowledge about the prehistoric connection between wolf and mankind. According to Chowdhury (n.d.), “Ever since C. lupus evolved a million years ago, they have tried to coexist with mankind,” and that “as nomadic hunters, man looked to C. lupus as a role model and teacher.” The problem began when man began settling down in the civilizations of Eurasia and began keeping livestock as well as building settlements. This was the time when the wolf began preying on man’s livestock, which it considered as food even before the era of domestication (Chowdhury, n.d.). Eventually, the wolf became man’s enemy. Somehow, the first wolves did not know how domestication worked for it was contrary to its nature. It may also perhaps not have known the concept of ownership, which the Eurasian man came to adopt as he began to settle down. Moreover, from this story, one can realize where mankind’s prejudice against wolves has taken root. The challenge is therefore whether to perpetuate this prehistoric misunderstanding or to seek solutions to it through the restoration programs for wolves. Indeed, there is so much challenge and opposition faced by restoration programs for wolves. Much of this opposition came from myths and rumors of attacks by wolves but without substantial proof. Critics of the wolf restoration programs believe that wolves are harmful and can attack cattle and human beings anytime. Moreover, they are believed to disrupt ecological balance. Nevertheless, Wolf Haven International as well as other organizations and individuals have made efforts to restore the wolf to its original habitat. These efforts are not only based on a particular human kindness to animals in general and to wolves in particular but are solidly grounded on two notions: the fact that wolves restore the ecosystem by the consumption of ungulates, and the lack of substantial evidence for the degree of harm that it is rumored to possibly cause. Much of the accounts of wolves attacking cattle and humans were either unsubstantiated by empirical evidence or are thought to have been caused by ignorance on the part of the human victims. Nevertheless, the ultimate solution to the opposition is rather a change in worldview of humans and the effort to learn human prehistory, specifically about how man and the wolf began to live separate lives. References Apollonio, M., Mattioli, L., Scandura, M., Mauri, L., Gazzola, A. & Avanzinelli, E. (2004). “Wolves in the Casentinesi Forests: insights for wolf preservation in Italy from a protected area with a rich wild prey community.” Biological Conservation, 120(2), 249-260. Chowdhury, A. (n.d.). Human-Canis lupus interaction: The effects of hands-on meetings for social behavior in captive C. lupus and human attitudes. Retrieved from Linkoping University: http://www.ifm.liu.se/edu/biology/master_projects/2005/annch037/human-wolf%20interactions,%20importance.doc Conger, C. (2013). What is a wolf-pack mentality?. Retrieved from Animal Planet: http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/wolf-pack-mentality1.htm Gray Wolf. (2013). Retrieved from Macalester College: http://www.macalester.edu/~montgomery/graywolf.html Lupine Behavior. (2010). Retrieved from WolfHowl.org: http://www.wolfhowl.org/ethology.php Lynn, W. S. (2002). “Canis lupus Cosmopolis: Wolves in a Cosmopolitan Worldview.” Worldviews, 6(3), 300-327. Maughan, R. (2013). What real public information about wolves look like. Retrieved from The Wildlife News: http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2013/02/10/what-real-public-information-about-wolves-looks-like/ Sime, C. A. (2007). Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2006 Annual Report. Retrieved from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/wolfrecovery/25/ Van Ballenberghe, V. (1986). Wolf predation on caribou: The myth of the Nelchina herd. Retrieved from Septentrio Academic Publishing: http://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/rangifer/article/viewFile/684/650 Wolf Haven International. (2013). Retrieved from Wolf Haven International: http://www.wolfhaven.org/ Wolf Haven International. (2013). Retrieved Wolf Haven International: http://www.wolfhaven.org/ Wolves: The Great Enigmas of the Animal World. (2013). Retrieved from Oracle ThinkQuest: http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0311684/wolfbehavior.html Read More