Why we should save Gray Wolves

By: Camille Ottoman, Marley Weakland, Lydia Prudhome, Rochelle Collier, Jacob Pifer

Population Status

According to the IUCN Red List, the gray wolf’s (Canis lupus) endangerment status is of least concern. Assessed in 2018, their population trend is stable, with little to no fragmentation in the United States (Boitani et al.). In the United States, there are about 18,000 wolves recorded as of 2017 (USFWS, 2017). About 2,000 reside in the northern Rocky Mountains, and 4,000 in the Great Lake States. About two-thirds (nearly 11,000) of the population reside in Alaska and are unprotected by the Endangered Species Act. When measured in 2020, there were 22 packs in Oregon with approximately 173 wolves (ODFW, 2021). The majority of these were in Eastern Oregon, as no packs currently live in Western Oregon and sightings of lone wolves remain rare.  Although their status is stable, their abundance has diminished substantially due to  delisting from the ESA, habitat destruction, and increased hunting rates. The grey wolves now only occupy about two-thirds of their former population (Wolf Conservation Center, 2021).

Status of Habitat

Regions of the country that once helped maintain the gray wolf populations still make suitable habitats for the species, such as rangelands and forests (Carroll et al., 2020). These habitats offer great potential for the wolves to live and recover alongside other wildlife populations, many of these are already protected as they are national parks and wildlife reserves. There are still more dangers around these habitats now than there were when the gray wolves were at their peak, due to human habitation and use. Human populations have grown and increased their range of roads, highways, and residential or metro areas that create more obstacles between habitats and increase fragmentation. Wolf habitats in the United States are very discontinuous, leading to genetically identifiable groups due to a lack of mixing between populations (Carroll et al., 2020). However, there are many core areas of habitat that would be suitable for wolves where none are currently present, as well as habitat outside of their historic ranges (Carroll et al., 2020). 

Primary Threats

The main threat to the grey wolves are humans ourselves. Humans have been a threat to grey wolves in a variety of ways, we have hunted gray wolves in order to protect our livestock and our industrialization has destroyed large amounts of their home, thus making them live in a less protected environment. The last remaining wild wolf was killed in Oregon in 1946 (Oregon Wild, 2021). This ended a drawn out wolf extinction plan by states in order to protect livestock and to remove wolves as an obstacle to expansion of human activities in the Western United States (USFWS, 2020). Wolves were reintroduced in the 1990’s throughout Yellowstone and parts of Idaho. Those wolves spread to neighboring states with a survey conducted in 2019 estimating about 158 wolves living in Oregon (Center for Biological Diversity, 2020). Now that wolves have been reintroduced with semi stable populations there has been a constant push to remove the grey wolf from the Endangered Species list (Oregon Wild, 2021). This is an extremely dangerous thing to do because the only way wolf populations have been able to make a comeback is due to the strict regulations and protections of the wolves. As long as there are wolves there will be conflict between livestock owners and wolves, but lethal control is a serious threat to their populations.

Recovery Options

One of the most important ways to aid in grey wolf recovery in Eastern Oregon is to minimize and prevent wolf-livestock interactions. The most ardent opposition to wolves comes primarily from ranchers and other rural residents who fear a loss of livelihood from the presence of wolves (Oregon Wild, 2017). To ensure livestock are protected from wolves, packs should be tracked using tags and their activities monitored. Due to the number of ranches in Eastern Oregon, it is not possible to keep wolves away entirely, but efforts can be made to reintroduce them in areas with lower densities of livestock and a higher number of wild ungulates for them to hunt. The Oregon Department of Agriculture also has a compensation fund for losses due to wolf predation (ODFW, 2021). These grants can be used to offset financial hardships associated with wolf recovery. Non-lethal control methods should also be emphasized, saving lethal methods as a last resort for wolves that are deterred any other way. In the past, when protections for wolves were decreased the Oregon FWS was quick to use lethal control (Oregon Wild, 2017). This should be discouraged and instead allow time for public input and research to be conducted on the status of the wolf population.

Due to the roaming nature of wolves, states such as Oregon, Washington, and Idaho need to work collaboratively in creating wolf regulations as packs are not guaranteed to stay in one state. Additionally, decisions should not be based only on the number of wolves present. Genetic diversity is an important factor that helps determine if the population is resilient and healthy enough to be self-sustaining, as well as resistant to disease (Oregon Wild, 2017). Despite opposition from different parties, wolves increasingly receive support from other citizens, the majority of whom live in the western part of the state where virtually no wolves are found (Oregon Wild, 2017). The support of these citizens is an important component of helping wolves recover, as they can pressure the government to put resources towards this and speak out against lethal methods of control.

Recovery Outlook

Overall, the outlook for recovery of these wolves is currently positive. Since being delisted from the ESA, Wolf populations in eastern Oregon have been increasing and migrating to new territories (OFWD, 2021 ). This increase and movement of wolf populations shows promise that the species can continue towards full recovery when off the list. While the species can continue towards recovery with current state regulations, this recovery will be much slower than if the species were relisted with additional action. Scientists agree that the species was delisted too early, as the species had not yet met the criteria required to delist the species( Predator Defense, 2021). These thresholds will now take much longer to reach as regulations become looser and permits become more common.  Currently, the recovery of wolves is dependent on the regulation of mortalities caused by humans (Treves et al., 2021). As long as the states are able to regulate the amount of take affecting the wolves they will continue to increase their populations and continue to recover over time.

Evidence to Support and Oppose Species Listing

A reason to support species listing is that wolves currently occupy only a fraction of their historic range, with the majority of the population found in the Great Lakes region (Carroll et al., 2020) . This raises the question of whether or not that is sufficient recovery to be given less protection, as populations with a greater range are more resilient to threats such as disease. This close proximity could also decrease overall genetic diversity, as populations fragmented from one another have fewer reproductive options (Oregon Wild, 2017). Additionally, different populations could be considered as distinct population units, meaning they should be considered individually for listing or delisting independent of others (Carroll et al., 2020).  Basing a decision based only on the number of wolves present does not reflect all the  information needed to make an informed choice on the future of the grey wolf. 

Additionally, due to the controversial nature of this issue there is little guarantee that human caused mortalities of wolves would fall within the limit of set population goals. Illegal wolf hunting can be hard to detect and without the deterrence of being federally listed with protections, wolf shootings and other other lethal threats could increase and threaten recovery (Treves et al., 2021). 

Another reason to support the listing of the grey wolf is that they have been shown to benefit the ecosystem in areas where their populations have reintroduced. The classic example of this is Yellowstone National Park (Beschta and Ripple, 2016).The elk populations could not be maintained at a healthy level without the presence of wolves, and their grazing habits damaged riparian areas by heavily grazing the vegetation. The wolves’ reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park put pressure on elk herds, forcing them to move and allowing aspen trees to recover. This allowed the riparian habitat to regain its biodiversity as the vegetation encouraged more animals, such as birds and beavers, to return as well. (Beschta and Ripple, 2016).

A reason to not list the grey wolf is the conflict and mistrust in the federal government that it entails. Those opposed to wolf reintroduction do not consider there to be clear accountability for the impact of wolves once reintroduced and believe that the government has been untruthful in regards to their listing, and are overreaching by continuing to protect them after stated recovery goals have been met (Rott, 2020). 

Also, restoring wolves to their historic range may not be realistic, as human influence has greatly expanded in the last few centuries. Wolf populations may need a permanent level of protection as well as population controls to mitigate their harmful impacts on human systems, such as ranching (OFWD, 2021). The cost of this may not be considered by all to be worth it. 

Citations:

Beschta, R. L., & Ripple, W. J. (2016). Riparian vegetation recovery in Yellowstone: The first two decades after wolf reintroduction. Biological Conservation, 198, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.031

Boitani, L., Phillips, M. & Jhala, Y. (2018). Canis lupus (errata version published in 2020). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T3746A163508960. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T3746A163508960.en.

Carroll, C., Rohlf, D.J., vonHoldt, B.M., Treves, A., Hendricks, S.A. (2021). Wolf Delisting Challenges Demonstrate Need for an Improved Framework for Conserving Intraspecific Variation under the Endangered Species Act. BioScience, Volume 71, Issue 1, Pages 73–84, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa125

Center For Biological Diversity. (2020). Wolves on the West Coast. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/wolves_on_the_west_coast/index.html. Accessed November 2, 2021. 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department. (2021). Wolves and Livestock in Oregon. ODFW. https://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/docs/ODFW%20General%20Information%20for%20Producers%20210421.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2021.

Oregon Wild. (2017). Support Wolf Recovery in Oregon. Oregon Wild. http://www.oregonwild.org/sites/default/files/pdf-files/wolf_sheet_fact_sheet_10-4-17.pdf. Accessed November 2, 2021.

Rott, Nathan. (2020). Gray Wolves To Be Removed From Endangered Species List. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/29/929095979/gray-wolves-to-be-removed-from-endangered-species-list. Accessed November 3, 2021.

Wolf Conservation Center. (2021). How Many Wild Wolves Are in the United States? Wolf Conservation Center.  https://nywolf.org/learn/u-s-wolf-populations/. Accessed November 1st, 2021.

Treves A, Santiago-Ávila, F.J., Putrevu, K. (2021). Quantifying the effects of delisting wolves after the first state began lethal management. PeerJ 9:e11666. DOI 10.7717/peerj.11666

US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011). Gray Wolf (canis lupus). Official Web page of the U S Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/biologue.htm. Accessed November 3, 2021.