• Smithsonian
    Institution
  • Travel
    With Us
  • Smithsonian
    Store
  • Smithsonian
    Channel
  • goSmithsonian
    Visitors Guide
  • Air & Space
    magazine

Smithsonian.com

  • Subscribe
  • History & Archaeology
  • Science
  • Ideas & Innovations
  • Arts & Culture
  • Travel & Food
  • At the Smithsonian
  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Games
  • Shop
  • Human Behavior
  • Mind & Body
  • Our Planet
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Wildlife
  • Art Meets Science
  • Science & Nature

Wolves and the Balance of Nature in the Rockies

Wolves are flourishing again in the northern Rockies. Yet even as they're helping restore the balance of nature, they're also killing livestock—and reigniting a fierce controversy

| | | Reddit | Digg | Stumble | Email |
  • By Frank Clifford
  • Smithsonian magazine, February 2009, Subscribe
View More Photos »
Gray wolf in Yellowstone
Once loathed as a "beast of waste," the gray wolf (in Yellowstone) is beloved by some as a symbol of unadulterated nature. (Jess R. Lee)

Photo Gallery (1/5)

Biologist Douglas Smith with sedated wolf

Explore more photos from the story


Video Gallery

Wolves Return to the Rockies

Wolves Return to the Rockies

Protecting Montana's Wildlife

Related Links

  • Western Gray Wolf information on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Related Books

Of Wolves and Men

by Barry Lopez
Scribner Classics, 2004

Decade of the Wolf: Returning the Wild to Yellowstone

by Douglas W. Smith and Gary Ferguson
Lyons Press, 2005

More from Smithsonian.com

  • Frank Clifford on "Howling Success"
  • Shadow Wolves
  • Yellowstone Grumbles
  • City Slinkers
  • Rising Seas Endanger Wetland Wildlife
  • North America’s Most Endangered Animals

(Page 3 of 4)

Of all the people who supported easing the restrictions on wolf hunting, perhaps the most surprising was Douglas W. Smith, a biologist who heads the Yellowstone Wolf Recovery Project and is the co-author of the 2005 book Decade of the Wolf. He helped carry the first wolves into the park in crates 14 years ago and has functioned as their head nanny ever since. But he also has sympathy for his ranching neighbors. "We covet what we've lost, and when you go out and see wolves free in nature, it's real," he said. "Most people are so many levels removed from wild nature that seeing wolves establishes a very powerful link. But ranchers already have a strong connection. They don't need wolves for that."

Smith agrees that Yellowstone's wolves need to mix with animals outside the park to strengthen their genetic stock. It's just that he doesn't think hunting or stricter predator control laws will prevent that. "I have faith in the wolves," he said during an interview in his office at Yellowstone National Park headquarters. "They will find each other."

If they are allowed to, that is. Even if the wolves continue to roam relatively more freely, their future survival would not be guaranteed in a part of the country where human development is quickly expanding into wildlife habitat.

For now, the reintroduced wolves appear to be doing the job they were recruited to do—put more teeth in the natural order that had been out of whack since the wolves disappeared in the early 20th century. By 2005, they were killing around 3,000 elk every year in Yellowstone, where outsized herds had been denuding the park's vegetation. Much of the elk predation took place in the Lamar Valley in the northeast quarter of the park, a stretch of open space that has been compared to East Africa's Serengeti Plain. For all its magnificence, it has been something of an unbalanced ecosystem, the absence of trees due in no small part to an overabundance of browsing elk.

With wolves back on the prowl, the elk became more restive. And as the elk spent less time foraging along stream banks, scientists have reported that willows and other plants that had been eaten to the nubs began to flourish again. So did some of the animals that depend on the trees, like beavers, which use willow branches to build lodges. Since the wolves were reintroduced, beaver colonies have increased eightfold. So there are more beaver ponds—habitat for insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, even moose, Smith says. Especially in winter, wolf kills have provided food for other park dwellers, including ravens, magpies and bald and golden eagles.

For human visitors to the park, one of the highlights of wildlife viewing in recent years has been watching the combat between wolves and grizzly bears, alternately fierce and comical, for control of elk carcasses. Wolf watching generates more than $35 million a year for motels, restaurants and other businesses in the three states surrounding the park, according to park surveys.

Hard-core wolf watchers arrive at first light, their cars filling roadside turnouts in the Lamar Valley. They erect a picket line of spotting scopes and point their lenses at den sites in the hillsides that frame the valley. Some of the regulars act as volunteer aides to the wolf recovery project, documenting the appearance of new pups, changes in den sites and interactions with other animals.

"Getting to know a wolf pack is like getting to know a family," said Laurie Lyman. Three years ago, she and her husband retired from teaching jobs in San Diego and moved to Silver Gate, Montana, just outside the park's northeast entrance and a 30-minute drive from the Lamar Valley. "Each wolf has its own individual temperament—the ones that nurture the pups, the males that feed the females. Everybody means something in the pack. Each wolf contributes. One of my goals is to get more people to look into the lives of wolves so they better understand the effect they have when they kill wolves."

A wolf pack has a familial makeup, typically consisting of parents and one or more generations of offspring. Slow to mature sexually, wolf pups stay with their parents up to four years, longer than many other mammals. In the process, the pups learn about hunting, foraging and working with other members of the pack.

The number of wolves in a pack varies with the size of their prey. Wolves that dine regularly on big animals—bison, elk or caribou—tend to operate in large packs of up to 15 members. In summer, packs are likely to split up, with individuals traveling 20 or more miles a day in pursuit of small prey such as squirrels and beaver. In winter, when snow slows down bigger animals, a wolf pack tends to work together, bringing down an elk every other day or so.

The constant combat takes a toll. In Yellowstone National Park, where only 2 percent of mortality is caused by humans—mostly by car accidents— the average life span of a wolf is still only four to five years. (Wolves in captivity sometimes live into their teens.) When he examines wolves that have died in the park, Smith routinely finds smashed bones, teeth ground to useless stubs and scars from fights with rival packs, moose and bison. Disease has also exacted a heavy price. Two-thirds of the pups born in 2005 died from distemper, a viral infection that strikes the respiratory and central nervous systems.


Roger Lang looked at two black wolves looking back at him. "I knew they wouldn't get them all," he said, steadying his binoculars on the steering wheel of his pickup truck. "Some of them were trapped. Some were shot from helicopters. They culled nine and actually thought they got the whole pack. But you can see they didn't."

Sloping down to the Madison River, Lang's 18,000-acre Sun Ranch in southwest Montana is an Old West tableau of rippling prairie, plunging streams, ghostly bands of elk, browsing cattle—and, at the moment, two wolves poised like sentinels on a knoll beneath the snowy peaks of the Madison Range. About 25 miles west of Yellowstone National Park, the ranch straddles a river valley that is part of an ancient migration corridor for elk, deer, antelope and grizzly bears that move seasonally in and out of Yellowstone's high country.

Lang has a close-up view of one of the most dramatic and contentious wildlife experiments in a century—the reintroduction of wolves to the northern Rocky Mountains, where they were wiped out long ago. Caught in Canada and flown to Yellowstone, 41 wolves were released in the area between 1995 and 1997, restoring the only missing member of the park's native mammals. Since then, wolves have begun migrating in and out of the park, their howls music to ears of wilderness lovers and as chilling as war whoops to many ranchers.

Wolves from Yellowstone were on Lang's property by the time he acquired it in 1998. A former Silicon Valley entrepreneur who amassed a fortune in the software business, he seeks to breach a gap between people—including many transplanted urbanites—who would grant wolves unconditional amnesty and others who would exterminate them. "Wolves were here before we were and deserve a place," said Lang. "But that doesn't mean some of them aren't going to die if they misbehave."

After wolves killed five of his cows, he consulted with federal wildlife officials, who pass sentence on incorrigible wolves. "The feds proposed taking out the whole pack and we acquiesced," he said.

As he peered again at the two surviving wolves, Lang's half-smile conveyed a mixture of alarm and relief. "They are remarkable animals."

Revered and reviled, the wolf embodies society's conflicted relationship with nature. A bronze wolf guarded the shrine of Apollo at Delphi; a wolf stalks a child in Little Red Riding Hood. Plains Indians respected the wolf as a great hunter and as a guide to the spirit world; American settlers slaughtered more than a million wolves during the 1800s. Trappers killed wolves that raided their traplines and sold the pelts for a dollar apiece. Stockmen's associations offered bounties for dead wolves. The slaughter was abetted by an ancient antagonism. Even Teddy Roosevelt, the cowboy conservationist, called the wolf a "beast of waste and desolation" and hunted it mercilessly.

The federal government began subsidizing wolf extermination on federal lands in 1915, and the last known wolf den in Yellowstone—prior to the wolf's recent comeback—was destroyed in 1923. By the 1940s, the animals were extinct in the northern Rocky Mountains—shot, trapped or poisoned. (A few hundred remained in the United States, mostly in northern Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.) Then, at the dawn of the modern conservation movement and "coinciding with the paving of America," says Thomas McNamee, author of the 1997 book The Return of the Wolf to Yellowstone, the wolf emerged as a symbol of the nation's vanishing wild heritage. It was among the first animals protected under the 1973 Endangered Species Act.

The idea of returning the gray wolf, Canis lupus (which can be gray, black or white), to Yellowstone goes back to the Nixon administration. Proponents have argued that the wolf was a keystone species whose presence would reinvigorate the natural order. Without it, they said, Yellowstone was incomplete, the West a bland facsimile of its old wild self. "We have a psychological need for something big and bad that represents wildness. Wolves fulfill that," said Jim Halfpenny, an ecologist and author who has been leading wildlife classes in the park for nearly 40 years. Western lawmakers resisted reintroduction at first but eventually agreed to the plan. A loophole in the wolves' endangered species status authorized U.S. wildlife officials to kill animals that preyed on livestock on federal land and permitted landowners to do the same on their property. The loophole did not apply to wolves in the park: they remained under the full protection of the Endangered Species Act, as did a small number of wolves that had begun moving on their own into northern Montana from Canada in the late 1970s.

About the same time wolves were finally released in Yellowstone, three dozen others were also reintroduced in Idaho's Frank Church Wilderness. Both groups reclaimed old haunts with unanticipated gusto. Some of the park wolves scaled a ten-foot-high chain-link enclosure around their acclimation pen, and then dug under the fence to let out the rest of the wolves. Two traveled 40 miles within a week of gaining their freedom.

During the first decade after reintroduction, the wolf populations soared. By 2007, an estimated 1,500 wolves inhabited the northern Rockies of the United States—many descended from released wolves, others from the Canadian immigrant packs—with about 170 in Yellowstone.

To many naturalists, the thriving wolf population was a hopeful sign that it was possible to restock wild country with long-lost native inhabitants. But as the wolves made themselves at home again, old adversaries in the ranching community sought broader license to kill them.

By the end of 2007, wolves had been implicated in the deaths of about 2,700 livestock in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming in the dozen years since their reintroduction. They were preying on sheep and cattle at a rate higher than government scientists had predicted. Still, the predation represented a small fraction of all livestock losses.

One environmental group, Defenders of Wildlife, which has been a strong advocate of wolf reintroduction, established a fund to compensate ranchers for cows, sheep and other animals killed by wolves. The group reports it has paid ranchers about $1 million. The compensation doesn't make up for all the losses ranchers cite, such as the lower prices fetched for thin, wolf-harried cattle or the cost of extra manpower and material to protect livestock from predators.

By 2003, many Westerners were insisting that wolves be subject to more lethal control, which would require the animals' removal from the endangered species list. They got their way in early 2008, when the Bush administration ceded responsibility for most of the Rocky Mountain wolves to state officials in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The states quickly adopted rules that sanctioned wolf hunts and generally made it easier to kill the animals. Wolves within Yellowstone's boundaries along with those in northern Montana remained under federal protection.

In the first month of relaxed regulation, at least 37 wolves were killed across the three states. By the end of July, more than 100 were dead. Bumper stickers proclaimed "Wolves—Government Sponsored Terrorists." Politicians stirred the pot. Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter was widely quoted saying "I'm prepared to bid for the first ticket [hunting license] to shoot a wolf myself." Gov. Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming questioned whether any wolf packs outside Yellowstone in his state "are even necessary."

"I'm kind of a tree hugger myself and I've never killed a wolf," said Jack Turnell, whose family has run the Pitchfork Ranch near Meeteetse, Wyoming, for most of the past century. "But the wolf people lied to me. They asked me would I resist having 100 wolves in Yellowstone. 'No,' I said, if I could stop them at the borders. Now, all of a sudden we have 1,500 wolves. One of 'em can kill 20 of something in a year. You need to say they can't get into farm and ranch areas. You can't turn wolves loose like they were a bunch of balloons."

Wolves have nipped hard at the pocketbooks of people like Martin Davis of Paradise Valley, Montana, who guides elk hunters in the mountains north of Yellowstone National Park. As the wolves have feasted on the herds, there have been fewer elk for hunters to shoot. "Our hunting has really gone lousy," Davis said. "Our repeat clients are saying when they see less wolves and more elk, they'll come back."

But the Yellowstone wolves have attracted a passionate following. Surveys conducted by the National Park Service found that nearly 100,000 people come to the park each year from other states specifically to see wolves. Visitors have formed attachments to individual wolves, and certain ones seem to have had a knack for playing to the crowd. A park favorite was a lame but bold male, nicknamed Limpy. He was shot and killed outside the park last spring.

The shooting of Limpy and other wolves spurred conservationists to challenge the new state management plans. They singled out Wyoming's especially permissive approach to killing wolves. "It's antithetical to good wildlife management. It just allows an animal to be killed for the sake of killing it," said Hank Fischer, of Missoula, Montana, who helped establish the fund to reimburse ranchers who lost livestock to wolves.

Twelve environmental groups sued to return management of the wolves to the federal government, arguing that the Yellowstone wolf population would not be sustainable until members mated with wolves in Idaho or northern Montana. By allowing hundreds of wolves to be killed outside the park, the lawsuit claimed, populations would be cut off from one another, and inbreeding would eventually weaken them, making them more vulnerable to disease, drought and other perils.

The court largely agreed. "The reduction in the wolf population that will occur as a result of public wolf hunts and [predator] control laws in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming is more than likely to eliminate any chance for genetic exchange to occur," U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy wrote in a ruling this past summer that effectively overturned the federal move to let the three states regulate wolf hunting. The ruling restored the wolf's status to what it was at reintroduction: only animals that take livestock may be killed.

Of all the people who supported easing the restrictions on wolf hunting, perhaps the most surprising was Douglas W. Smith, a biologist who heads the Yellowstone Wolf Recovery Project and is the co-author of the 2005 book Decade of the Wolf. He helped carry the first wolves into the park in crates 14 years ago and has functioned as their head nanny ever since. But he also has sympathy for his ranching neighbors. "We covet what we've lost, and when you go out and see wolves free in nature, it's real," he said. "Most people are so many levels removed from wild nature that seeing wolves establishes a very powerful link. But ranchers already have a strong connection. They don't need wolves for that."

Smith agrees that Yellowstone's wolves need to mix with animals outside the park to strengthen their genetic stock. It's just that he doesn't think hunting or stricter predator control laws will prevent that. "I have faith in the wolves," he said during an interview in his office at Yellowstone National Park headquarters. "They will find each other."

If they are allowed to, that is. Even if the wolves continue to roam relatively more freely, their future survival would not be guaranteed in a part of the country where human development is quickly expanding into wildlife habitat.

For now, the reintroduced wolves appear to be doing the job they were recruited to do—put more teeth in the natural order that had been out of whack since the wolves disappeared in the early 20th century. By 2005, they were killing around 3,000 elk every year in Yellowstone, where outsized herds had been denuding the park's vegetation. Much of the elk predation took place in the Lamar Valley in the northeast quarter of the park, a stretch of open space that has been compared to East Africa's Serengeti Plain. For all its magnificence, it has been something of an unbalanced ecosystem, the absence of trees due in no small part to an overabundance of browsing elk.

With wolves back on the prowl, the elk became more restive. And as the elk spent less time foraging along stream banks, scientists have reported that willows and other plants that had been eaten to the nubs began to flourish again. So did some of the animals that depend on the trees, like beavers, which use willow branches to build lodges. Since the wolves were reintroduced, beaver colonies have increased eightfold. So there are more beaver ponds—habitat for insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, even moose, Smith says. Especially in winter, wolf kills have provided food for other park dwellers, including ravens, magpies and bald and golden eagles.

For human visitors to the park, one of the highlights of wildlife viewing in recent years has been watching the combat between wolves and grizzly bears, alternately fierce and comical, for control of elk carcasses. Wolf watching generates more than $35 million a year for motels, restaurants and other businesses in the three states surrounding the park, according to park surveys.

Hard-core wolf watchers arrive at first light, their cars filling roadside turnouts in the Lamar Valley. They erect a picket line of spotting scopes and point their lenses at den sites in the hillsides that frame the valley. Some of the regulars act as volunteer aides to the wolf recovery project, documenting the appearance of new pups, changes in den sites and interactions with other animals.

"Getting to know a wolf pack is like getting to know a family," said Laurie Lyman. Three years ago, she and her husband retired from teaching jobs in San Diego and moved to Silver Gate, Montana, just outside the park's northeast entrance and a 30-minute drive from the Lamar Valley. "Each wolf has its own individual temperament—the ones that nurture the pups, the males that feed the females. Everybody means something in the pack. Each wolf contributes. One of my goals is to get more people to look into the lives of wolves so they better understand the effect they have when they kill wolves."

A wolf pack has a familial makeup, typically consisting of parents and one or more generations of offspring. Slow to mature sexually, wolf pups stay with their parents up to four years, longer than many other mammals. In the process, the pups learn about hunting, foraging and working with other members of the pack.

The number of wolves in a pack varies with the size of their prey. Wolves that dine regularly on big animals—bison, elk or caribou—tend to operate in large packs of up to 15 members. In summer, packs are likely to split up, with individuals traveling 20 or more miles a day in pursuit of small prey such as squirrels and beaver. In winter, when snow slows down bigger animals, a wolf pack tends to work together, bringing down an elk every other day or so.

The constant combat takes a toll. In Yellowstone National Park, where only 2 percent of mortality is caused by humans—mostly by car accidents— the average life span of a wolf is still only four to five years. (Wolves in captivity sometimes live into their teens.) When he examines wolves that have died in the park, Smith routinely finds smashed bones, teeth ground to useless stubs and scars from fights with rival packs, moose and bison. Disease has also exacted a heavy price. Two-thirds of the pups born in 2005 died from distemper, a viral infection that strikes the respiratory and central nervous systems.

Diminishing food sources alone are likely to limit the growth of the Yellowstone wolf population. Smith predicts that it will eventually stabilize at around 100 animals, about 40 percent smaller than its 2007 size. Today, half of Yellowstone's wolves live in and around the Lamar Valley, where the animals were first reintroduced. Recently, said Smith, wolves have begun killing each other in fights over elk carcasses, a sure sign that prey is getting scarcer. "We've not seen anything like that level of wolf on wolf mortality before."

Yellowstone may be the nation's best-known wildlife haven, but it's not a stable environment. Today, park ecologists are alarmed about the spread of nonnative plants, which have more than doubled in the past 20 years, possibly because of warming temperatures and a longer growing season. Some of the exotics, such as cheat grass and alyssum, a mustard, are shunned by wildlife and may crowd out natural vegetation that feed the elk, deer and bison that are staples of the wolves' diet.

Outside the two-million-acre park, the landscape is also changing. Since 1970 the amount of open space around the park that has been used for new homes has grown by 350 percent, while the human population has increased by more than 60 percent.

For Yellowstone's wolves to continue thriving, Smith said, the animals will need access to corridors of open country that allow them to move west and north and ultimately breed with counterparts in Idaho and northern Montana. "If there's any animal that can move the necessary distance, it's a wolf, if we give them any sort of opportunity," he said.

One crucial corridor from Yellowstone to Idaho's Frank Church Wilderness, where reintroduced wolves continue to do well, follows creeks that run through Roger Lang's ranch in the Madison Valley and water meadows where his cattle graze. Today, the scattered signs of modern civilization in the valley are still dwarfed by the great green sweep of untrammeled countryside. But the beauty of the place can work against it. According to Lang, one-third of the valley is being developed, a third is protected and the rest is up for grabs.

This past fall, Lang established a conservation easement on the majority of his property. "Our intent is to preserve a wild corridor through this valley," Lang said.

Lang has worked hard to coexist with wolves that have taken up residence on his ranch. He has used firecrackers and rubber bullets to keep wolves away from his cows. He has employed night riders to patrol fence lines. This past year he strung miles of fluttering pennants from wire fences. The practice, known as fladry, has been used by stockmen in Europe and Canada to deter wolves.

A few days after ranch hands attached Lang's flags, he found fresh wolf tracks directly underneath them.

Lang acknowledges that his ability to absorb some financial losses makes him more tolerant of wolves than some of his neighbors. At the same time, his willingness to kill problem wolves on occasion has antagonized local environmentalists. "The purpose is to find a balance," Lang said. "Preservation of the species is not the same as protecting every member."

Removed from the scientific challenges of working in Silicon Valley, he still thinks of himself as a problem solver. "Wolves have to be part of the equation. The trick is how to create a détente with them. We're just asking for everyone to be patient while we experiment with ways to make it happen."

Frank Clifford is the author of The Backbone of the World: A Portrait of the Vanishing West Along the Continental Divide.


Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »

    Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.


Related topics: Carnivores Population Ranching Colorado Mountains


| | | Reddit | Digg | Stumble | Email |
 

Add New Comment


Name: (required)

Email: (required)

Comment:

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Comments (39)

I hate that they are killing wolves for no reason it is seriously pathetic to do such a thing....just wrong to do it I don't understand why Obama to do such a thing I think he does it because so many wolves but that does not make it okay to kill an entire population of wolves because if it goes on for any longer and if it does ther won't be any more wolves And just to think of it is just terrible

Posted by rebecca on April 25,2013 | 04:20 PM

I've quit eating beef over this . The extreme cruelty of these states who are allowing these wolves to be killed is heart wrenching. Cattle are invasive species that destroy the environment. I have no patience with the ranching community anymore. I have also lost respect for these states.

Posted by Karl Schueman on January 2,2013 | 01:32 PM

I really enjoyed reading the intresting coments written concerning the so called evident wolfe problem in the yellowstone ecosytem. The comments i have is that weather you or i like it the wolves belong there and up here in canada aswell. The athorities do need to learn a little more on just how to manage problem areas with high concentration of these intresting creatures. Up here we call them preditor pits. I am cree which means i am first nations. These creature have a very important roll in any ecosystem without wolves the ungulates such as moose/elk/deer and so on need them to insure a healthy population exists. I really get a bad taste in my mouth when the predominant complaint is ranchers and money to you very obviosly narrow minded people my advise to you is open you eyes your mind and grow up and be a part of the solution rather than a constant part of the problem. Educate yourselves boys. the land is theres always has always will be. After were all done poluting ourselve off this planet guesse who will still be around? yup and were sapose to be the smart mammals.

Posted by melisa on December 5,2012 | 01:00 PM

I really enjoyed reading the intresting coments written concerning the so called evident wolfe problem in the yellowstone ecosytem. The comments i have is that weather you or i like it the wolves belong there and up here in canada aswell. The athorities do need to learn a little more on just how to manage problem areas with high concentration of these intresting creatures. Up here we call them preditor pits. I am cree which means i am first nations. These creature have a very important roll in any ecosystem without wolves the ungulates such as moose/elk/deer and so on need them to insure a healthy population exists. I really get a bad taste in my mouth when the predominant complaint is ranchers and money to you very obviosly narrow minded people my advise to you is open you eyes your mind and grow up and be a part of the solution rather than a constant part of the problem. Educate yourselves boys. the land is theres always has always will be. After were all done poluting ourselve off this planet guesse who will still be around? yup and were sapose to be the smart mammals.

Posted by darryl on June 12,2012 | 10:50 PM

The ranchers can also buy a cd that has another packs wolf howls...you broadcast it at night and that keeps other packs of dogs away from you area..It really does work!

Posted by mmm on May 11,2012 | 11:44 PM

Are wolf's Marathon or short distance runers?

Posted by Elizabeth on April 6,2012 | 03:34 PM

I think the introduction of wolves was a big disgrace to elk herds canadians were probably laughing all the way to the bank becase of wolf lovers that don't fare if they kill all the elk Android deer id rather see one elk than a dozen wolves

Posted by rod walchly on January 23,2012 | 11:45 AM

The balance of nature is a widely discredited ecologic theory and hasn't been taught in university ecology courses for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_nature

So far I've just read the title of this essay and found it lacking, I might comment further after reading.

Posted by Som Sai on December 26,2011 | 11:00 AM

I believe that everyone has to know every bit of the spectrum. I live literally and hour from Yellowstone National Park, I live this issue every day. Wolves are not a bad animal, at all. But their numbers do need to drop down. Wolves are pack animals which means when more wolves mate and create new packs they are pushed out of Yellowstone and on to our property. What people need to understand is they do eat livestock and attack peoples pets. They need to eat and they are extremely protective over their territory. It is not slaughter to protect your lively hood. Cattle around here is the way of life and when wolves come in and kill your livestock its hurting the way a rancher lives. I am all for reintroduction to wolves in Yellowstone. But people need to understand that is where they need to stay and belong. Some people might say, "wolves dont know the boundary." but really, they do. When they realized pack members are being shot when they cross out of Yellowstone they wont go there anymore. Just like if your dog had a shock collar on. If he was to get shocked a certain amount of times he will soon learn not to go near the place that he gets shocked. Wolves are not dumb animals. I love wolves and I study them when I get the chance. So for those people who think they know what is going on with the wolves I live with everyday, you really have no idea.

Posted by Kasey Cape on November 28,2011 | 10:59 AM

Are you smarter than a 7th grader?

Posted by Ken on August 17,2011 | 01:05 PM

I believe wolves have their place in the circle of life and am pleased that they have a haven in Yellowstone. What I deplore is the hunting of the wolves from airplanes and helicopters in Alaska, where the wolves are chased and harrassed until they can no longer run and have no place to hide, and then are shot. That is not sportsmanship; it is slaughter.

Posted by Maida Christner on February 9,2009 | 10:16 AM

Non-native Canadian wolves chase and harrass their prey until they can no longer run and have no place to hide, and kill eating animals while they are still alive.
They even do all this withtout eating animals they kill just for fun! (That Is Not Sportsmanship; It Is Slaughter!)
You see this is not the same wolf that is native to the United States! Non-native Canadian wolves are the worst crime ever committed on our native wildlife ever in this country!

Posted by Ken on August 17,2011 | 01:02 PM

Every man/woman has a right to choose where they want to make a living. Some choose the great cities of society, some choose the Arctic, some choose the swamp lands of Louisiana, or Florida, or the Deserts of the Mojave Desert, and my relatives, choose Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas to raise their Cattle and livestock. All come with consequences of nature, good and bad. In the great Cities, man/woman must be aware of the Human Preditor. In the Arctic, Man/Woman must be aware of the eliments, not to mention Polar Bears.
The Swamps have Alligators and Venomous Snakes. The Desert has oppressive heat, and very little moisture. The midwest deals with Tornado's and twisters. Whatever the challenge that Man/Woman is confronted with, how we make the choices to deal with our environment is as important as the end result we seek. Nature has no known natural boundaries. Humans do! When we choose a path that crosses nature's path, depending on the situation and area we choose to inhabit, nature will win most of the encounters. The equalizer between Humans and Nature is Technology. Wolves or Preditors do not have guns, or traps, or helicopters to be hunted. They do not know they are encroaching upon Mans/Woman's domain. Business, Government, and Science must find a way that all of us can live with each other. Sacrifices on all sides will need to be made. But this is America, we don't manufacture anything to speak of here anymore, but we do manufacture something the rest of the world is lacking, "innovation" We can come up with the right solutions, we must come up with the right solutions, who will come up with the right solutions? Will it be you?

Posted by James B. Albert on June 14,2011 | 10:21 PM

First of all i would like to say that yes, the ranchers are justified in shooting the wolves for eating thier property. However, there wouldnt even be an issue if the wolves land wasnt taken up. they wouldnt need to go on to ranchers land if theirs wasnt taken first. wolves are being driven out of their home and hunting grounds. How would any of you like it if some came up to you and kicked you out of your home and job and took it over. You would have to fend for yourselvesand your family. You would do anything you had to to make sure you and your family would survive. This is how it is with wolves. When they are kicked out of their home thay will do anything to feed their young and make sure that their family lived out the winter. So next time think about that before you go kill another wolf. One calf will only feed two adult wolves, if that that . It's the least you could do.

Posted by Viviane Pendragon on January 22,2010 | 05:27 PM

THERE IS NO BALANCE OF WOLVES WHEN DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE CANT EVEN PLAY BY THERE OWN GIUDLINES DONT MATTER WHAT STATE THEY HAVE DONE THE SAMETHING.HERE IN MN. THE GOAL WAS 1,600 WOLVES THEN COULD BE DELISTED WHY STILL PROTECTED WHEN POPULATION IS ALMOST 4,OOO AND THEY STILL WANT MORE INSANE.LOOK AT THE DEFENDERS OF ANIMALS TV SHOWS ANIMAL PLANET BACK TO BACK EPISODES OFOVER POPULATED,STARVEING DOGS AND CATS IN THE BIG CITIES THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT WANT WOLVES TO BE AT NUMBERS OF A HUNDRED YEARS AGO,HOW IN THE WORLD CAN THEY TAKE CARE OF WILD DOGS WHEN THEY CANT TAKE CARE OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS IN THERE OWN BACK YARD.DO I HAVE SOME REVENGE AND HATRED TO WOLVES YOU BET WHEN THEY KILLED 32 CALVES AND I GET PAID FOR THREE AND YES THIS IS PRIVATE LAND AND MANY THOUSAND DOLLARS THEY ATE.THERE WAS 17 WOLVES IN THIS PACK VERIFIED BY OUR WONDERFUL DNR .

Posted by MN.RANCHER on December 6,2009 | 05:11 PM

I am a highschool teacher and taught a lesson this week about the hunting of wolves. We came to a conclusion that the wolves that had collars should not have been shot...shoot the others if you have to...but not the study group...thats unfortunate. One of my students suggests that the numbers stay low and we ship the wolves to another location. We are in shock, yet their is slight justification to the ranchers need for revenge.

Posted by D. McCluskey on November 13,2009 | 03:59 PM

Can you substantiate that the ranches sustaining livestock losses to predation by wolves sit on land leased from government at low rates?

Posted by Richard S on July 27,2009 | 11:25 AM

These ranchers should consider (if they aren't already) investing in livestock guardian dogs to protect the grazing herds. It may not prevent all attacks and deaths, but it can seriously help reduce the numbers. I realize these wolves are pretty large and aggressive, but there are LGDs that will thwart attacks or stall attacks long enough, where the ranchers can come and hopefully scare off the wolves, instead of killing them off.

Posted by Joe on June 9,2009 | 12:48 PM

I thoroughly agree with Ric Samulski. I visited two Elderhostel wolf seminars in Yellowstone recently and have heard the sentiments of local ranchers. In general, it is them and people who build their homes way up into wild territory that are intruding into wildlife. When elks get decimated, wolves are looking for other prey. If ranchers want to move their cattle into subsidized grazing area they are asking for trouble. Give wolves some space and they will not bother the cattle - they don't even like beef!

Posted by Tamara Wulff on February 11,2009 | 11:04 PM

I am a seventh grade student. I enjoyed reading your article. It is interseting and educational. I think its a good idea for the wolves to return to the rockies. I dont agree to the idea to kill the wolves. This was a great article.

Posted by Karen on February 9,2009 | 02:28 PM

I am in the 7th grade and i have read this article. It was very interesting and how the wolves are not safe.This article was very good, and I give it two thumbs up!

Posted by Vanessa Gallego on February 9,2009 | 02:23 PM

hello! I am in the seventh grade. I really enjoyed reading this article. My classmates and I all read this and im sure they enjoyed it as well. I would definately recommend this article to other students my age or any age! Thankyou . byee

Posted by Brittney Lancellotti on February 9,2009 | 02:16 PM

I am a 7th grader at St. Sebastian School. This article was very good and interesting to read. I have learned a lot about wolves after reading this. Thank You for writting this article.

Posted by Daniela Nunez on February 9,2009 | 02:13 PM

I believe wolves have their place in the circle of life and am pleased that they have a haven in Yellowstone. What I deplore is the hunting of the wolves from airplanes and helicopters in Alaska, where the wolves are chased and harrassed until they can no longer run and have no place to hide, and then are shot. That is not sportsmanship; it is slaughter.

Posted by Maida Christner on February 9,2009 | 10:16 AM

This article was very interesting to read. I can now see how much humans affect wolves' lives, and how much wolves can balance out nature. Letting the wolves return to the Rockies was a great idea, though they are a menace to ranchers. I do agree that wolves must be killed if they make trouble,but I hope that not too many get killed. This article was great also beacause it made me sympathize both the ranchers, for their loss of cattle, and the wolves, for their uncertain population changes. Thank you for the oppurtunity to learn about wolves.

Posted by Alexa Suarez on February 8,2009 | 12:38 PM

The reintroduction of the wolf is not a true reintroduction. The wolf that was here in Idaho was a smaller sized animal. The Alaskan wolf is a larger and more aggressive animal. What this and many other articles are not telling you is this wolf is killing the new born calves of deer, elk, moose not just cattle. The herds are decreasing in size. They are raiding hibernating bear dens killing the mother and her cubs. About two years ago, two men with their hunting dogs went out to train the dogs. The wolves killed over half of the dogs and attacked one of the men. The other man went to court on charges of killing wolves. Self dense apparently is not allowed where the wolf is concerned. This is something the wolves here in Idaho and surrounding states did not do two hundred years ago. No this is not a reintroduction. This is a new variety and it is far more aggressive.

Posted by Barbara in Idaho on February 8,2009 | 11:57 AM

It just sort of struck me that the Software Tycoon/Rancher in this article would say Wolves killing Livestock were misbehaving. Wouldn't Wolves killing Livestock especially calves be considered a natural and normally expected behavior for Wolves? It just seems nobody could expect less of a Wolf. Not misbehaving but natural and normal behavior.

Posted by Gerald Flaherty on February 7,2009 | 01:18 PM

It pains me to learn that sometimes there must be compromises. I do not hunt, but I see the value that hunters (man and wolf alike) play in regulating ecosystems. The world is not the same as it was 100+ years ago, no matter how much we want it to be. Wolves aggravate and strike so much fear into some people that they are pushed beyond their limits. Wolves have a right to live, but human interests will always prevail legally or not. BTW I am not a 7th grader but I do think that 7th graders need more grammar lessons.

Posted by illeterate R. wEe on February 7,2009 | 04:17 AM

I am in the seventh grade. This article is very good.It expresses the all the difficluties in thier own habitat. Thanksss bye

Posted by Stephanie Arbelaez on February 4,2009 | 09:52 AM

I am a seventh grader and my class and I read this article and really enjoyed it. It was a great article and I would reccomend it to others!

Posted by Kayla B. on February 4,2009 | 09:51 AM

I really like the information provided in this passage. I believe strongly that everyone should know what is happening around our enviorment. this is from St

Posted by Branden on February 4,2009 | 09:51 AM

I'm a 7th grade student and I like smithsonianmag.com.I think this is an excellent article idea,and I learned a lot more about wolves.I appreciate both sides of the wolf story.The problem about the wolf eating the elk is a great idea,I think so you can keep the YellowstonePark in balance.

Posted by Danny Lin on February 4,2009 | 09:50 AM

Hello. I read this article for my 7th grade class. I enjoyed this article. It is a good subject to right about. I believe that reinstating the wolves is a good idea. The wolves deserve to come back. I would gladly go to watch the wolves but I'm in New York. Keep writing about good things.

Posted by Kyle on February 4,2009 | 09:49 AM

It was great and was very informative. It told me all about the wolves and what is happening to them. I liked the articall because it said exactly what is happening. I am a seventh grade student in Saint Sebastian School.

Posted by Max on February 4,2009 | 09:48 AM

I am a 7th garder reading yu article about wolf it was a very nice wrting and smart thing to do for wolf and you would just understant what you guy are sayingto uss and i like itt very much cause it was intersting

Posted by AROMA on February 4,2009 | 09:47 AM

I'm in the seventh grade, and my class read your article. It was very informative and it'd be nice to see the wolves survive.

Posted by Alex Feliciano on February 4,2009 | 09:46 AM

I felt that this article was very informative, but a little difficult to understand at times. Other than that, I enjoyed this article very much. Before I read this, I had no idea that the wolves were in such danger! I hope that when other people read this, they will take action! This was a very nice article!

Posted by Erica on February 4,2009 | 09:41 AM

RELATED BOOKS - I've read "Of Wolves and Men" by Lopez. It's on my bookshelf, right next to a more recent and even more comprehensive book, "Vicious - Wolves and Men in America" by Jon T. Coleman (Yale University Press). Coleman gives a provocative and often disturbing examination of the culture of wolf-killing that began in Europe and was exported to these shores with the first settlers. We've come a long way in the past 200-plus years and the Northern Rockies experiment should encourage us to take even more risks if it means restoring true, natural balance to our most fragile ecosystems.

Posted by Bob Young on February 3,2009 | 12:54 AM

Like all other writers on the subject, Clifford misses one important point. Most wolf kills of livestock probably occur not on deeded land actually owned by the rancher. Rather these kills occur on public lands leased by the rancher at rock bottom prices. These USFS and BLM lands are open to a variety of uses including hiking,timbering, fishing, AND wildlife habitat.

Ranchers could avoid most wolf attacks on their livestock by simply not leasing these lands. They won't, however. The low cost of these leases is too good a deal for them. That low cost is more than enough to offset any wolf kills of their sheep or cattle.

It would be interesting to see some solid statistics as to which wolf attacks occur on government leased land and which on private land.

Thanks, Ric Samulski

Posted by Ric Samulski on February 2,2009 | 09:40 AM

Greetings. A moderately interesting article the Smithsonian Magazine--it puts a gloss on the wolf and the West not unlike the products advertised between its glossy covers. As usual, the most important and interesting work on the subject matter and its "place", past and present, in our American story and on our Public Lands is not mentioned: Michael J. Robinson's Predatory Bureaucracy: The Extermination of Wolves and the Transformation of the West (University of Colorado Press, 2005). Wolves have been "implicated" in the deaths of countless livestock for too long. Our Government directly and through assisting farmers and ranchers have killed the wolf and the coyote and the prairie dog and the bear and the cougar and the eagle and even the magpie, who too quickly ate the bait placed to kill the foregoing, for groundless reasons for a century, at least. It is time to stop the killing.

Posted by Peter Doherty on January 28,2009 | 02:17 PM

Excellent article. It presents a nicely balanced story of the Yellowstone wolf and near surroundings. Having been born and raised in Wyoming myself, I appreciate both sides the wolf story. I think Lang has it right in his closing statement - give everybody enough time to sort it out and find a solution. I also agree that preserving the species isn't the same as preserving every member of the species. If a wolf "misbehaves" enough time, that animal has to go - one way or the other. Ranchers have a living to make too.

Posted by Jerold Saltz on January 25,2009 | 06:40 PM

Fantastic article which is inspiring enough to rack up a team for another study. Well done. L.M.

Posted by L.Mark McKee on January 23,2009 | 04:23 PM



Advertisement


Most Popular

  • Viewed
  • Emailed
  • Commented
  1. The Scariest Monsters of the Deep Sea
  2. 16 Photographs That Capture the Best and Worst of 1970s America
  3. Jack Andraka, the Teen Prodigy of Pancreatic Cancer
  4. Microbes: The Trillions of Creatures Governing Your Health

  5. How Titanoboa, the 40-Foot-Long Snake, Was Found
  6. The Ten Most Disturbing Scientific Discoveries
  7. Ten Inventions Inspired by Science Fiction
  8. Photos of the World’s Oldest Living Things
  9. The Pros to Being a Psychopath
  10. Buzz Aldrin on Why We Should Go to Mars
  1. A Plague of Pigs in Texas
  2. Jack Andraka, the Teen Prodigy of Pancreatic Cancer
  3. Are Babies Born Good?
  4. Ten Historic Female Scientists You Should Know
  1. How Our Brains Make Memories

View All Most Popular »

Advertisement

Follow Us

Smithsonian Magazine
@SmithsonianMag
Follow Smithsonian Magazine on Twitter

Sign up for regular email updates from Smithsonian.com, including daily newsletters and special offers.

In The Magazine

June 2013

  • The Mind on Fire
  • Burning Desire
  • 10 Epiphanies
  • Rocket Fuel
  • Accounting for Taste

View Table of Contents »






First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State   Zip
Email


Travel with Smithsonian




Smithsonian Store

Stars and Stripes Throw

Our exclusive Stars and Stripes Throw is a three-layer adaption of the 1861 “Stars and Stripes” quilt... $65



View full archiveRecent Issues


  • Jun 2013


  • May 2013


  • Apr 2013

Newsletter

Sign up for regular email updates from Smithsonian magazine, including free newsletters, special offers and current news updates.

Subscribe Now

About Us

Smithsonian.com expands on Smithsonian magazine's in-depth coverage of history, science, nature, the arts, travel, world culture and technology. Join us regularly as we take a dynamic and interactive approach to exploring modern and historic perspectives on the arts, sciences, nature, world culture and travel, including videos, blogs and a reader forum.

Explore our Brands

  • goSmithsonian.com
  • Smithsonian Air & Space Museum
  • Smithsonian Student Travel
  • Smithsonian Catalogue
  • Smithsonian Journeys
  • Smithsonian Channel
  • About Smithsonian
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Subscribe
  • RSS
  • Topics
  • Member Services
  • Copyright
  • Site Map
  • Privacy Policy
  • Ad Choices

Smithsonian Institution