Grey Wolf Impact on Yellowstone National Park and Surrounding Areas

ENG 2100
Daniel Francis

Introduction
Canis Lupus, or commonly referred to as the Grey Wolf, is a distinguished
species in North America. The wolf is not praised for their large size, but for their
beauty, social structure, and the elegance displayed when roaming the land. Grey
Wolves, or a subspecies of Grey Wolves have been around for centuries, impacting
the lives of the Native Americans and frontiersmen. However, 1973 brought a new
chapter to their existences. The federal government listed the Grey Wolf as
endangered in the lower 48 (Service T. U., 2012). The decline of population was
largely due to the settlement and expansion of rangers out west. The Grey Wolf is a
prestige species, and with the help of the federal, state, and private conservation
groups, they have made a successful come back.
Life History
The Grey Wolf is known as the largest of the wild dog species. (Smith 2002)
Their fur and color changes based on the season, available food, and the
environment they inhabit. They always have a white belly, and their tail is tipped
with black. Their coats, are as any other K-9, dense and good protection from the
elements. Wolves are very social, pack-living animals (Smith 2002), night
dwellers, and travel as far 120-125 miles when hunting for food. Being an itinerant
species, sustainable habitats varies. Grey Wolves populate a wide variety of habitat,
which can range from mountain, riparian, prairies, artic, and even more arid
habitations. They are carnivorous, but normally only eat the weak, old, and sick
animals; and livestock if needed. (Smith 2002) The wolf is at the top of the food
chain, so predation is minimal. These animals are very incredible species, and a
keystone species to a variety of ecosystems. All of these characteristic, give the

wolf a spiritual, courageous, fearless reputation. However, that reputation hasnt

protect them from the dangers of disease and rangers.

Enlistment of the Grey Wolf

In 1973 the wolves were listed as endangered. The population at Yellowstone
National Park dropped to less than 200 wolfs in the Northern Rocky Mountain
population (Western Grey Wolf 2014). Look at figure one. Starting in the 1980s the
wolf population has been making a comeback (Western Grey Wolf 2014). Even
though the last forty two years, the wolves have been on and off the endangered
species list. One issue has been the many sub-species of Grey Wolves and how their
habitat and location varies. The Grey Wolf consist of thirty two different species. The
three main wolf sub-species populations are the; Southern Mexican wolves, the
Great Lakes Population, and the Northern Rocky population. The Southern Mexican
Wolf and the Northern Rocky Population are the focus areas, because of the low
number of wild wolves. The Great Lakes population, was and still is the largest
population of wild, native, wolves. With all the different populations, and the wide
range in number of wolves in each. Adds challenges for conservationist, and the US
Fish and Wildlife to regulate the Grey Wolf.
Public Reaction
There have been mixed reviews of the reintroduction of wolves into
Yellowstone National Park. Since Grey Wolves are an iconic mammal, it gives them
more publicity. Overall, extensive research has and still is being done on the three
wolf populations. Issues addressed, were the impact the wolves would have on the
economy, human enjoyment/ livelihood, and the impact the wolves would have on

the ecosystems surrounding ground zero. (WIldlfie, U. F. (1994)) The US Fish and
Wildlife base their opinions and actions off of public hearings, comments posted in
the federal register, and scientific evidence. All which helped easy some uncertainty
that surrounds this monumental decision.

Opposition
Many look at the reintroduction of wolves as a positive affair. However, there
is people that feel differently, and they do argue an earnest case. A prime example
is ranchers. Afraid the wolves will kill their livestock, ranchers were and still are
strongly opposed of the reintroduction of wolves into the areas. Likewise, elk
hunters were also opposed to the reintroduction. Elk hunters argue, Elk populations
have dropped since the wolves have been reintroduced. There point is valid and is
back by evidence. Other comments of concern were, indirect impacts on other
threatened and endangered species. (Service T. U., 2008) All are concerns and
problems that have been addressed by federal, state, and local agencies.
Counter arguments
The arguments are strong, and ranger and oppositionist concerns were taken
into consideration. Rangers will have some livestock killed by wondering wolves.
However, wolves prey mainly on wild sick or maimed animals. The argument elk
hunters put forth is a strongpoint in their defense. However, the repercussion of
high elk populations is worse the ecosystem than the repercussion of having wolves
back in the areas. The wolfs balanced out the ecosystem.

Also, the wolves moving onto private land is an issue also, however, not
much can be done to prevent this. The landowners have to work with local
conservation agencies, if they become an issue. The US Fish and Wildlife Services
did look at the concerns of public, and address them based off scientific evidence
and or what is best for the ecosystem in the areas of the release sites. (Service
2008) Giving rest to some worried commenters.
Environmental Pros
There have been many private and government studies done on the Northern
Rocky Mountain Wolf population. Many have found positive feedback. As many
conservationist know, the wolves balanced out the ecosystem, and refaced an
environment over populated with large game. Along with it encourages growth
among a stunted plant population. The seven-decade allowed the trophic levels
collapse giving large game, such as Elk, to browse freely on, species such as aspen
(Populus tremuloides) and willows (Salix spp).(Ripple et 2012) Since the
reintroduction, the trophic level has been restored, and is now a healthier and
balanced ecosystem. In 2012, a study showed the wolf population was hovered
around 1600. (Utah Taxpayers) When a recovery project is successful in producing
these numbers such as the US Fish and Wildlife has done, is a huge
accomplishment.
Economic Value
Wolves being reintroduced decreased revenue coming in from elk hunters, and for
rangers supported by livestock. Even though this is true, studies have shown a
counter balanced by the gross income from tourist and people seeking to see
wolves. A 2005 survey was done to evaluate the economic effects of wolf
reintroduction in and around Yellowstone National Park. The study reported that

forty four percent, out of the 1,943 surveys returned, wanted to see wolves when
visiting the park. A huge increase from previous studies. Furthermore, around ninety
five percent of the visitors that responded, seen wolves on their visit (John W.
Duffield C. J., 2008). So how much do these visitors spend annually? The study
states visitors spend around 35.5 million dollars annually (John W. Duffield C. J.,
2008). Compare that amount to the amount of livestock and other damages, of less
than 100,000 annually, and the true positive impact the wolves are having on the
areas local economy is astonishing. Yellowstone is now considered one of the best
places in the world to watch wild wolves. (John W. Duffield C. J., 2008). Wolves
might have effected certain groups of people, however, as a whole they have
helped communities grow.
Overall scope
As a native species to Yellowstone National Park and the Northern Rocky
Mountain area, Grey Wolves play a vital role in that areas ecosystem. But due to
human interactions, the wolf population dropped to an all-time low in the 1920s.
This drop was more consequential to the environment, than the Recovery plan has
been. A true sign the wolves reintroduction has been successful campaign is the
amount of wolves reproducing, which is a sign of a health and sustainable
population. Reports show that there is successful reproducing pairs and the
offspring are surviving. As of 2013 there has been at least 78 breeding pairs
(Western Grey Wolf), which is beyond the overall goal. Along with researchers
have found: Wolf population increased until 2003 and elk behavior changed;
Northern range elk dropped from 15,000 in the early 90s to 6,000 last year; Beaver
colonies increased from one in 1996 to 12 in 2009, promising better fish and
waterfowl habitat; Coyote numbers decreased, promising more small mammals

such as red foxes, ravens and bald eagles for other predators to eat. (Profita 2013)
All positive reactions, because its evidence of a rejuvenated ecosystem.
Conclusion
Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) has been an amazing success thanks to
both the resiliency of wolves and the cooperative efforts of Federal, State, and Tribal
agencies, conservation groups, and private citizens; including ranchers, sportsmen,
and outfitters.(Western Grey Wolf) Not only a success story on a conservation level
but also on an economic level. Yes there is some negative side effects. However,
every action has plus and minus and the Grey Wolf recovery plan is no different.
One issue that still and always will need to be addressed, is the human interaction
with wolves. They are wild animals, unpredictable, and a nuisance from time to
time. As seen through the various studies, the negatives, addressed in previous
paragraphs, are outweighed by the positives. Denoting the efforts put forth through
the various agencies, and private groups have made the reintroduction of Grey
wolves in Yellowstone National Park and the Northern Rocky Mountain area a
success story.
In 2007 the Grey Wolf in Northern Rocky Mountain, except Montana, was removed
off the Endangered Species Act.

Appendixes

Figure One (Western Gray Wolf: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.))

Works Cited

John W. Duffield, C. J. (2008). Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone: Park Visitor Attitides,

Expenditure and Eonomic Impacts. The George Wright Forum, 25(1), 13-19.
Retrieved 2015
Service, T. U. (2008, Feb 27). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final
Rule Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a
Distinct Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population Segment
From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wil. Federal Register,
73(39), 10520.
Service, T. U. (2012, September 10). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Removal
of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming From the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Removal of the Wyoming Wolf Populations Status as
an Experimental Population. The Federal Register, 77(175). Retrieved 2015
Smith, J. (2002). "Canis lupus" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed March 17,
2015 at http://www.biokids.umich.edu/accounts/Canis_lupus/
Utah Taxpayers Should Demand Accountability, Honesty from Wolf Delisting
Lobbyists. (n.d.). Retrieved April 23, 2015, from
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/zstrong/utah_taxpayers_should_demand_a.
html
Western Gray Wolf: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2014). Retrieved March 17, 2015,
from http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/
Western Gray Wolf: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2015,
from http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/
WIldlfie, U. F. (1994). The Final Enviromental Impact Statement. In T. U.
InteriorService, The Rientroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone Nation Park
And Central Idaho. Retrieved 2015
William, R., & Beschta, R. L. (2012). Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15
years after wolf reintroduction. Biological Conservation, 145, 205213.
Retrieved 2015