This white wolf was shot inside Yellowstone National Park, but other wolves are being shot as soon as they leave the park/NPS file photo, Neal Herbert
This conflict between watching or hunting wolves occurs in Yellowstone, Denali National Park and Preserve in Alaska, Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario, Banff National Park in Alberta, and Kluane National Park in the Yukon Territory, according to Bridget Borg, in her 2015 published Ph.D. dissertation.
Borg analyzed how the loss of a breeding wolf in Denali changes the stability and growth of the breeder’s pack. She studied packs that had dissolved in Denali from 1986 to 2012. She found that breeder loss preceded the breakup of three-quarters of those dissolved packs. She found that packs were more likely to dissolve if a female or both breeders were lost and pack size was small. In short, shooting a breeder can kill an entire pack.
In 2016 Borg, a Denali wildlife biologist, and other authors including Yellowstone’s Doug Smith, Rick McIntyre, and Kira Cassidy analyzed how the hunting of wolves along the boundaries of Denali and Yellowstone altered wolf-viewing opportunities. The study’s key finding: Visitors to national parks are only half as likely to see wolves in their natural habitat when wolf hunting is permitted just outside park boundaries. Adjacent to Denali, wolves are primarily trapped. Adjacent to Yellowstone, wolves are trapped and shot—like 926F and her mother, the even more famous 06—during hunting season.
So, there’s the conflict: when a wolf leaves a park and a hunter takes a trophy, a pack can be shattered and tens of thousands of park visitors can be deprived of seeing that wolf--and other wolves--in the wild. Additionally, if the wolf is collared, as 926F and her mother were, scientists lose valuable sources of information about wolves and their behavior. Is there a resolution?
In Borg’s dissertation, she wrote that closure of the buffer zone around Denali would present “the optimal solution.” Because only a handful of trappers operate in Denali’s buffer zone in any given year, and over 400,000 people visit Denali National Park and Preserve annually, the closure, she wrote, could have “a negative impact for a few with a positive outcome for many.”
The National Park Service provided major funding for both these studies. That’s understandable since the NPS must protect wildlife populations and wildlife viewing opportunities. Meanwhile, on state lands adjacent to Yellowstone or Denali, the respective fish and wildlife departments must provide for hunting and trapping as well as wildlife viewing. This deadly conflict over what to do with wolves is built into the different missions of these federal and state agencies.
For me, the answer to the question of whether to watch or hunt wolves next to Yellowstone is clear. The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission should close the two hunting districts north of Yellowstone to wolf hunting and trapping. This policy change would save the lives of at least four wolves each year. And if those saved wolves were breeders, their continued existence would avoid the disintegration of their families. If those wolves wore collars, scientists would not lose valuable sources of information. This policy change would also mean more people would see more wolves in the wild.
Such wildlife watching is the economic backbone of Yellowstone’s gateway towns, like Gardiner, Montana. According to Kitty Block, acting president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, wolf- and grizzly-bear-watching tourism drives more than $1 billion in annual revenues to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, funding thousands of jobs. According to a report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, wildlife watchers outspent hunters in 2016 by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1.
But closing the two districts adjacent to Yellowstone to wolf hunting and trapping permanently is not allowed under Montana law. Nor is such a closure wanted by most hunting organizations.
I, as one of the representatives of Gardiner’s all-volunteer Bear Creek Council, along with Wolves of the Rockies and other conservation organizations, have fought to bring the quota in each of those two districts down from six wolves to two. But the impact of killing wolves near national parks makes clear that a quota of two wolves is two too many.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Support Wolves of the Rockies in their efforts to provide permanent protection to Yellowstone's wolves.
Read my post with excerpts from Marybeth Hollerman’s powerful article about the impact of hunting on the delicate social structure of a wolf pack.
Rick Lamplugh lives in Gardiner, Montana, and writes to protect wildlife and preserve wild lands. His bestselling In the Temple of Wolves and the award-winning sequel, Deep into Yellowstone, are available signed from Rick or unsigned on Amazon.
Rick Lamplugh lives in Gardiner, Montana, and writes to protect wildlife and preserve wild lands. His bestselling In the Temple of Wolves and the award-winning sequel, Deep into Yellowstone, are available signed from Rick or unsigned on Amazon.
Comments
Another anti hunter who views our parks as glorified zoos.
Do the authors think a wolf wont wander outside a buffer zone as opposed to a park boundary?
What impact does having millions of visitors a year have on the wolves and their behavior? Do wolves only die at the hands of hunters? How do they manage to survive when one is killed by it's own pack or by another pack?
Could a case could be made that keeping the boundaries smaller results in greater viewing opportunities?
Or that bringing more visitors into an already overcrowded park is not in our or the parks best interests.
The reason wolves were endangered in the first place was because humans killed them off. Allowing senseless trophy hunting of wolves is the last thing we should be doing now -- or ever.
I am not anti-hunting, but hunters are a small minority of the population. They have access to almost all of our public lands. National parks are about the only places where wildlife are free to live without the risk of being hunted by humans
We need to expand Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks onto adjacent national forest and BLM lands to protect not only wolves, but also grizzly bears, bison, pronghorns, and other wildlife that are endangered as soon as they leave the parks. And we need a lot more national parks across the country, where our wildlife enjoy full protection.
Michael, they may be a minority of the population, but without hunters there would be far fewer wildlife refuges and conservation areas for you and I, and especially wildlife, to enjoy.
Let me be clear, I am against opening hunting onto national parks where it is currently prohibited. I dont favor that. There should be parks where wildlife are free from harvesting. That is an essential aspect of a national park as far as I am concerned. However, this article is talking about closing outside, adjacent, national forest and other hunting lands to hunting.
What this author should have said instead of an outright ban on wolf hunting is instead allow only certain types of hunting, such as a bow hunt only. Anyone who has hunted with a bow knows it can be far more difficult. Make it more difficult for the hunter rather than an outright prohibition. Dividing hunting conservationists from preservationists only makes it more difficult for all of us who enjoy the outdoors stand against rampant development and destruction of wildlife habitat.
And I am with you that there needs to be many new national parks and monuments. 100% behind that idea. However, we need all of us who actually enjoy it to stand against those who only seek profit and mineral extraction.
Hi Tazz,
Thanks for your comments.
I agree that all of us who want to save our lands against indusrial development need to stand together. The point I was trying to make was not against hunters. It was for increased protection of predators and other wildlife. We now understand the importance of having some large places where nature is able to operate untrammelled by human activities.
With all the lands available for hunting, surely hunters can afford to support the expansion of globally important wildlife preserves such as Yellowstone, and to create new parks in deserving places. Even if we doubled the size of our National Park System in the lower 48 states, it would only cover 3% of the land.
Hopefully, they can work out a compromise that allows for enhanced wildlife corridors for the Greater Yellowstone and Grand Teton. I dont like the idea of NPs serving as little islands for wildlife. I always wondered why the west slopes of the Tetons werent included within the park boundaries. Seems to be a bit of an oversight or perhaps there is a very real obstacle to that boundary expansion(likely the GOP delegation from WY but maybe that is too assumptive)? Just seems weird that Grand Teton doesnt really encompass the west slopes of the Tetons while it does encompass a man-made reservoir. I've been on the west side of the Tetons and they are just as unique and beautiful as the Jackson Valley side.
Yellowstone national park is already 2 million plus acres exactly how big would it need to be for you to bbe satisfied??
I'm a hunter as is all my family--I think it's shameful to shoot collered wolves that are being studied. I agree that YS and the tetons should be enlarged to include the natural corridors the animals need to move in.
Hi McLane,
This is not about me being satisfied. It is about ecological reality. The fact that wolves, grizzlies, bison, pronhorn, and other wildlife are leaving Yellowstone and being killed is clear evidence that the park is not big enough. The same is true with Grand Teton National Park. If we are serious about protecting native biodiversity, we need to preserve enough land and water to ensure the long-term survival of these species.
We should expand Yellowstone to include 9 million acres of adjacent lands from the Bridger-Teton, Gallatin, Shoshone, and Targhee national forests, and the BLM k. Likewise, we should add the National Elk Refuge and adjacent lands from the Bridger-Teton and Targhee National Forests and BLM lands in the Upper Green River basin to Grand Teton National Park.
These are all public lands, owned by the American people. Designating them as national parklands would be far more beneficial to the public than their management, which is dominated by resource exploitation and industrial development.
I think if a group of citizens mounted a campaign to expand these two great parks, that it would gain widespread national and international support.