Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

Wolves off endangered list

Management of species turned over to Wyoming, Idaho and Montana

By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 21, 2008 at 12:35 p.m.
Updated February 21, 2008 at 3:11 p.m.

Text size  
A 130-pound gray wolf watches biologists in Yellowstone National Park, Wyo., after being captured and fitted with a radio collar.

Photo by William Campbell, AP/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

A 130-pound gray wolf watches biologists in Yellowstone National Park, Wyo., after being captured and fitted with a radio collar.

Related Links

More Local News

More stories »

Wolves proved so resilient in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana that today the US Fish and Wildlife Service removed them from the Endangered Species List, turning their management over to the states, along with the $3 million yearly price tag.

The delisting doesn't affect Colorado, because there have been virtually no wolves in the state since the 1930s, aside from a few cases of individual wolves found the past few years — either their footsteps spotted, or a carcass found on a major highway.

Those wolves probably wandered down from the northern states, as a result of the deliberate reintroduction of the wolves there the past 10 years, said Dale Hall, director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Now that the Wyoming plan — which includes the legal shooting of some wolves to stabilize populations — has been approved, it might be even less likely that breeding pairs cross into Colorado, he said.

Still, there may come a day when breeding pairs make it here, in which case they'll be treated as endangered species and given all the protection that such a listing entails, F&W officials said in a conference call today.

Wolves polarize people in Colorado and elsewhere, many saying they'll be a great natural way to manage elk and other wildlife, many others saying they'll reproduce too rapidly and kill too many elk and livestock.

"The wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains are thriving and no longer require federal protection," Lynn Scarlett, deputy Secretary of the Interior, said during a conference call, crediting the wolves themselves, but also the states and tribes in the area.

A national policy to eradicate wolves had nearly succeeded by the 1930s, but America's relationship with wolves is very different today than in most of the nation's history, Scarlett said.

The action today "will ensure that children and future generations will know and enjoy this vital part of our natural heritage," she said.

At the same time, landowners and states have legitimate concerns about livestock and game herds, she said. "It's a difficult balancing act," but one that now, properly, will be in the hands of states, with federal oversight.

"The expansion of the wolf population has been stunning," said Lyle Laverty, assistant secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks. "It's because of years and years of hard work from academics, consumer groups, landowners, state governments.

"We're confident the wolves will be in good hands."

Hall said about a quarter of all adult wolves in the area die each year, either from being shot, run over or other causes. Still, the wolf population has been expanding 24 percent a year, he said.

Wolves and humans are the species that spread over the most land area on planet Earth, he said.

Ed Bangs, Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator for USF&W, said Montana, Wyoming and Idaho all have agreed to make sure the populations in their states never get below 15 breeding pairs and 150 individual wolves.

"The chances of a pair of wolves getting into Colorado are fairly low," Bangs said.

Bangs said there are about 1,500 wolves in the three states.

They are thriving well enough that a healthy gene pool is assured, so there will be no need to bring in outside populations in the future to keep them viable.

Bangs added that wolf reintroduction wouldn't have been possible if the states hadn't started reintroducing deer and elk some 70 years ago.

Wolves are "extremely adaptable animals" that can live "anywhere humans allow them to live," Bangs said. Still, "clearly, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho have, head-and-shoulders, the best habitat."

Colorado has beautiful wilderness areas, but perhaps not enough sustained unspoiled areas to support wolves, especially in winter when wildlife moves to lower elevations, he said.

Colorado has a plan ready to go if wolves get here on their own, but the US Fish & Wildlife Service has no plans to reintroduce wolves here, Bangs said.

Earlier this week, WildEarth Guardians said it will sue the National Park Service for not giving a fair look at reintroducing wolves to Rocky Mountain National Park as a way of controlling elk overpopulation.

That news sparked passion on both sides — those who love the idea of wolves in Colorado, and those who hate it.

Ron Green of Little Falls, Minn., said, "If the bureaucrats want to trim the elk herd, wolves are the best way.

"If they insist on shooting the animals, then a special hunting season should be implemented, with the tag money going to reintroduce the wolves."

But Dr. Myron Goldstein of Morrison wrote that he spends part of the year in Cody, Wyoming, near Yellowstone National Park and has seen wolves destroy too many elk and moose.

"The wolf is a very successful predator and not only kills to eat, but kills everything it can," Goldstein said. "The introduction of wolves is a terrible idea. If it is determined that elk populations need to be controlled, then hunting is the best way to do it.

"The idea of introducing wolves to control elk populations is equivalent to putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank."

Julia Schnell, who moved to Colorado three years ago from Bozeman, Mont., said wolves will multiply so quickly that "they'll be a hardship on all the smaller wildlife."

She noted that the government pays ranchers whenever a pack of wolves takes down a cow.

If wolves were to make it to Colorado on their own or through government intervention, the state management plan also includes reimbursements to ranchers, as well as several other measures.

Gray Wolf

Historic Range: Across Eurasia, and across North America from the Arctic to Mexico and from coast to coast. Second largest range on planet Earth (humans are first).

Range today in North America: Alaska, Canada, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and small parts of Utah, Oregon and Washington

In Colorado: Last grey wolf eradicated by 1940 stemming from a policy to kill them all to protect livestock. Occasional sightings the past few years — likely from migration from Wyoming — but no breeding pairs have been seen.

Size: Adult females weigh 50 to 75 lbs.; adult males 70 to 110 lbs.

They can be 5 11/2 feet long

Strength: Their jaws can exert 1,500 pounds per square inch of pressure

Packs: Alpha male, alpha female (the breeding pair); Beta males and females are second in charge: Packs consist of 2 to 15 members.

Population: Wolves were introduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in the mid-1990s. Those original few dozen animals have proliferated to the point that there are now an estimated 1,500 wolves in Wyoming, Idaho and Wyoming. There are an estimated 4,000 wolves in the upper Midwest.

Status: The US Fish and Wildlife Service on Thursday removed gray wolves in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho from the Endangered Species list.

Sources: Colorado Division of Wildlife; US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Comments

  • February 21, 2008

    1:03 p.m.

    gary writes:

    (This comment was removed by the site staff.)

  • February 21, 2008

    1:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Eric writes:

    "You don't scare me, freak. Underneath all that hair, you're still a dork, Scott. I've handled your kind before. Your mama used to steal chickens out of the backyard until I blew her head off with a shotgun. Right, Scott?" -Teenwolf 1985

  • February 21, 2008

    1:31 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Andy writes:

    Wolves are not man-eaters by nature. There's just no evidence for that. That's not to say that they can't attack and kill humans. It just isn't their niche in the grand scheme of things.

    The problem I see is that when wolves return, they'll be shot by sheep-herders (which will be legal) and over time they'll move to where they're safe and have an ample supply of prey, the front range. They'll concentrate their efforts on cats and dogs (just like their cousins, the Coyotes) and that certainly will cause problems. Also, in communities like Evergreen which have become fond of their Elk herds, people will not abide watching a pack of wolves tear apart the cows and calves that they consider part of their community. Have you ever seen how wolves kill? They pretty much tear chunks of flesh out of their prey while dragging them down. It's not pleasant to watch. It's certainly nature's way, but I'm betting people won't stand for it.

  • February 21, 2008

    3:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    tunaman65 writes:

    When does the Wolf Hunting Season start? Just kidding they taste like dog.

  • February 21, 2008

    5:08 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    okiefarmer308 writes:

    Hello all, I am new here and was reviewing the article. I don't have a problem with wild wolves-as long as they leave my livestock alone. I have had sheep killed and my neighbors have lost calves. We have seen wolves killing sheep and been good little citizens and not killed them. Personally dogs that have been dumped and gone feral are a lot more trouble.

    Yes indeedy there have been wolf attacks on humans here in the Americas.
    http://www.wildsentry.org/WolfAttack....

    If you take the time to do a Google search for wolf attacks Siberia, you will find that it is an ongoing problem there. Peasants are not supposed to have weapons to defend themselves there, we American peasants can count ourselves lucky for that-but thats another whole can of worms.

  • February 21, 2008

    5:25 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Andy writes:

    "I have had sheep killed and my neighbors have lost calves. We have seen wolves killing sheep..."

    Have you informed CO DOW? They are really interested in wolf sightings.

  • February 21, 2008

    6:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    okiefarmer308 writes:

    Hello Andy, no I did not "Officially" notify anyone, I am plum near a foreigner to y'all-I am in Oklahoma. Oklahoma's Official position is that there are no wolves or mountain lions in Oklahoma. Thats their story an they are firmly behind it, but of course if you had killed one they said all fines would still be applicable. Great Pyrennes guard dogs are wonderful detterants. A mountain lion killed 6 of them but from the pieces we decided that he did not survive either. Most of the wolves seem to be from folks that raised them an turned them loose. The guard dogs tear them to pieces, although they do give them more trouble than coyotes do.

    I wonder ,they are specific about the states, are they still endangered for the rest of us?

  • February 21, 2008

    6:45 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    macdale4 writes:

    People who think that 1,500 wolves constitute a viable breeding population of wolves are either uninformed, uneducated or just too stupid to be allowed to make decisions involving public policy. If there were only 1,500 elk, white tail deer, mule deer or any other hunted species, these people would be screaming "preservation" at the top of their lungs. But since the wolf is a competitor for these species, well then 1,500 is more than enough! What a bunch of hypocrites! If you are afraid of wolves, bears, panthers or don't want your live stock killed by these predators then quit running your live stock on MY public land, sell them and move to the city and get a desk job. If you don't have the guts to live in the wilderness with all of it's dangers and it glories then you shouldn't be there. There should be wolves, bears, panthers and all other predators from the east coast to the west coast and we should be the ones making exceptions, not them. People would decry the come back of the wolf are nothing more than cowards and gutless scum.

  • February 21, 2008

    7:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    okiefarmer308 writes:

    I don't run any livestock on public land and do not appreciate being called names just because I happen to disagree with you. I own and pay taxes on the land here in Oklahoma and have done so on this plot for 40 years. When we moved here 40 years ago wildlife was practically non existant. We planted food plots and helped establish wild turkeys along with others. The large predators now have sufficiant game to survive, but since they also increase in numbers my livestock looks tasty to them. Face it, sheep an cows are just meals on the hoof to predators. As for 1500 animals being "enough" ,well sounds kinda thin to me but who the heck am I,after all I am just one of those hypocritical cowards that you screamed at.

    So other than throwing money at causes and calling yourself a conservationist,what have you done, besides running your mouth. I and my family plant trees, food plots and help make sure poachers leave the wildlife alone-all on MY PRIVATE land. The vast majority of ranchers and farmers in Oklahoma own their land and are not abusing your (oh thats right we own it too) precious public land.

  • February 21, 2008

    9:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    okiefarmer308 writes:

    Just in case you were curious about wolf populations worldwide here is a link.
    http://www.ualberta.ca/~jzgurski/popu...

    Canada has over 52,000, Alaska has 6000, Minnesota 2000 and the Mexican gray wolf is being reintroduced into the Southwest. There it is just a fledgling program, much like Yellowstone used to be.

  • February 22, 2008

    8:22 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Theoldguy writes:

    Now can I have a fur coat?

  • March 6, 2008

    10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    bucksnducks writes:

    macdale4,
    Before you go off about wolf numbers and viable populations you need to do a little research. First of all the number 1500 is quite low because the USFWS can only quote confirmed breeding pairs and packs. There are a lot more wolves than that that have not been confirmed because they are living back in deep dark roadless canyons. I've seen Department of Fish and Game estimates that estimate over 1500 wolves here in Idaho alone. Secondly, wolves are an apex predator species and there should not be nearly as many of them as there are deer and elk. If there were one tenth as many wolves as there were elk we would see the elk on the endangered species list and then we would see wolves dying of starvation. Wolves need to kill about one elk per month to survive and often kill many more than that. That's a minimum of 12 elk per year per wolf. They would decimate populations in a hurry. It works the same way with all apex predators. When was the last time you saw a herd of mountain lions grazing in a meadow from the highway? They've never been on the endangered species list and they are hunted in every western state except California. I can guarantee you there are fewer mountain lions here in eastern Idaho than there are wolves, yet they don't need federal protection because people who know something about the subject are the ones making the rules. Wolves need to be hunted to keep there numbers in check just like elk need to be thinned down by either predators or hunters. Believe it or not, hunting wolves is in the wolves best interest. It will keep the population healthy instead of starving.

  • September 7, 2008

    10:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Barb writes:

    I have a really novel concept.

    Why not leave the wolves alone and find someone your own size to pick on?

  • September 13, 2008

    10 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Barb writes:

    Says Lyle Laverty, assistant secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks says, "We're confident the wolves will be in good hands."

    Is he kidding? It's like putting the fox in charge of the hen house!

  • September 25, 2008

    12:51 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Barb writes:

    Sarah Palin Blessed against "Witchcraft!"

    See breaking video:

    http://news.aol.com/elections/article...