This is not a new idea by any stretch. Wolf lovers have for years begged to bring wolves into more places in the west. Three national parks are dealing with overpopulation of elk, Rocky Mountain in Colorado, Theodore Roosevelt in N. Dakota and Wind Cave in S. Dakota. All three instances have talked about hiring sharpshooters to kill hundreds and in some cases, thousands of elk. I have pushed, as have others, to utilize hunters for a number of reasons.

But there are those who think that bringing wolves into the mix is a better option. With all the headaches and problems that have amassed since the reintroduction of wolves in and around Yellowstone, it is complete insanity to suggest it.

George Wuerthner, in an an article in New West, believes that wolves are a far better idea than hunting. Reading his article, it becomes clear that he is a believer in “natural” wildlife management. Although he advocates that our national parks should be natural and wild, he forgets that they aren’t. Millions of visitors each year visit these parks and contrary to what some may believe, they don’t go there to see wilderness or the “natural” wildlife management. The reality is these parks are just glorified zoos. The majority of people who visit these parks don’t know what real “wilderness” is. There idea of wilderness and the real thing are ions apart. What visitors see when they go to these parks is the result of millions of dollars spent on trying to provide animals and scenery for visitors to enjoy. Some chose to see these animals in cages at city zoos. These parks provide another option.

If bringing in wolves and managing our parks as Wuerthner suggest in a natural way is the method of choice, then the first thing we should do is close the parks to visitors, remove all facilities within the parks, turn any and all roads back to “natural” and then walk away. If Mother Nature can do such a great job then we should stop micromanaging.

One statement that Wuerthner makes that I find disturbing and out of touch puts the consequences of the impact of any wolves onto the residents without thought or consideration. People didn’t move to these places knowing there was or would be wolves dropped off in their back yards.

Restoration of wolves might require some adjustment in the way humans live in and adjacent to natural areas—people in Estes Park, for instance, might want to keep their pets inside or in fenced enclosures, and put all garbage in animal proof cans. Livestock owners may have to spend more on reducing predator opportunities by using calving sheds, hiring shepherds, and guard animals, but in reality these are “costs” that are presently avoided and should be part of the price of living in or near natural areas. In the end restoration of native predators is the only alternative that can maintain a healthy ecosystem—and that, more than providing hunter opportunity—is what our national parks are all about.

Whether Wuerthner realizes it or not, this suggestion he is making is no different than suggesting drilling for oil in their back yard or the state deciding to turn their community into a hazardous waste dumping ground. Just because he likes wolves and think they are a needed solution to a man made problem, doesn’t mean these people now have to live a different lifestyle and suffer financial loss.

To state that because you choose to live near Estes Park, you now have to bear the price of wolf introduction is elitist thinking and absurd.

Tom Remington

Related Posts