these groups, P.A.W.S., petitioned, debated, and fought for the reestablishment of the wolf into the southwest and other areas of the country where they once roamed freely. These private enterprises achieved their goals, but they still need the support of the everyday American. Without their support, the wolf could still become extinct, and then the children of America would never know what it was like to hear the call of the wild. People need to understand that to balance nature, wolves need to be reintroduced into areas where they were once abundant.
To claim ownership of this fight, one must understand our planet and its animals. What would our world be like if there were no animals? Animals on this planet are disappearing at an alarming rate. If we do not do something about it, our world will become a barren landscape. A common thread among scientists and naturalists is that we need to preserve animals in their natural habitats. Why? Because they preserve the natural habitats that people love going to. By keeping predators around, they balance out each other. Someone said in regards to cougars coming back into Arizona, “That’s just too many predators.” Well there is no such thing as too much of anything when it is applied to nature. In this case, “too many predators” means that the numbers of predators will increase, but nature will balance them out. The predators will have to fight for territory, meaning they will be more spread out; also, they will use each other as prey, and they will keep the number of prey animals under control. By bringing prey animal numbers up, we will be adding food for predators, and the ecosystem as a whole will be kept in balance. Prey animals, are rabbits, mice, mountain goats, elk, deer, fish, and assorted other animals. What classifies them as prey animals is, they are herbivores, which means they only eat plants. For the most part, they assist in the reproduction and distribution of plants in nature.
The Mexican gray wolf is an animal that has had much controversy over its reintroduction into the Southwest. It was called “Extermination—‘The Final Solution’” (Brown, 54). The government did its best to completely eliminate the wolf until the 1970s. After that, the government realized that it was harming the natural habitat to continue the extermination. In the late 1970s the Mexican gray wolf was put on the national Endangered Species List (ESL). After being placed on the ESL, there has been much opposition to reintroduction of the wolf. Several people believe reintroducing wolves into the Southwest is the biggest mistake the government has made in several years. Here are some of the reasons they give explaining their beliefs.
For one, the wolves eat cattle, which is some ranchers’ only means of income. Farmers lose from wolves because their cows, sheep, goats, and dogs get eaten or killed by wolves. Either way, wolves infringe on the rights of farmers and ranchers, so they should not be reintroduced into the Southwest.
Another reason wolves are bad for our society in the Southwest, is income and food are raised from hunters every year. With wolves being in the wild, the best animals would be eaten by wolves. This would reduce the number of animal tags that are being sold every year. In turn this reduces the money generated by hunting permits. Every year hundreds of people purchase hunting licenses and tags for elk and deer. All of that money goes to the forest service’s fund for improving trails, roads, and safety systems in the national forests. In addition to money being lost from fewer permits being issued, the best animals will be taken down by wolves; leaving the hunters to go for small, sick, injured, or extremely old animals. The effect of releasing wolves into the wild would be detrimental to the southwest’s hunting community.
If the wolves are raised in captivity, they will know humans, and then the wolves will think that they can take handouts from people. This poses a great safety issue. If an animal attacks someone in the outdoors, the government is at fault for the animal being there. The government reimbursing someone for their psychological trauma, physical injuries, and possible death, is something to think about. The fact is, people do not want wolves in the wild because they want to enjoy the outdoors without being threatened by an animal.
Put simply, their arguments are: wolves eliminate income from farmers, and ranchers, by eating their livestock. They hurt our forest service because the revenue generated from hunting permit sales will decrease because fewer animals will be available to hunt. Also, people who use the back country for recreational use will be afraid of wolves, preventing them from venturing off of the pavement.
The arguments proposed against the reintroduction of wolves are not even worth considering. People do not know what they are talking about when they speak about wolves. For ranchers and farmers, wolves kill about 1% of livestock every year. If your animal is killed by a wolf, there is a fund within the Government of the United States to refund you an amount of money based upon what animal is killed. If you have private land then put up the proper fencing and deterrents for wolves, if you have free ranged livestock, then understand that they might be eaten by wolves. These are some things you should realize when you live out in the rural areas. There are predators out there. They were there before humans. They will be there long after humans are gone.
For hunters, wolves do not pose much of a problem. Wolves go after old, weak, or injured animals. A large pack would not waste the energy to pull down a completely healthy animal. The numbers of permits might go down, but that has been on the decrease for some years now without the help of wolves. Originally hunting programs were set up in the United States to control the elk, deer, and other animal populations. Wolves need to be reintroduced to begin controlling these populations without human influence. Some revenue might decrease, but most of the money that is allocated to the forest service comes form other funding sources, and most of the work done through the forest service is volunteer work.
Campers, hikers, and others using the backcountry, understand that if you were a pioneer, you would not have the sophisticated equipment that you do today and that you would have to face much greater dangers than wolves. Wolves do not like humans, or the scent of humans, so you have nothing to be worried about. If you see a wolf in the wild you should appreciate its beauty. Also you should know that you have seen one of the most efficient hunters, and it saw you and it kept going. Wolves do not want to interact with humans. They keep to themselves, which is why they should be reintroduced.
All across the US there is a great deal of animals that are currently being raised in captivity that are scheduled to be placed into the wild. Most of these animals have not had any opposition to their release. Some of these animals needing to be reestablished in the wild are: California condors, prairie dogs, iguanas, sea otters, several types of sea turtles, lynx, Mexican gray wolves, red wolves, and grizzly bears. These animals have something in common; they have all been pushed to almost extinction by humans. For some reason people have finally realized that our environment is going to suffer if we do not start treating it better. A great start to that is creating wild groups of animals surviving without human interaction.
A challenge of reintroducing any animal into the wild is the people factor. This means the difference of regular people letting their animals go compared to trained researchers reintroducing animals into a specific habitat. Professionals should be the only ones letting animals go in the wild. When an untrained person sets an animal free, they risk the animal coming back to them, and the animal possibly going to other people and being destroyed. Only professionals should be releasing animals they have trained to live in the wild.
What is the cost to our children if we do not reestablish these animals? They can never appreciate the call of the wild
Picture this: it is a crisp evening; the moon is rising on the horizon. The stars are just becoming visible. The campfire in front of you is crackling; it’s almost talking to you. The scent of wet grass and pine trees reaches your nose as a slight breeze blows by. There is a calming sensation that comes upon you and you completely relax, sinking into the log you are sitting against. As you close your eyes, you hear in the distance a long howl. It lasts for several seconds then it stops. Then hair on your neck raises and then relaxes again, then you hear a second and third call, the wolves are talking to each other. You sit back and enjoy the sounds of the wild.
This is how it is when someone is sitting in Alaska. They hear the wolves and know that they are safe from them, but it still makes the adrenalin run in their veins. If one was to do the same thing in the lower 48 states, it would be similar, but you would not hear the call of the wolf. Their song was silenced decades ago. People still think the wolf should stay silent in the Southwest; most of them would be farmers and ranchers. Others have pushed for reintroducing the wolf into the Southwest. The people who have achieved their goals are the ones who were lobbying for the reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf within the southwest. They proved to the government that a majority of Americans want the wolf back into the wild parts of the USA. They have proven that wolves do not kill as much livestock as first speculated. Also they have determined that revenue from hunting sales will not decrease as wolves start to manage the wild herds of elk, deer, and other prey animals. Furthermore people who travel into the back country have realized that wolves will not approach them, if people do not tempt them to their campsites. The goal of having the Mexican gray wolf released into the lower 48 states was reached, but not without much support. Still, support is needed to convince others that wolves and other animals are good for maintaining the balance of our environment. If the wolf does not have the support of the every day American, the cost to the children of the world would be greater than any amount of money the world could possess. They would not be able to hear what few have heard as children, the call of the wild.
Annotated Bibliography
Brown, David E. The Wolf in the Southwest: The Making of an Endangered Species. Tucson, Az :The University of Arizona Press, 1984.
This book is a compilation of stories, research, and documentation of the extermination of the Mexican wolf from the southwest. This piece has some limitations but not many, it tells of the eradication of wolves from a general perspective. It lists pure facts and figures about the project. I could use this in the background of my paper to show what happened and what didn’t happen.
Bryant, Peter J. Biodiversity and Conservation. Chapter 15: CAPTIVE BREEDING AND REINTRODUCTION. Hypertext. 2002 Available: http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec15/b65lec15.htm
This hypertext talks about all forms of reintroduction of animals and its benefits and faults. It goes into detail about the animals that have been reintroduced into the united states, and the process behind it. This piece is limited because it comes from the perspective of someone who is for reintroduction of species. This is a great source for my paper because it shows all of the areas that could be argued, when talking about the reintroduction of species.
Buecher, Debbie. Email correspondence. 07 Nov. 2004
Debbie is a researcher in Tucson, Arizona. She is researching Mexican Free-tailed bats in the southwest. She houses several bats that are lame and cannot survive in the wild on their own. I am using her as a resource because she understands why researchers would want to reestablish an animal into territory where it once lived. I could use this source because it is coming from a purely research point of view in the fact that she has reasons why the projects will fail if they are not done in specific ways.
Holaday, Bobbie. Return of the Mexican gray wolf : back to the Blue. Tucson : The University of Arizona Press, c2003.
This is a report of a woman’s interactions with wolves and PAWS. It spans from her beginning as a hiker, to a wolf conservationist. This piece is limited in several ways, it speaks from an emotional, irrational interaction with wild wolves, and it only comes from the perspective of the wolf reintroduction being a good thing. It touches reasons that people would oppose the project, but it does not share the same emotion. This could be used for its facts and figures. It has most of the facts and figures of the entire Mexican wolf reintroduction project.
Gipps, J.H.W., ed. Beyond captive breeding : re-introducing endangered mammals to the wild. Proc. of a symposium held at the Zoological Society of London on 24th and 25th November 1989. Clarendon Press ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1991.
This book is a synopsis of several different acclaimed researchers’ articles on reintroduction of species. This piece is limited because it only comes from the researcher’s point of view, it does not share anything from an opposing argument side. Although it gives good information on why some species did not survive, and how some projects have failed, it does not give a reason as to why people would not want his to happen. This would be good for general background of the paper. It tells how the projects are managed, and who manages them; it speaks of several different tries of reintroduction of several species and how they failed or how they succeeded.
Nie, Martin A. Beyond Wolves: The Politics of Wolf Recovery and Management. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.
This book talks about Wolves on a National scale. It talks about them from the government’s point of view. It speaks on policy and on how things can be implemented compared to how people want them implemented. It is only limited in the fact that It has a subtle argument of being for the wolf reintroduction, but it more describes everything that has to happen for these projects to take place. I am going to use it in the fact that it tells of the legislation involved in these projects.
“Prairie Dog Information”. Online. Internet. Available:http://www.prairiedog.info/Prairie_Dog_Relocation.htm
This website talks about prairie dogs and their extermination over the last 100 years. It goes into how ranchers and other land owners are finally asking for the prairie dogs back. This program is mostly located in Texas. The program was created to reestablish the short-grass prairie ecosystem. The website is a good resource because it talks about people who once wanted the prairie dogs exterminated. Now the same people want them returned to their land. It shows what can happen when people understand what needs to happen with our planet.
SIEGFRIED,STEPHEN. “County Takes Stand Against Wolf Program” Online. Internet periodical. Silver City Daily Press Available:http://www.gilawilderness.com/local/wolfcontystd.htm
This article talks about how a commission made a decision prohibiting release of Mexican Gray wolves into the Gila wilderness area. This piece is limited because it is poorly written and it does not complete thoughts about the topic. I am going to use this because it is the best source I have found for reasons people would oppose the reintroduction of wolves into areas they once populated.
Steinhart, Peter. The Company of Wolves. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995.
This is a compilation of multiple encounters, stories, and reintroduction projects that have happened over the last 100 years. This piece is limited because it does not talk about the projects form a rancher’s or farmer’s point of view. I might use this in my paper to show people that without our help, wolves can do it, but it would take many years.
“Wolf Trust” Online. Internet. Available:http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/
This website focuses on wolves and their relocation and reintroduction. It has Pros and Cons to the question “Should wolves be put back into the wild?” It also talks about these issues in Great Britain and those islands surrounding it. It could be used in my paper because it has information on why wolves should not be reintroduced into areas where they have become extinct.
To claim ownership of this fight, one must understand our planet and its animals. What would our world be like if there were no animals? Animals on this planet are disappearing at an alarming rate. If we do not do something about it, our world will become a barren landscape. A common thread among scientists and naturalists is that we need to preserve animals in their natural habitats. Why? Because they preserve the natural habitats that people love going to. By keeping predators around, they balance out each other. Someone said in regards to cougars coming back into Arizona, “That’s just too many predators.” Well there is no such thing as too much of anything when it is applied to nature. In this case, “too many predators” means that the numbers of predators will increase, but nature will balance them out. The predators will have to fight for territory, meaning they will be more spread out; also, they will use each other as prey, and they will keep the number of prey animals under control. By bringing prey animal numbers up, we will be adding food for predators, and the ecosystem as a whole will be kept in balance. Prey animals, are rabbits, mice, mountain goats, elk, deer, fish, and assorted other animals. What classifies them as prey animals is, they are herbivores, which means they only eat plants. For the most part, they assist in the reproduction and distribution of plants in nature.
The Mexican gray wolf is an animal that has had much controversy over its reintroduction into the Southwest. It was called “Extermination—‘The Final Solution’” (Brown, 54). The government did its best to completely eliminate the wolf until the 1970s. After that, the government realized that it was harming the natural habitat to continue the extermination. In the late 1970s the Mexican gray wolf was put on the national Endangered Species List (ESL). After being placed on the ESL, there has been much opposition to reintroduction of the wolf. Several people believe reintroducing wolves into the Southwest is the biggest mistake the government has made in several years. Here are some of the reasons they give explaining their beliefs.
For one, the wolves eat cattle, which is some ranchers’ only means of income. Farmers lose from wolves because their cows, sheep, goats, and dogs get eaten or killed by wolves. Either way, wolves infringe on the rights of farmers and ranchers, so they should not be reintroduced into the Southwest.
Another reason wolves are bad for our society in the Southwest, is income and food are raised from hunters every year. With wolves being in the wild, the best animals would be eaten by wolves. This would reduce the number of animal tags that are being sold every year. In turn this reduces the money generated by hunting permits. Every year hundreds of people purchase hunting licenses and tags for elk and deer. All of that money goes to the forest service’s fund for improving trails, roads, and safety systems in the national forests. In addition to money being lost from fewer permits being issued, the best animals will be taken down by wolves; leaving the hunters to go for small, sick, injured, or extremely old animals. The effect of releasing wolves into the wild would be detrimental to the southwest’s hunting community.
If the wolves are raised in captivity, they will know humans, and then the wolves will think that they can take handouts from people. This poses a great safety issue. If an animal attacks someone in the outdoors, the government is at fault for the animal being there. The government reimbursing someone for their psychological trauma, physical injuries, and possible death, is something to think about. The fact is, people do not want wolves in the wild because they want to enjoy the outdoors without being threatened by an animal.
Put simply, their arguments are: wolves eliminate income from farmers, and ranchers, by eating their livestock. They hurt our forest service because the revenue generated from hunting permit sales will decrease because fewer animals will be available to hunt. Also, people who use the back country for recreational use will be afraid of wolves, preventing them from venturing off of the pavement.
The arguments proposed against the reintroduction of wolves are not even worth considering. People do not know what they are talking about when they speak about wolves. For ranchers and farmers, wolves kill about 1% of livestock every year. If your animal is killed by a wolf, there is a fund within the Government of the United States to refund you an amount of money based upon what animal is killed. If you have private land then put up the proper fencing and deterrents for wolves, if you have free ranged livestock, then understand that they might be eaten by wolves. These are some things you should realize when you live out in the rural areas. There are predators out there. They were there before humans. They will be there long after humans are gone.
For hunters, wolves do not pose much of a problem. Wolves go after old, weak, or injured animals. A large pack would not waste the energy to pull down a completely healthy animal. The numbers of permits might go down, but that has been on the decrease for some years now without the help of wolves. Originally hunting programs were set up in the United States to control the elk, deer, and other animal populations. Wolves need to be reintroduced to begin controlling these populations without human influence. Some revenue might decrease, but most of the money that is allocated to the forest service comes form other funding sources, and most of the work done through the forest service is volunteer work.
Campers, hikers, and others using the backcountry, understand that if you were a pioneer, you would not have the sophisticated equipment that you do today and that you would have to face much greater dangers than wolves. Wolves do not like humans, or the scent of humans, so you have nothing to be worried about. If you see a wolf in the wild you should appreciate its beauty. Also you should know that you have seen one of the most efficient hunters, and it saw you and it kept going. Wolves do not want to interact with humans. They keep to themselves, which is why they should be reintroduced.
All across the US there is a great deal of animals that are currently being raised in captivity that are scheduled to be placed into the wild. Most of these animals have not had any opposition to their release. Some of these animals needing to be reestablished in the wild are: California condors, prairie dogs, iguanas, sea otters, several types of sea turtles, lynx, Mexican gray wolves, red wolves, and grizzly bears. These animals have something in common; they have all been pushed to almost extinction by humans. For some reason people have finally realized that our environment is going to suffer if we do not start treating it better. A great start to that is creating wild groups of animals surviving without human interaction.
A challenge of reintroducing any animal into the wild is the people factor. This means the difference of regular people letting their animals go compared to trained researchers reintroducing animals into a specific habitat. Professionals should be the only ones letting animals go in the wild. When an untrained person sets an animal free, they risk the animal coming back to them, and the animal possibly going to other people and being destroyed. Only professionals should be releasing animals they have trained to live in the wild.
What is the cost to our children if we do not reestablish these animals? They can never appreciate the call of the wild
Picture this: it is a crisp evening; the moon is rising on the horizon. The stars are just becoming visible. The campfire in front of you is crackling; it’s almost talking to you. The scent of wet grass and pine trees reaches your nose as a slight breeze blows by. There is a calming sensation that comes upon you and you completely relax, sinking into the log you are sitting against. As you close your eyes, you hear in the distance a long howl. It lasts for several seconds then it stops. Then hair on your neck raises and then relaxes again, then you hear a second and third call, the wolves are talking to each other. You sit back and enjoy the sounds of the wild.
This is how it is when someone is sitting in Alaska. They hear the wolves and know that they are safe from them, but it still makes the adrenalin run in their veins. If one was to do the same thing in the lower 48 states, it would be similar, but you would not hear the call of the wolf. Their song was silenced decades ago. People still think the wolf should stay silent in the Southwest; most of them would be farmers and ranchers. Others have pushed for reintroducing the wolf into the Southwest. The people who have achieved their goals are the ones who were lobbying for the reintroduction of the Mexican gray wolf within the southwest. They proved to the government that a majority of Americans want the wolf back into the wild parts of the USA. They have proven that wolves do not kill as much livestock as first speculated. Also they have determined that revenue from hunting sales will not decrease as wolves start to manage the wild herds of elk, deer, and other prey animals. Furthermore people who travel into the back country have realized that wolves will not approach them, if people do not tempt them to their campsites. The goal of having the Mexican gray wolf released into the lower 48 states was reached, but not without much support. Still, support is needed to convince others that wolves and other animals are good for maintaining the balance of our environment. If the wolf does not have the support of the every day American, the cost to the children of the world would be greater than any amount of money the world could possess. They would not be able to hear what few have heard as children, the call of the wild.
Annotated Bibliography
Brown, David E. The Wolf in the Southwest: The Making of an Endangered Species. Tucson, Az :The University of Arizona Press, 1984.
This book is a compilation of stories, research, and documentation of the extermination of the Mexican wolf from the southwest. This piece has some limitations but not many, it tells of the eradication of wolves from a general perspective. It lists pure facts and figures about the project. I could use this in the background of my paper to show what happened and what didn’t happen.
Bryant, Peter J. Biodiversity and Conservation. Chapter 15: CAPTIVE BREEDING AND REINTRODUCTION. Hypertext. 2002 Available: http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec15/b65lec15.htm
This hypertext talks about all forms of reintroduction of animals and its benefits and faults. It goes into detail about the animals that have been reintroduced into the united states, and the process behind it. This piece is limited because it comes from the perspective of someone who is for reintroduction of species. This is a great source for my paper because it shows all of the areas that could be argued, when talking about the reintroduction of species.
Buecher, Debbie. Email correspondence. 07 Nov. 2004
Debbie is a researcher in Tucson, Arizona. She is researching Mexican Free-tailed bats in the southwest. She houses several bats that are lame and cannot survive in the wild on their own. I am using her as a resource because she understands why researchers would want to reestablish an animal into territory where it once lived. I could use this source because it is coming from a purely research point of view in the fact that she has reasons why the projects will fail if they are not done in specific ways.
Holaday, Bobbie. Return of the Mexican gray wolf : back to the Blue. Tucson : The University of Arizona Press, c2003.
This is a report of a woman’s interactions with wolves and PAWS. It spans from her beginning as a hiker, to a wolf conservationist. This piece is limited in several ways, it speaks from an emotional, irrational interaction with wild wolves, and it only comes from the perspective of the wolf reintroduction being a good thing. It touches reasons that people would oppose the project, but it does not share the same emotion. This could be used for its facts and figures. It has most of the facts and figures of the entire Mexican wolf reintroduction project.
Gipps, J.H.W., ed. Beyond captive breeding : re-introducing endangered mammals to the wild. Proc. of a symposium held at the Zoological Society of London on 24th and 25th November 1989. Clarendon Press ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1991.
This book is a synopsis of several different acclaimed researchers’ articles on reintroduction of species. This piece is limited because it only comes from the researcher’s point of view, it does not share anything from an opposing argument side. Although it gives good information on why some species did not survive, and how some projects have failed, it does not give a reason as to why people would not want his to happen. This would be good for general background of the paper. It tells how the projects are managed, and who manages them; it speaks of several different tries of reintroduction of several species and how they failed or how they succeeded.
Nie, Martin A. Beyond Wolves: The Politics of Wolf Recovery and Management. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.
This book talks about Wolves on a National scale. It talks about them from the government’s point of view. It speaks on policy and on how things can be implemented compared to how people want them implemented. It is only limited in the fact that It has a subtle argument of being for the wolf reintroduction, but it more describes everything that has to happen for these projects to take place. I am going to use it in the fact that it tells of the legislation involved in these projects.
“Prairie Dog Information”. Online. Internet. Available:http://www.prairiedog.info/Prairie_Dog_Relocation.htm
This website talks about prairie dogs and their extermination over the last 100 years. It goes into how ranchers and other land owners are finally asking for the prairie dogs back. This program is mostly located in Texas. The program was created to reestablish the short-grass prairie ecosystem. The website is a good resource because it talks about people who once wanted the prairie dogs exterminated. Now the same people want them returned to their land. It shows what can happen when people understand what needs to happen with our planet.
SIEGFRIED,STEPHEN. “County Takes Stand Against Wolf Program” Online. Internet periodical. Silver City Daily Press Available:http://www.gilawilderness.com/local/wolfcontystd.htm
This article talks about how a commission made a decision prohibiting release of Mexican Gray wolves into the Gila wilderness area. This piece is limited because it is poorly written and it does not complete thoughts about the topic. I am going to use this because it is the best source I have found for reasons people would oppose the reintroduction of wolves into areas they once populated.
Steinhart, Peter. The Company of Wolves. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995.
This is a compilation of multiple encounters, stories, and reintroduction projects that have happened over the last 100 years. This piece is limited because it does not talk about the projects form a rancher’s or farmer’s point of view. I might use this in my paper to show people that without our help, wolves can do it, but it would take many years.
“Wolf Trust” Online. Internet. Available:http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/
This website focuses on wolves and their relocation and reintroduction. It has Pros and Cons to the question “Should wolves be put back into the wild?” It also talks about these issues in Great Britain and those islands surrounding it. It could be used in my paper because it has information on why wolves should not be reintroduced into areas where they have become extinct.
No comments:
Post a Comment