Letters To EDITOR
Wolves, the Government’s Favorite Killer Pet
by Jadyn Ebert - English 9 - 5th Hour
It was last year, in the middle of September, when it striked. We were just walking out from where the bear had been treed with our dogs all around us. In an instant, the wolves had pounced upon us, taking one of our favorite dogs with it. We couldn’t do anything. We always carried a gun or knife with us, but the DNR had placed the wolves under protection, making it illegal for us to do anything. This was the third loss in a year, losing many pups over the last couple years. The wolves are all over, but we can’t even touch them. The state claims the numbers are too low, that they have barely spread from where they were placed. But we say otherwise. We have packs on camera not even 20 minutes from here, but the wolves were released at least 2 hours away from here. They say that there are barely a couple thousand, but how can that be when we can’t even drive a few miles without seeing tracks, not to mention packs of wolves themselves? We don’t know the exact numbers, but we know that there are easily over 100 wolves in the small area we can hunt, and that's only a small portion of where the DNR “says” they live. The DNR doesn’t listen, and us hunters and the farmers have had enough of it. Since that incident, and many others, we’ve been putting people in the running for the bigger positions in the DNR that believe and have experienced similar events. Those already in the positions higher up haven’t been listening to the people, rather the people who don’t know the actual numbers, those who have seats up in the highest points of the government conservation agencies. Even though wolves have been a main focus for United States and Canadian government conservation agencies, the communities where the wolves are placed need to have a say in the regulations, mainly those whose job revolves around animals or wildlife.
First off, what the government conservation agencies have been doing aren’t working, and aren’t exactly accurate. As the article “Bear-Baiting May Exacerbate Wolf-Hunting Dog Conflict” states, “The odds of a depredation event occurring in Wisconsin were 3.57x greater than the odds in Michigan; a relative depredation risk 2.12-7.22x greater in Wisconsin.” (Bump|Murawski|Kartano|Beyer|Roell 2013) This quote shows how the attacks and effects of wolves can be much higher or lower in other areas, even state to state, or county to county. This means that the problem is with state laws, habitat, and amount of wolves around the area. Since this has been shown to be a problem, plenty of areas have decided to try and make their own laws or work with the state DNR to help maintain the populations. This sadly has not worked, since the DNR thinks populations are still too low(reminder that the quote above was from over 10 years ago). The DNR has listened more to minority groups, those who say they are needed and have improved the areas, instead of actually checking what’s happening. Most of the time, those same people are looking at what has happened in other places, where the wolves actually were needed. The conditions from one place to another are very important, that's why the depredation risk is much higher here than in Michigan. Michigan has a much wetter climate with colder temperatures. The wolves don’t like that as much as Wisconsin’s more damp(not wet) climate and temperatures that are almost 100. Warmer, letting the wolves be more active and have more time for breeding and hunting before the winter season hits. If we focused on what happens more locally, not throughout the rest of the nation(or even state), we could have a much more beneficial conservation for both man and wolf. Also, from the article “Wolf Reintroduction”, “Ranchers, farmers, hunters, and other businesses have lobbied heavily against wolf reintroduction due to the threat to livestock and significant financial loss. This opposition is especially fierce in western states including Colorado, where ranching is a key industry and a cultural cornerstone.”(Gale, part of Cengage Group 2023) This quote explains the large view of the people who live and work with animals and how they feel it will impact them and their business. First off, the farmers, ranchers, and hunters see what is gonna be a big problem for the conservation efforts, cost and damages. The same article stated that the government was ready to pay over 1.5 million for damages to livestock and animals. This shows that the government knew already that the wolves would be a problem for people who rely on animals for business. This was also considered to be on the low end of costs in the conservation work, with some programs involving costing over 2 million(reminder that this effort has been going on for over 30 years). The costs for the conservation effort have been getting increasingly larger, and a large portion have turned up to not work properly(like the shock training from 2000). The threat to livestock and wildlife has also been a huge problem, since many of them had never experienced a predator this fierce. The wolves are much stronger, faster, and smarter than almost every other predator that had lived there before. This means that the livestock and wildlife would have to adapt insanely quickly or face huge losses, which has been seen by me personally up by our bear hunting land with all sorts of wildlife. An example is with deer populations where the wolves are located. Before they had come to the area, the deer were always in the fields, almost 20-30 in a herd. Since 2020, those herds have become increasingly smaller, around 10-15, and have stayed in more fields to try and go where the wolves aren’t. As stated in the quote, the ranching industry is very important to the people in Colorado, as well as a tradition for families for the last 100 or so years. The wolves have not only put pressure on their livestock and pets, but also on their families, who spend a large portion of their life outside from a young age. If people can’t do anything to the wolves, then the wolves will continue to attack. This connects to the claim since it shows how the wolves will and have affected the people who rely on animals.
The next couple quotes are mainly about what we can do, or what should be done, to help control these attacks and populations. From the article “Bear-Baiting May Exacerbate Wolf-Hunting Dog Conflict”, “For example, as time increases from the first day of training with bait until the end of hunting with dogs (i.e., ~123 days), the probability decreases from 0.87 to 0.26 in Wisconsin and from 0.41 to 0.36 in Michigan, indicating a relative risk 2.12-7.2x greater in Wisconsin”(Bump|Murawski|Kartano|Beyer|Roell, 2013). As stated, the risk of an attack decreases from around 87% in the first couple days to 26% in the last couple, but from 41% to 36% in Michigan, a much lower change at a much lower risk of attacks. If we look at this data, we can figure out: 1) a better time to start the training season, 2) where and when the chances are higher, and 3) what we can do to try and lower those risks during that season. From there, we can use that data to determine when to open hunting/training in the area. If needed, we can also try to find ways to keep the wolves away from the dogs and people around there. One possibility is using fencing(electric or not) or an “invisible fence”, tagging wolves and attaching a shock transmitter that would shock them if they go out of bounds for certain seasons. Giving the people knowledge of where wolves are can also help them stay away from the risks, something that's not done out of fear for the wolves. This connects to the claim because it shows how the people around the wolves can contribute and help maintain the conservation, but also protect themselves and their family. Aswell, reporter Kathy Witoski stated, “But once wolves start to kill livestock, the behavior can be hard to stop, because they teach the technique to the rest of their pack”(National Public Radio, Inc., 2000). As stated, training a wild wolf to not attack livestock would require training a whole pack not to attack, possibly an entire area of wolves. The best way to handle this would be to either catch an entire pack and train them, or to allow people who are having an animal attacked to shoot at the wolf(or wolves). Training could be done with shocking or with psychological effects. Only problem, as shown in the article, was that after some time they started to push past the shocks, since they were set for dogs and the hair would interfere with the shocks. Psychological training could be slightly more effective when done right. One option could be with repeatedly putting a substance in the cow hide and meat that isn’t necessarily harmful, but still painful or bad tasting to the wolves. This effect would be similar to the monarch butterfly tasting bad for birds, so Viceroy butterflies adapted to look similar to be avoided by birds. This, of course, would mean losing a considerable amount of whatever species you are training wolves to avoid. The much simpler method of being able to shoot at the wolves would allow for 2 things: 1) killing the problem wolves, and 2) showing the rest of the pack what can happen when you go after those animals. This connects to the claim since it shows an example of how letting the people try and handle the problem wolves could be a safer solution.
Even though the WDNR and other Government agencies have been created for this exact purpose, the decisions can’t be made without the word of those who the wolves have impacted. I understand that the WDNR has put a lot of research into where they would put the wolves, like the other agencies in the United States government, but they have turned a blind eye to the impacts they’ve had on local communities. Ultimately, the people need to have more of a say on what happens. With that, if the WDNR can’t figure out a way to limit these impacts, then we should be able to protect what is ours. People and their animals alike have been ignored, or rather hushed, and are ready for a change. Likely, if the regulations aren’t changed, the people will start to fight back, like they’ve done in years passed with similar circumstances. Those who want to help the cause, write out to your local DNR, or donate to Hunter Nation, a Non-profit group focused on fighting back against these regulations(https://hunternation.org/).