Silenced Howls Singing: The Fall and Rise of the Wolf

Anna Smith
Mr. Steve Estus
English 101, 4:00pm M W
5 May 2008

Silenced Howls Singing: The Fall and Rise of the Wolf

Wolves have traditionally been sources of terror and admiration. Which view one took depended upon the culture in which one was raised. Old myths and legends had wolves as servants of evil, or of good. Current popular culture generally continues this trend, just adding romance into the mix. Beneath the myths, legends and fictional fads, however, are the simple facts of the animals themselves. Wolves are not good. Wolves are not evil. Wolves are animals developed over millennia of evolution and adaptation, acting as nature and pack training has taught them. They are frequently misunderstood and anthropomorphized by the ignorant. Their role in maintaining a healthy ecological balance is undervalued, just as their threat to humans and livestock is over-emphasized. The reaction of ranchers and hunters to the re-introduction of wolves to the United States, and their recent delisting from the Endangered Species list, is worrisome. While wolf-song can be heard in the night again, one must wonder how long it will continue.

The enmity between wolves and humans is a long standing one, but not a universal one. Wolves had a bad reputation among Europeans long before Columbus ever set foot in the Americas. By the 1800s, wolves were gone from England. Colonists brought their preconceived prejudices towards wolves with them when they settled North America. Wolves were threats, slavering beasts intent on murder and mayhem, and to be killed on sight. (Jones) The fear and loathing of the Europeans conflicted strongly with the Native American respect and admiration of wolves. Like the Native Americans, wolves suffered badly from this intolerance. Colonists used the excuse of livestock predations to justify killing wolves wholesale, but the truth was that attacks were far less than reported. In the map below is the territory that wolves have historically been native to in North America. The green areas are those areas where wolves could still be found.

Prior to European settlement of North America, the indigenous people maintained a healthy balance with the wildlife around them. According to Karen Jones in her “Fighting Outlaws, Returning Wolves” article from History Today, “an older, indigenous tradition in the Yellowstone region encapsulated a more favorable perception… Casting the wolf as an influential spirit and a cherished social guide… Illustrious lupines assumed pivotal roles in the sacred stories of myriad tribes.” (38) With colonization, however, the balance was upset and the predators became prey to humans. The relationship between humans and wolves has remained one of animosity for hundreds of years, and as a result the wolf population has been dangerously decimated. Only now are their numbers once more rising.

People have a tendency to anthropomorphize wolves, as it demonstrated in the many myths, legends, and modern literature available. Assigning human characteristics to wild animals is unwise and potentially dangerous. Wolves are not human and they do not think or rationalize as humans do. They cannot be held to human standards. Wolves act according to two rules: the instincts with which they are born, and the patterns of behavior they learn as pups. They are predators and their actions are those of predators. While wolves are very intelligent animals, they are still simply animals. Yet this tendency to expect human logic out of them may be the root source of the long-standing conflict between humans and wolves. In historic times, people assigned good or evil intent to wolves and used that reasoning to justify slaughtering them.

While wolves have long been hunted in European countries, in North America they existed in relative peace with the native peoples. Native Americans admired the wolf, and perceived the animal as a kindred spirit. This attitude was unique in the world, but representative of the symbiotic relationship and religion that most of America’s indigenous people had with the natural world. Unfortunately, the numbers of European settlers quickly outstripped the native population and the persecution of the wolf that they brought with them carried over. The wolf population, widely spread through the United States, quickly diminished until they were only found in a few locations. By 1926 even remote Yellowstone had lost the last of their wolves. When the Endangered Species Act became law in 1973 there were only two areas that could still claim a wolfish presence: northern Michigan and Minnesota. (“United States: Fair Game Now; Wolves”)

Wolves have made an amazing comeback from their near-extinction in the United States. Their numbers have increased quickly since their reintroduction back into the wild in Yellowstone National Park. Unfortunately, their numbers will never be allowed to return to the level they once were. Humans have claimed too much territory and the fears of ranchers must be appeased. There is now a debate whether the currently mandated minimal numbers are even sufficient to ensure genetic stability. The graph below shows the increase in the wolf population since efforts to return them to the wild began in 1995. It’s not nearly the 350,000 that roamed North America when Lewis and Clark were taking their walkabout, nor will it ever be again, but there is once more wolf-song echoing to the rising moon. (“Cull of the Wolf”) The data for the graph below was collected from Jim Zumbo’s article “A Howling in the West: Not Everyone is Thrilled About Recovering Wolf Populations,” published by Outdoor Life in their December 2003 / January 2004 issue.

The reintroduction of wolves has been a hotly debated issue since they were first included on the Endangered Species list. Conservationists have squared off with ranchers and hunters from the beginning, and seldom do the two groups see eye to eye. Conservationists fear, with some justification, that wolves will never be safe from persecution. Ranchers and hunters hotly contest the wisdom of returning wolves to their natural habitat. More than one hunter had lain in wait of a wandering wolf, and their sole intent was to simply kill it. As the time drew near for wolves to be removed from the Endangered Species list, the federal government waited for the three states to provide plans for monitoring and controlling the wolf population. Once removed from federal protection, the state run agencies would be responsible for overseeing the protection of the wolves, and the people, within the borders. The states in question are Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. While Idaho and Wyoming have presented accepted plans for handling the return of the wolf, Montana’s plan is still undergoing review. One thing all three plans have in common: wolves will be hunted as trophy animals. Some states, such as Montana, are waiting until after the wolves a delisted as endangered species before creating the regulations for hunting them. (Zumbo.) That period of time between the delisting and the posting of the regulations will be a very dangerous window for wolves – and a free-for-all party for wolf hunters.

To fully understand the conflict between wolf and rancher, one must understand the hunting behavior of wolves. According to the study conducted by MacNulty, Mech, and Smith published in the Journal of Mammology, wolves display several stages of predatory behavior. Initially there is the search phase, during which time wolves are looking for prey. This is followed by the approach phase, in which the distance between the wolf or wolf-pack and the prey is reduced. Depending on the chosen prey, the approach phase would be followed by the watching phase. In this study, the two types of prey observed were elk and bison. Wolves tended to watch bison more than elk and the assumption is because bison are more aggressive than elk. The approach and watching phases are then followed by the pursuit and/or harassing phases, which are interchangeable. Pursuit is for when the prey makes a run for it. Harassment would replace pursuit when the prey confronts the hunting wolves. The final phase is capture, and the wolves dine well. Wolves generally try to choose isolated members of a herd as their prey as a single elk or bison is less threat than a group of elk or bison. The weaker the prey the easier the hunt will be, and the greater the likelihood that the pack will be fed.

Hunting behaviors indicate some intelligent, logical processes. The pattern of attack is modified according to the prey chosen. Elk was the preferred large-game prey, and less dangerous than bison. Wolves tended to pursue and harass elk, whereas they seldom harass bison. Wolves also spent more time watching bison prior to pursuing, and would often opt not to pursue bison. (MacNulty, Mech, and Smith) This ability to evaluate the risk potential in hunting and deciding to forego the immediately available prey indicates some level of intelligence. However, it does not indicate human intelligence, human understanding of right and wrong, or a human sense of ownership. A herd of cattle in a field is nothing more than easy prey to a wolf. They are much easier, certainly, than the aggressive bison or the wary elk.

Wolves prey on a wide range of animals. Mice fill the belly as well as elk, and a rabbit is always a potential meal. They hunt what is available, and there’s no real reason they should view a cow or ewe any differently than they do the rabbit or deer. Wolves do not hunt for sport. They hunt because they’re hungry. Whatever they happen across first that falls within their definition of prey is what they will hunt, given that the risk potential is within their capabilities. A single wolf will not hunt a bison and a pack of wolves will not hunt rabbits.

It’s true that a wolf will go after easy prey. It’s not a stupid animal, after all, and easy prey means less risk of injury and a greater likelihood of having a meal. A wolf’s hunting instincts are also roused when something runs from it. Wolves are also territorial, and encroachment on their territory sparks a fight response. So when humans came around and started settling in territories that supported packs, is it any wonder that wolves hunted the docile cattle they found? Or that domesticated animals like dogs were attacked and killed? To a wolf, a dog is a threat to be eliminated.

Perhaps the intelligence demonstrated in their hunting tactics, combined with the brutality of their kills, is the reason why so many cultures have assigned evil connotations to wolves. A wolf-kill is not a pleasant way to die. It’s bloody and vicious and without mercy. Wolves will often begin feeding on their prey before it is dead. They do not kill cleanly, as some animals do. When hunting large game, wolves will work as a team to attack their chosen prey, causing severe bodily harm. Eventually injury or sheer blood loss will cause the victim to fall. (Zumbo.) One can easily be excused for assuming evil intent when faced with these end results.

The heart of the debate regarding wolves can be found in the Midwest, where ranching is most prevalent. The livelihood of ranchers depends on the survival of their stock. However, it is not only ranchers who are against the survival of one of North America’s most effective natural predators. Hunters also protest the return of the wolf, but their reason has less logic than that of the ranchers. While the ranchers want to protect their livelihood from predation, the hunters simply want to ensure that they are allowed to bag more large game during their hunting trips than they would be allowed if wolves returned. The more elk and bison killed by wolves the fewer there are for sport hunters to kill during the hunting season.

Hunters are being greedy. While their kills will only result in them taking the meat home for their personal freezers, a wolf kill supports a vast ecological system. The remains left after a successful wolf hunt feed myriad carrion animals, strengthening the ecosystem. (Ewers) While a hunter’s gun does not discriminate when choosing a target, a wolf’s hunting practice manages to weed out the weakest or oldest members of a herd, allowing the remaining members to pass on their genes to the next generation, strengthening the herd’s overall health and vitality. (Ferguson).

Ranchers argue that wolves will kill livestock. Sure they will. Just like humans will go to grocery stores to buy their vegetables instead of investing a lot of time and effort in maintain their own vegetable gardens. Livestock, in general, is docile. They are accustomed to humans and to protection. They are, quite simply, easy pickings. If a wolf is faced with a choice of running down that dangerous bison or going for that fatted steer, the wolf will certainly choose the least dangerous option. However, there are protections that can be put in place. Foremost is one of the oldest professions around: herding. Stick a man or two with the herds instead of letting them wander unsupervised, add a few cattle dogs, and much of the risk is reduced. Unless a wolf is accustomed to human presence, quick response from the dogs’ alert and an aggressive response from a human or two will general be enough to deter a wolf and send him hunting other prey. Ranchers, however, seem disinclined to pursue this option.

Considering the length of time that wolves have been absent from the ranchlands of the west, the fears expressed by the ranchers have very little basis in fact. How do they know that wolves will give up moose, elk, and bison as their food supply in favor of sheep and cattle? There’s no historical data to back that up. There can’t be – wolves were hunted from the outset with the intent to eradicate them. According to Ed Bangs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “One of the first tasks given in the 1910s to my agency was to kill the last wolves in the Western United States. … The last pups were killed in 1924.” (Ewers.) This was at a time when the west was still being settled.

The risk of wolf predations on livestock is greatly exaggerated. As the information below, compiled from Todd Wilkinson’s article, “Montana’s Wolf Reality Doesn’t Bite” in the Missoula Independent, wolves are not the greatest threat to livestock kills. Coyotes are a larger danger, and yet one does not hear cries of genocide on those creatures. Even domestic dogs kill more livestock than wolves do.

Decades of argument have proven that there is no happy medium between the conservationists and the ranchers. One group has romanticized the wolf. The other group and vilified it. The wolf has done nothing but simply adhered to its nature. A wolf doesn’t recognize boundaries. A wolf doesn’t respect fences. A wolf doesn’t see a brand. Can it be blamed for wandering outside the established safe-zone boundaries established? Can it be blamed for not recognizing a fence? Can it be blamed for seeing a prey animal and feeling hunger? Wolves are intelligent animals, but animals nonetheless. Time will tell whether we have successfully saved an animal that, less than a century ago, we were intent on exterminating. In the end, wolves have as much right to life as humans do, and that right should be protected.

Works Cited

"United States: Fair Game Now; Wolves." The Economist [London, England.] 29 Mar. 2008,62
Apr. 2008,8. The Economist. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 23 April
2008
"Cull of the wolf. " The Christian Science Monitor [Boston, Mass.] 2 Apr. 2008,8. Christian
Science Monitor. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008

Ewers, Justin. "The Remarkable, Resilient Wolf. " U.S. News & World Report 17 Mar. 2008:
19. Research Library Core. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May.
2008
Ferguson, Gary. "The big bad wolf; In the Rockies, man's hatred and fear of the species is on
display again. " Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles, Calif.] 30 Apr. 2008,A.19. Los Angeles
Times. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008

Jones, Karen. "Fighting outlaws, returning wolves. " History Today 52.3 (2002): 38-40.
Research Library Core. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008

MacNulty, Daniel R; Mech, L David; Smith, Douglas W. "A Proposed Ethogram of Large-
Carnivore Predatory Behavior, Exemplified by the Wolf.” Journal of Mammalogy
88.3 (2007): 595-605. Research Library Core. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library,
San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008
Wilkinson, Todd. "Montana's wolf reality doesn't bite. " Missoula Independent [Missoula,
Mont.] 20 Mar. 2008,17. Alt-Press Watch (APW). ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San
Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008
Zumbo, Jim. "A Howling In The West: Not Everyone Is Thrilled About Recovering Wolf
Populations .” Outdoor Life 1 Dec. 2003: 70-74. General Interest Module. ProQuest. Milo
P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008

Take me to Narnia....

When I was fourteen, my dad retired from the Air Force. We left the place I knew as home, where I had friends and I knew the town. We left the security and safety of the military base and we moved...

...to Arkansas. A small town, and definitely not one that felt the same as a military base.

Within the first week of attending my new school, I had been asked if I were pregnant, and then if I were a teacher. These were not exactly strong indicators that I would make friends quickly, or easily, and I certainly didn't.

Life changed for all of us when we moved from Louisana to Arkansas. We each dealt with it in our own ways. I escaped into books. I was embarassed and ashamed, and I felt completely out of my element. Other students didn't make any overtures of friendship, and I was both too shy and too introverted to make the overtures myself.

It was at this time that I discovered Narnia. It was my introduction to fantasy, but it also taught me a lot, much of which I didn't realize until many years later. I immediately drew the parallels between Aslan and Christianity. It was fairly obvious, and this was long before I learned that CS Lewis was a well known author of religious books, and had suffered through his own crisis of faith at some point. He was, obviously, a man who'd given deep thought to religion.

At the time, all I really knew was that Narnia, for all it's problems, seemed like paradise and I would have given anything to go there. I would lay in bed at night, lonely and miserable, crying, and pray that Aslan would come and take me to Narnia. My sisters and I, you see, were long past the age of being playmates and so I didn't even have them for company. My only friends were those that I met in books.

Now with the movies coming out, I remember how important these books were to me. I remember the lessons they taught me, and how I learned to deal with life by reading those pages. I learned joy and wonder, hope and grief. I learned that everything comes to an end - but that end is in itself a new beginning. I learned that there is such a thing as unconditional love, but love doesn't mean that a blind eye is turned to faults and wrong.

The first movie was pretty close to the book. It's been too long since I've read the books to know how close this second one is...but it's probably just as close as the first. :-)

Narnia taught me hope. It taught me acceptance of those different from myself, and it taught me that a different culture has as much value and 'right' as the culture I grew up in. It taught me doing what's right, even when it hurts, and defending those who need it. It taught me that fighting wasn't the only way to defend. It taught me that appearance doesn't necessarily mean anything, and that even the smallest creature - or person - has important skills and abilities.

Narnia taught me many lessons. And today, as I contemplate life as it is, it seems to me that many of those lessons are today thought to be weaknesses. How sad is that? And does that explain why I find myself often unhappy or frustrated in life?

Nineteen years later....I still want to go to Narnia.