One of the greatest conservation success stories in our nation’s history, but also a source of anger and resentment for many.
Throughout the 1900s, wolves were almost completely eradicated from the lower 48 United States though extreme hunting and trapping, poisoning, and bounty programs.
With their natural predator gone, elk number exploded which led to overgrazing, erosion, and lack of biodiversity and balance in the ecosystem.
Our response to this was the Yellowstone Wolf Reintroduction.
The Reintroduction Process
It began in the winter of 1995, when wildlife biologists captured 31 gray wolves from Jasper National Park in Alberta, Canada.
The first 14 of these wolves were released into Yellowstone and Central Idaho that winter, followed by the remaining 17 later in the year.
In 1997, 10 more wolves were relocated from Montana to Yellowstone, bringing the total number to 41.
The wolf population grew quickly and spread outside of the national park. They began hunting the elk populations, bringing their overpopulated herds back to manageable numbers, and restoring balance to the ecosystem.
They also began to come into conflict with the livestock in the area.
Those are the facts of the reintroduction. From here, it gets more complicated.
The Conflict
Wolves are always polarizing. They bring out extreme emotions in people, whether that’s admiration and love or anger and fear.
That was definitely the case here, and it began long before the wolves arrived.
Pro-Wolf
Wildlife advocates pointed to the science that wolves are a keystone species, meaning that they are a crucial piece of the ecosystem.
Deeper than that, many saw the eradication of the wolves as a mistake that we were morally obligated to make right.
Anti-Wolf
Many of the members of the local communities around the Yellowstone area felt that they had not been properly consulted in the decision making process leading up to the reintroduction.
They felt that the federal government had overstepped, that they had no voice in the matter, and that they were being forced to live with the consequences of a decision made by someone on the other side of the country who didn’t understand them or their way of life.
The major stakeholders on this side of the argument were ranchers who saw wolves as a direct threat to their business and lifestyle and hunters who saw them as competition for the ungulate species.
Implications for the Future
By looking at the landscape both with and without wolves, we have learned important lessons about keystone species, trophic cascades, and the interconnectedness of different species in the ecosystem, which inform our science and research today.
It is widely considered to be one of the greatest success stories in the history of our country’s conservation efforts and has inspired many other projects since then.
It started an important debate about collaboration between federal and state governments and consultations with all major stakeholders on important issues.
