Reintroduction of the Mexican and Gray Wolves to Colorado

The Mexican and Gray wolves’ subspecies of wolves in northern America are among those rare mammals to find and, at the same time, are also endangered by fate due to the human demands on the continent. The wildlife services and predecessor agencies of the U.S. trapped and even went a notch higher in poisoning them from their natural habitats since 1915. It led to a handful of them remaining and breeding in captivity due to being endangered. In the late 1800s, programs were initiated to exterminate some animals among them being the grizzly Kodiaks, wolves, and lynx. By 1940, many of these animals were nowhere to be found in their original places. It was because of the misconceptions that claimed that especially wolves would go ahead and adversely affect the economy of some animals, like the livestock which they feasted on and the hunting industry of people in general that provided competition for the elks.

Secondly, people claimed that the Mexican and the Gray wolves were not purported to historically inhabit Colorado. It could not be proved either, as the scientific information provided enough evidence to support their existence. In support of the reintroduction of the wolves, commissions agree that they have to be reinstated, just like in Montana and Wyoming, where it was done almost 20 years ago. There are no negative cases that have been recorded about them – if otherwise, they were very minimal. Hunting of elk by humans has even proved to be better than ever before, and the effect and impact of Mexican and Gray wolves on the livestock industry has been on the decrease, less, for instance, than that of domestic dogs that used to be a threat back in the days before their reintroduction.

Science argues that there needs to be biodiversity to maintain the predator-prey relationship and to keep the population of the species in check to ensure a sustainable standard for nature to be stable. The Earth at large is experiencing a mass extinction of some species at a very drastic rate. The main cause of the decline in biodiversity is the rising human population that has resulted in harmful activities, excess harvesting of certain species, pollution and climatic changes, the introduction of invasive species in habitats that they ought not to, and finally, the loss of habitats or fragmentation. Due to the above effects on flora and fauna, there has been a plan to attempt to reverse the extinction of the Mexican and Gray wolves by formulating their reintroduction program.

It is intended to restore the actual numbers of both the wolf species so that we will enhance stability in the ecosystem and regeneration to perpetuate their continuity. The predators will help in promoting populations of a number of other species in the wild, such as beavers, songbirds, and bears, for a balance in coexistence (Hendriks et al., 2016). These are the ecological benefits that other species in nature cannot provide. Additionally, the truth about the impact of wolves on elk populations is that the former, especially the Gray sub-species, make the latter's population healthier.

The reintroduction of wolves will restore the coexistence between them, humans, and livestock. There is only the need to change people’s mindsets in a bid to embrace and invest towards a sustainable future through changing how things were done in the past with the ability to nurture an environment that respects all aspects of life change that is needed to recover the lost natural heritage and humanity towards other creatures. Science goes ahead to show that in an environment where different types of wolves have been reintroduced, they set in motion interaction cascades that contribute to the increased biological diversity of the ecosystem. The Mexican and Gray wolves preferentially do away with the old, the deceased, and the young; it eliminates those that are genetically inferior, reducing competition that exists for forage and improves the health of the entire herd of the animals it preys on, unlike the humans that go for the healthy ones making them become extinct at a drastic rate.

Vision Statement

The vision is to successfully enhance the reintroduction of both the Mexican and the Gray wolves to Colorado following their eviction in the late 1800s (Rinkesh, 2013). The aim is to use environmentally friendly mechanisms that will not harm the existing ecosystem, coupled with maintaining the same wolves through proper sustenance, which will see them successfully establish themselves over the coming years without threats that might trigger their extinction or decline in number.

Stakeholder Groups

Those concerned with the move of the restoration of the Mexican and the Gray wolves include the government as a whole, its related agencies, and several ministries, with the Ministry of Wildlife and Environmental Conservation and Lands being among them. There are also state governments and influential business people in support of this program, especially those who embrace wildlife due to the contributions made to their economy. Furthermore, individual organizations have taken upon the reintroduction of two types of wolves’ issue as a responsibility that they ought to fulfil in a bid to save the endangered species of animals by bringing them back to their habitats that will witness a balance in the future and for reference purposes. The organizations include Google, Microsoft, and the United Nations and the community at large. Lastly, institutions have joined hands together with the other stakeholders to reinforce the issue. It has cut across universities like Harvard and Oxford, colleges, and senior high schools that will see the research table positive results.

Goals and Associated Objectives

The program aims to formulate and develop a recovery plan for the wolves by the wildlife service in charge of the country’s ecosystem in Colorado state, just like in Wyoming and other states (Leonard, Vilà, & Wayne, 2005). Secondly, the wildlife service has to promote the reintroduction of wolves while trying to understand their relationship with humans and other animals they predate on in the particular ecosystem. The objective is to increase the number of the Mexican and the Gray wolf by providing suitable mating grounds that will see them change from being endangered into a free species of Colorado in a span of the next five years, which they will be able to survive smoothly without interruptions as per management’s plan. Lastly, in the next 10 years, the wildlife service is to ensure mutual survival and existence between wolves, human beings, and animals the wolves prey on to guarantee that conflicts are thoroughly minimized and to give hunters a share. It will be achieved through the setting up of electric fences to confine the wolves, diminishing their interaction with people and livestock and controlling their reproduction.

Resource Overview

The Mexican and the Gray wolves were once available in abundance throughout the Colorado state with a very high population of approximately over 3,000,000 in number (Black & Rutberg, 2007). These large numbers of predators remained intact and constant until the 1900s. The early years had seen people who were believed to have not been natives begin to clear the wolves just to settle while expanding the area coupled with the factor that they were farmers. Their main activity was ranching as a primary occupation in their lives; Colorado had proved to be an ideal place for that activity.

The idea was supported by the fact that agriculture was an influential sector in the economy of the United States during that particular time. Therefore, the ranchers resolved to lobby for extra land to expand their grazing ranges; however, they found that wolves had lavishly occupied the territory. In their powers, they hunted the animals down and even poisoned some. The elk and deer population that was food to the predators also began to decline due to these effects of expansion. They were hunted; some ran away for safety. As such, the remaining population of wolves began to pose a threat to livestock owned by the ranchers as they searched for other prey to satisfy their needs of hunger. The U.S. government went ahead to hire professionals who killed the wolves to provide protection to the livestock that saw their elimination from the wild through the implementation of these weird programs.

The number of wolves is still lower, although the reintroduction process began way back in the late 1990s. State and federal courts repeatedly turned down efforts by concerned bodies with the animals’ welfare at heart because populations could not be sustained fully. The response of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service was to create separate rules to do away with protections offered to wolves and instead granted people the freedom to hunt in the northern Rockies and western Great Lakes (Troxell et al., 2009). Controversy still exists over wolves’ reintroduction programs, the administrations issue proposals to eliminating the predators from the list of endangered species and all associated protection in the lower 48 states, plus those that still have extremely low populations of the wolves through the help of federal and state court rulings.

The sole determinants and drivers causing wolves’ reintroduction opposition are the hunting and livestock industries. Even today, some ranchers still subscribe to the same ideology of those that used to eliminate the previous lot; they believe these newly established populations of wolves will pose predatory threats to their livestock and overall livelihood. Although many people remain positive about the reintroduction plan of wolves being helped to reestablish themselves in their original habitat, some farmers feel endangered due to their closeness to parks inhabiting these wolves. Some lack the appropriate established measures that can protect them against these beasts.

The populations of elk have also declined in some areas since wolves were first reintroduced. It has negatively impacted the economy, as it has drastically reduced the collected revenue from hunting licenses (Gershman, 2014). It means that eliminating the wolf from the endangered species and lifting protections will enable ranchers and hunters to kill any wolf that poses a threat. States will also have the right to formulate and execute their own strategies for controlling the population, such as creating some seasons for hunting wolves or volunteer control groups.

Management Alternatives

The management has come up with alternatives that will aid in reducing the interaction between humans and wolves during their reintroduction by using buffer zones. In areas where the habitats of the animals are suitable but near livestock operations, it is extremely hard to avoid continued conflicts between farmers and two types of wolves, worsened by the fact that the population of the latter and that of the livestock industry, with time, continue to increase drastically. It prevents the possible safe establishment of livestock and humans without the threat of being killed or relocated. The main purpose of it was to limit the number of reported conflicts between people and wolves and increase support from interest groups that were concerned with land-use restrictions and livestock depredation. It also keeps in check the number of predators that must be controlled and the amount of money that must be paid to ranchers in the name of compensation for livestock destruction by the wolves.

As such, there will be a reduction in the need for resources and the pressure exerted that would otherwise be necessary to facilitate the program without using buffer zones. What matters most is that the distribution of wolves is ultimately determined by their ecological needs and how people tolerate their presence (Holleman, 2016). Therefore, Colorado should embrace the use of buffer zones to provide them with an area that meets the ecological needs and increases the social tolerance of those around the buffer zones, which will see the predators’ population grow to the desired numbers.

Secondly, the management can adopt educational programs, and outreach will create awareness. It would not be effective without the efforts and persistent support from those who own homes around the predators’ habitats, rangers, and hunters in general, who are directly affected and impacted by their existence and compliance from the majority of the citizens (Pate, Manfredo, Bright, & Tischbein, 1996). It goes beyond just making the public fully informed about the anatomy and biology of wolves, their natural history at large, and their ecological importance and adaptations, but must also include scientific research involving the relationship between the predators and other species in their natural habitats, how this science can be of the essence in development of better decisions and solutions to problems that emerge. It should provide people with realistic strategies that promote peaceful coexistence with wolves due to minimized friction (Troxell et al., 2009). It goes without saying that individuals who are familiar with and aware of wolves have enough information to distinguish the important role they play in sustaining and maintaining the ecosystem; however, the fact on its own cannot hold much weight enough to gain popular support and recognition from the public and groups of interest. This particular engagement is essential to the fear and stigma elimination of wolves and increasing acceptance of their presence in society.

Lastly, in case the above alternative strategies do not work perfectly or receive resistance from the management, mitigation will be adopted as the main strategy for the development plan of reintroducing the wolves in Colorado. Removal of any of the two types of wolves does not only temper with the changes of the pack of animals but also proves to be consuming a lot of time, uses labor that is intensive, and also exhibits the requirement of skilled and knowledgeable manpower that is well trained to single out those that are a threat to livestock and the humans as well. This means that a docket of funds has to be set aside to cover the above activities. Therefore, sources of money have to be identified; among them, one may include grants and donations from well-wishers and finances from the government ministries concerned with wildlife practices, conducting fundraising events by inviting NGOs that support wildlife programs.

These sources will definitely provide some of the funding needed. Still, the suggestions are extremely unclear, and there is no proper way to ensure a stable budget to enhance smooth management over time. Consequently, wolves’ compensation payments are only extended to the confirmed or probable livestock kills, but there are no compensations for the cattle that will be later sold either for a loss or profit (Thomas, 2013). It could be addressed by monitoring the income and livestock amount of the ranchers during the repopulation of the wolves to find out how the latter were influencing the ranching community’s mode of life. Often, the depredation greatly affects individuals the separate ranchers or groups; as such, scrutiny of farmers as well as controlling the animals might act as a blueprint to providing some insight on how to optimally allocate resources and mitigate the problem that is to be encountered during the wolf reintroduction to Colorado.

Monitoring Activities

If one were to reintroduce and adequately manage both the Mexican and the Gray wolves in Colorado, one ought to critically monitor their habitat and the species they prey on. A variety of methods can be used in monitoring. They include genetic profiling, snow tracking, howling surveys, scent marking, radio tracking, and remote photography. Using a reporting system to determine their presence in specific areas that will later become newly occupied should be given priority. Areas resided by the public and those working in the neighbourhood should be solicited and isolated to minimize the conflicts. Surveys must be conducted in areas where the wolves are consistently and abundantly found or the territories where they are highly suspected of dwelling. The public should be encouraged to report their observations by maintaining contact with the residents of any signs of predators. Surveys should be extended to capture the winter and summer seasons in which the Mexican and the Gray wolves specifically breed and mate to determine their distribution. They are also useful in detecting pairing activities.

Radio tracking is essential in substantial efforts to research the wolf population's estimate and the ever-dynamic emerging trends. They include the litter and pup ratios, the paired parks, and those that are alone. Wolf management zones should be periodically reviewed and necessarily revised. Stratification should also be carried out in a bid to determine the required adjustments to meet the reintroduction goals and objectives to avoid conflicts. Knowledge and skills concerning the Mexican and the Gray wolf populations should be obtained concerning interactions accompanying their effects and impacts on fellow carnivores, how they use the prey, requirements in their habitats, and their health status. Studies are essential, especially in the core areas of their reintroduction, because their performance will predict what might happen in other areas. Long-term research and the data in possession are important for proper management.

Assessment and Success Criteria

There should be a high degree of understanding, coordination, and cooperation both from the common citizens and the government agencies involved in reintroduction. Impact-based management criteria will be used to ensure the aforementioned process flows smoothly. It will focus on monitoring of areas that have been adversely affected by the activities of wolves. Part of this success criterion will be to employ alternative control methods that are not lethal. The government and wildlife service should work hand in hand with livestock owners and those adversely affected by the two types of wolves. The authorities and interested groups such as non-governmental organizations will be charged with the duty of spreading the wolf education and outreach about the predator's possible implications along with the management to interested parties and those directly involved such as the hunters, the ranchers, the nearby homeowners, the conservationists as well as the policy-makers (Fuller & Keith, 1980). The plan singles out the core element of impact-based management as the supplement of enough funds that will ensure the success of all aspects of the reintroduction, especially from the concerned government agencies.

As for other success criteria, the plan will consider adaptive changes that will occur over time to the wolf monitoring program and suggest a full engagement in measuring and emphasis to these changes using the most current information obtained from the research. This move would involve assessing the positive and negative impacts of predators regularly and using the information and reviewed literature. There should be the continual use of various techniques for controlling the wolves to create awareness about their presence and distribution. They also track down their interaction habits and related impacts on livestock and humans. Management, in turn, will able to compensate fully those who have been confirmed to have suffered depredation or probable kills.

Learning and Feedback/Adaptation

The management adaptive plan was a great start to effectively control the reintroduction of the Mexican and the Gray wolves into Colorado due to the pressures exerted in the in nearby states and the balance that ought to be maintained in the ecosystem of the state (Hendricks et al., 2016). It is inevitable that the wolf population in Colorado is going to grow in future; it will be a result of the new program aimed at reintroducing the Gray and the Mexican wolves in the US. As such, it is reasonable to revisit several management plans and work on eliminating the modern system's drawbacks that will ensure these particular species' survival in the coming years.

The flaws that are to be dealt with in the future of wolves’ protection in Colorado include insufficient goals and objectives that are measurable about their reintroduction, the inadequate and absence of buffer zones between wolf habitat and ranching communities in some areas that might constantly lead to either side invading the other (the result will always be a win-lose situation), inadequate sources of funding to implement the reintroduction program properly, and insufficient education and outreach program to increase awareness and concrete support from opposing groups (Lentfer & Sanders, 1973). A critical analysis of the plan identifies a number of solutions to the above problems.
One, the use of versatile lands would aid in the reduction of conflicts between humans and wolves. Finances should also be set aside to construct buffer zones. Since a good amount of money can be extracted from taxes imposed on marijuana, the lottery, and the tourism sector, some can be used as capital to fund the program. Finally, developing an education and outreach program that specifically aims to address the fears and create positivity in the emotions of controversial interests of some groups of people will ultimately increase support and awareness for wolf repopulation.

The above solutions can bear fruits, but it should be remembered that the reality of the increment of the predators’ population in Colorado will not fully do away with the conflict, but rather minimize them. People should be ready and willing to participate in the activities outlined in the plan to make them purposeful since cooperation and support are key requirements in managing wolves. The goals, management practices, and opinions posted by the public about the wolves’ reintroduction should be revisited and thoroughly evaluated regularly to keep people updated to any changes that might have occurred without their knowledge. It is because just like science and technology, views are dynamic, and therefore, people have to stay at par to make the running of the plan a success.

According to views and opinions collected from the public, it is already established that Colorado is ready to reintroduction the two types of wolves armed with a comprehensive management plan to help manage them within the lines stipulated by the government. It is high time people became aware of the presence of these animals and responded appropriately in terms of behaviour that will see them cope with the reality of the animals being around for the rest of the coming years. The fact remains that Colorado is endowed with enough resources to support a good number of wolves; therefore, negative opinions and threats from the government and opposing groups should not be the reasons to inhibit their reintroduction to the land that was once their original home.

References

Black, P., & Rutberg, A. (2007). The effectiveness of grey wolf (Canis lupus) education programs in the Midwest: A case study of Wolf Park. Endangered Species Update, 24(1), 3-13.

Fuller, W.A., & Keith, L. B. (1980). Wolf population dynamics and prey relationships in Northeastern Alberta. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 44(3), 583-602.

Gershman, J. (2014). Idaho’s push to rein in wolf population angers conservationists. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/idahos-push-to-rein-in-wolf-population-angers-conservationists-1395444544

Hendricks, S.A., Sesink Clee, P. R., Harrigan, R. J., Pollinger, J. P., Freedman, A. H., Callas, R., …, & Wayne, R. K. (2016). Re-defining historical geographic range in species with sparse records: Implications for the Mexican wolf reintroduction program. Biological Conservation, 194, 48-57.

Holleman, M. (2016). It’s far past time for Alaska to protect Denali wolves with a buffer zone. Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved from https://www.adn.com/commentary/article/its-far-past-time-alaska-protect-denali-wolves-buffer-zone/2016/05/18/

Lentfer, J.M., & Sanders, D. K. (1973). Notes on the captive wolf (Canis lupus) colony, Barrow, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 51(6), 623-627.

Leonard, J. A., Vilà, C., & Wayne, R. K. (2005). Legacy lost: genetic variability and population size of extirpated US grey wolves (Canis lupus). Molecular Ecology, 14(1), 9-17.

Pate, J., Manfredo, M. J., Bright, A. D., & Tischbein, G. (1996). Coloradans’ attitudes toward reintroducing the gray wolf into Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24(3), 421-428.

Rinkesh, K. (2013). Overpopulation: Causes, effects and solutions. Conserve Energy Future. Retrieved from https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-effects-solutions-of-overpopulation.php

Thomas, H. S. (2013). Wolves’ economic bite on cattle goes way beyond predation. Beef Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.beefmagazine.com/pasture-range/wolves-economic-bite-cattle-goes-way-beyond-predation

Troxell, P. S., Berg, K. A., Jaycox, H., Strauss, A. L., Struhsacker, P., & Callahan, P. (2009). Education and outreach efforts in support of wolf conservation in the Great Lakes region.

In A. P. Wydeven, T. R. Van Deelen, & E. Heske (Eds.), Recovery of Gray Wolves in the Great Lakes Region of the United States (pp. 297-309). New York, NY: Springer.