Subtle, slippery slopes of wolf reintroduction
Colorado’s efforts to reintroduce wolves to areas where they once lived is a good example of a typical reintroduction project. In late 2020, Proposition 114 passed by a narrow margin of 50.4% of the vote, and wolves became political bargaining chips.
Many people have asked me to weigh in on Colorado’s wolf reintroduction project because I’ve studied coyotes and other carnivores for decades, so here I simply want to raise some important questions and issues that many people either gloss over and write off as unimportant or about which they’re unaware.
Let me be clear: I do want to see wolves come home to Colorado, and I favor doing as much homework as possible beforehand to ensure the success of a given program.
What right do we have to move individuals from one place to another? Some people argue that we have an obligation to restore an area to reflect its native fauna and flora, and only we can do it.
Do we really have the right to move individuals here and there, and must we do these sorts of things?
Should we do this when individuals who are moved around aren’t granted legal protection?
Individuals will be harmed and killed even if they’re protected by existing laws, and if they’re not, I fear that an increasing number will be harmed and killed.
What happens to the wolves and wolf packs in the areas from which some wolves are taken? When animals are taken from one area to another, the behavior of those remaining can radically change and have negative influences on their lives.
There’s little doubt that the wolves who are left in an area will undergo major changes in behavior and social organization when group members and others are removed. This is one argument wolf advocates give for why hunting wolves shouldn’t be allowed, because it can decimate local packs and populations of wolves.
What happens when relocated wolves compete with and kill other animals? After wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995, they obliterated coyotes in some areas such as in the Lamar Valley, where there were ongoing studies that came to an end. What about the fact that wolves also will kill wild and domestic prey who otherwise would not have been killed? Is this OK?
Blind faith in reintroduction programs means some animals will be harmed and killed who otherwise would have gone on to live normal lives. Some wolves will likely die to help others of their species, and these trade-offs need to be discussed because the life of ever y single individual matters to that individual, and every life should matter to us. Individual wolves don’t care if their species goes extinct.
“Being for” animals means different things to different people, and I honor and understand these differences. “Coexistence” also means different things to different people, and “killing in the name of coexistence” or “killing in the name of conservation” makes no sense to me.
Removing and relocating animals is like robbing Peter to pay Paul — taking wolves from an area where they had good lives and moving them to where many of their lives will likely not be so good.
We decide who lives, who dies, and why, and this powerful position is not a license to kill. It does, however, mean that killing or allowing other animals to be killed shouldn’t be written off as “collateral damage” for the good of a species, as some people casually put it.
Colorado’s wolf reintroduction program raises numerous important questions, and I hope wolves will someday roam Colorado, they will be legally protected, and the views of supporters and opponents and the animals themselves — all stakeholders — will be taken into account to ensure that each and every wolf will be able to survive and thrive. Building trust is essential.
Marc Bekoff (marcbekoff.com), professor emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado Boulder, has studied various carnivores for many decades.