The Reintroduction of the Red Wolf
A Project on the Effects of Reintroduction of a Top Carnivore to the Wild
When Europeans first landed in North America, wolf populations in
the United States were healthy and comprised of two main species: the
southeastern red (Canis rufus) and the gray (Canis lupus). The
smaller of the two, the red wolf is a medium-sized canine which
closely resembles the coyote, although it is somewhat larger. Its
coloration is similar to the coyote's, although it is somewhat
redder. It is a carnivore, feeding mainly on young ungulates
(including cattle, bison, and deer), small mammals, and rodents. It
makes its den in enclosed, covered areas such as caves, hollow trees,
drainage culverts, etc. Red wolves mate for life. 21
Starting in the late 1800's, settlers in the Western United States
began to hunt the bison and elk which were a main source of food
for the wolves, and raise cattle. Not surprisingly, wolves (along with
other predators such as mountain lions and grizzly bears) began to
hunt the cattle, an act which soon sealed their fate. The settlers
began a systematic eradication of both species. Ranchers and the state
government paid bounties to hunters for each dead wolf. In
1905, the state began infecting captured wolves with mange and
releasing them to infect wild wolf populations. Not only were the
wolves targeted for eradication, but humans continually encroached
upon their territory. In the 1920's, the government passed a law
requiring the use of bounties and poison to ensure the eradication of
wolves from all public lands. 1,23
By 1930, neither species was in very
good shape. There were isolated pockets of both species, but the
wolves within these small pockets were interbreeding and their numbers
were rapidly dwindling. The gray wolf had some breathing room since
much of its native land had not yet been settled by man, but the red
wolf was in serious trouble. In 1967 it was declared an endangered
species, and by 1979 all red wolves had been removed from the wild in
an attempt to establish a breeding program. In November of 1973, the
US Fish and Wildlife Service created the Red Wolf Recovery program.
The objectives of this program were "to certify the genetic
purity of wild-caught wolves, and to breed animals for future
reintroduction into the wild". As an experiment, a single pair
of wolves were released on Bulls Island, South Carolina, at the Cape
Romain National Wildlife Refuge, and was recaptured six months later
and found to be in good health. From 1982 to 1984 the USFWS fought
several times to establish a permanent population of wolves in the
Tennessee Valley Authority's Land Between the Lakes, and were at last
successful.21 After several years of captive breeding, in
1987 the first red wolves were reintroduced into the Alligator River
National Wildlife Refuge. Wolves were also established on Bulls
Island off of the coast of South Carolina to provide a semi-wild, but
controlled group of wolves. In 1989 wolves were released off of the
coast of Mississippi on Horn Island and in 1990 another island project
was established off of the coast of Florida on St. Vincent Island.
This project used the island to breed wolves and wean them, and then
sent them to reintroduction sites such as the Alligator River
Refuge. 22 In 1991, some of these wolves were sent to the
Great Smoky Mountain National Forest in Tennessee. In 1994 more
wolves were introduced to the nearby Pocosian Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge.2 These original wolves (being captive born) were
only somewhat successful but did have several offspring. These
offspring, having been born and raised in the wild, were much more
successful.3
The red wolf project has been in existence for over 20 years. From
the first time wolves were captured to establish a breeding captive
population to the present, this program has existed to try to right
the wrongs of previous generations and to restore this magnificent
beast to the wild. The reintroduction of the red wolf can be
evaluated from several different perspectives. The main perspectives
that this paper will examine are political, legal, social, ecological,
and whether the project is successful enough to warrant further
investments.
Political
Various political groups have differing opinions on the wisdom and
success of red wolf reintroduction; these groups range from the
federal government, to local government, to political environmental
groups such as the Sierra Club. The United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, because they have authority over endangered species due to
the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, has been the
principal agency involved in the breeding, tracking, and management of
the wolf. They have received help from the National Park service whose
land the USFWS service is using for the project, and other agencies
such as the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.
The government's financial expenditure for this project has been
extensive. For example, the bill for the work done in the
Smokies4 plus the work done in the Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge was around $110,000. This was possible due to a
majority of environmentally-friendly Democrats in Congress. However,
in 1994 a right wing, pro-business, Republican majority was
elected. They cut vast amounts of money to endangered species programs
and to environmental programs in general,5 and have been
described as having “the worst environmental record in
history.” 5 There have been “mass attacks on
the nation's environmental laws.” 5 The red wolf
program just barely eaked along during the past few years. In 1995, a
rider bill was just narrowly defeated that would have suspended all
funding to the program. 2
The local governments of two of the counties that surround the
introduction site in the eastern part of North Carolina have recently
passed resolutions that the wolves be removed from their
counties.6 These counties, along with two other
individuals, have filed lawsuits against the US Fish and Wildlife
Service demanding that the government to allow them to trap and kill
any wolves which wander onto private property. (Currently they may
legally only kill wolves which are endangering people or livestock, due to the
wolves' status as “experimental nonessential”.) Both
these resolutions and the lawsuits are largely fueled by ignorance or
fear on the part of the citizens. Also, based on survey evidence,
this is largely the work of a small, but vocal minority. There has
never been a documented attack on a human by a red wolf in the
wild.6 Unfortunately, both of these counties share a border
with the Pocosian National Wildlife Refuge, where wolves and people
tend to come into close contact. The Alligator River NWR is largely
secluded from man, but Pocosian is not. Though the FWS has approached
many land owners with requests to allow wolves on their private land
surrounding the refuge, this has failed to solve the problem: just as
the wolves were loath to remain on public land, neither were they
willing to stay on land owned by landowners who had given permission
for them to be there.
As an alternate approach, the Fish and Wildlife
Service is attempting to solve the problem through community education
by going to schools and other community institutions to teach the
young about the wolves. While education is helping to mitigate the
problem, the FWS was forced to designate the populations as
experimental/non-essential, meaning that residents may kill wolves on
private lands if they are in the action of threatening or killing
livestock. In an attempt to reduce killings, the Fish and Wildlife
Service has set up a fund to reimburse property owners who lose
livestock to the wolves, and has promised to remove problem animals
from the areas where they are causing complaints.
We should be able to predict the public's response to the
reintroduction of red wolves by looking at its reaction to the
reintroduction of gray wolves. The gray wolf was eradicated inside
Yellowstone National Park by 1926, and was added to the national
endangered species list in 1973. The 100th and
101st congress approved $200,000 to be used for restoring
the gray wolf to Yellowstone National Park23, but,
predictably, special interest groups blocked the passage of the bill
which would have paid for a study leading up to the creation of an
Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed reintroduction. But
the next meeting of Congress established the Wolf Management
Committee, which submitted a plan calling for the reintroduction of
the gray wolf to Yellowstone and, in 1992, open houses were held to
gauge public opinion on the proposal. An overwhelming majority (1,300
for to 200 against) of the respondents were in favor of wolf
reintroduction. Most of the notable objections were from ranchers,
who were afraid that the wolves would kill their livestock. Others
pointed out the cost of the program: the US government had spent more
than 6 million dollars on the project.
The Sierra Club of the Charleston area suggested in February that
the red wolf should be reintroduced to the Francis Marion National
Forest in the Low country of South Carolina. A poll on the issue
resulted in 89% of residents voicing approval.7 On the
other side of the issue are the groups that oppose the reintroduction
of the red wolf back into the wild, such as CROWN (Citizens Rights
Over Wolves Now). A group of sheep and beef farmers in Tennessee are
also opposed to the wolves that have been released in the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park, due to livestock losses. These groups are
determined, mainly for financial reasons, that this project cannot
continue. For this project to continue, a successful compromise must
be reached with these groups of landowners and farmers.
Legal
Various groups in opposition to the project have filed a lawsuit
to bring it to a halt, based on the publications of two University of
California researchers. Using mitochondrial DNA techniques, the
researchers claim to be able to prove that the red wolf is not
actually a distinct species at all. Instead, it appears that the
wolf's mitochondrial DNA is a hybrid between that of a gray wolf and
a coyote.6 Since the current policy of the USFWS dictates
that only genetically distinct plants and animals can be protected,
such a finding may be used to force an end to the project.6
The lawsuit in this case bases its claim that the program should be
stopped as it is not serving to protect an endangered species. Those
who filed this lawsuit have no real concern for the success of this
project, nor do they have concern for the future of the wolf. At the
root of their lawsuit is the simple protection of their livestock
which borders on the Smoky Mountain National Park. A similar lawsuit
has also been filed by land owners surrounding the Pocasion National
Wildlife Refuge.
Even if the red wolf were found to be a hybrid, the species would
still be worth saving. The red wolf has played a huge part in the
history and heritage of the South. Curtis Carley, who founded the red
wolf recovery program in 1973 states “whatever the red wolf is,
the wolves we have in captivity seem to breed true and represent the
southeastern canine that has been recorded as part of our
heratige.”1 The red wolf's confused genetic makeup
has many wondering whether this project will go much
further.8 If the red wolf is recognized as a hybrid, then
it will not be recognized as an endangered species under the federal
government's Endangered Species Act, and the funding for this project
will vanish. If that happens, then the fate of the red wolf is
probably doomed.
Social
The nearby sites of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and
the Pocasion National Wildlife Refuge lie in one of the poorest
sections of North Carolina. The project has created a boom in the
tourism trade in eastern North Carolina and in the area of the Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. According to a Cornell University
study, the project will probably bring in around $37.5 million dollars
to the area of eastern North Carolina in which the wolves exist.9
Overall, the Cornell study stated, the project will directly
bring $170 million dollars to the two areas in which the wolves have
been reintroduced.10 According to the study, around 75% of
the people polled supported the project, and 70% of the people polled
supported an expansion of the project into a third site.10
Another survey, directed by a North Carolina State graduate student,
found that a majority of residents in the five eastern North Carolina
counties most impacted by the program support the
program. 11 According to this survey, 51.7% of the
residents support the program, while 30.2% oppose it.12
This data shows that, while there is significant social unrest because
of the wolves, it is largely being caused by a vocal minority. But the
issues that this minority has raised must be addressed, as the
minority includes wealthy landowners who have the ears of the local
and state governments.
Another social aspect that needs to be addressed is the residents'
fears of the wolves. The public perceives wolves to be vicious
hunters, preying on livestock and attacking defenseless
travelers. According to one source, “the principal fear of many
locals is that a hungry red wolf will attack a child.”
6 The residents need to be assured that there has never
been a “documented case in modern times of a healthy red wolf
attacking a human.”6 While “several gray wolves
have bitten campers in Canada,” “they were lone animals
looking for handouts.”6 This problem most likely
resulted from the wolves being fed by tourists and coming to associate
humans with free, easy food. In a normal, healthy, wild population,
wolves would get plenty to eat by catching small game animals. In
these areas in Canada, humans have eliminated much of their prey base
due to hunting, recreational activities, and habitat
destruction.24 The wolves in both release locations will
have a large prey base, asmost of their prey are in a state of
overpopulation due to a lack of predators, so it is unlikely that red
wolves will feel the need to venture close to humans for food. As more
and more of the wild ranging population is “born in the wild,
the less likely they will show up in peoples yards and on
roadsides.”6
While there have been several supposed incidents involving wolves
killing livestock, there have actually been only three documented
cases in which wolves were implicated. Two involved hunting dogs
straying into wolves' territory. The other was a wolf in a goat pen.
The team involved with the wolves in eastern North Carolina have
investigated many other complaints “in which pets or livestock
were killed, but no wolf involvement was found. On several occasions
the team caught feral dogs.”13 On one occasion
“someone complained about the killing of 12 bantam chickens and
two guinea hens, the evidence pointed to the owner's German
Shepherd.”13 These incidents serve to show that the
people of this area are becoming quick to blame everything on the red
wolf, when many of the problems have nothing to do with the wolf. As
more of the wolves are born in the wild, they will lose their
tolerance of man and begin to avoid any contact with human
civilization. For this project to succeed though, it is not enough
hat the wolves refrain from attacking humans: the misconceptions and
misplaced fear and anger that many of the residents of the surrounding
counties are feeling must be alleviated by the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Time and education will probably solve these problems if the
program is allowed to continue.
Ecological
Another dimension to consider in the red wolf project is
the ecological problems and benefits of reintroducing a top carnivore
into an environment that has been without that
top carnivore for some time. The red wolf is by far not the only
species that mankind has nearly destroyed: the white-tailed deer, the
wild turkey, and the bald eagle are other visible examples. These
species have all made remarkable comebacks thanks to the Endangered
Species Act and responsible hunting practices adopted during the
1960's. The white-tailed deer population, with no natural
predator left in the wild except for man, has exploded in recent
years. There are so many deer in the wild now, that many of them
face starvation due to intraspecific competition. With the
reintroduction of the red wolf to the wild, the deer population will
probably be made both smaller and more healthy as the wolves cull
sickly or less fit animals. Wolves also prey on raccoon, marsh
rabbit, and non-native nutria (a South-American rodent that burrows
out the land surrounding bodies of water leading to increased
erosion). The population of these creatures will be controlled back
to normal, healthy levels by a functioning wild population of wolves.
Ecological problems with the program do exist though.
Just because people decide to reintroduce red wolves to several areas
around the nation, doesn't mean that there will be a successful
restoration of a functional wild population of red wolves. When
wolves were made extinct in the wild by the capture of the last
remaining members of the species, a huge body of the wolves'
knowledge was lost. When a young wolf is born in the wild, it learns
many skills and techniques from other wild wolves. By capturing and
caging the last of the wild red wolves, we created a situation in
which young wolves have nothing to teach them the skills which are
essential to survival in the wild. These lessons must be learned for
the first time by captive-born wolves and their offspring when they
are released. This process is very dangerous to the life of the
animal, and it is doubtful that all of the lost knowledge will be
regained.
Unfortunately, there is not enough land remaining in any of the
refuges to support a large population of wolves. Wolves have large
home territories, ranging from 25 up to 100 square miles in some
locations, and have been known to roam up to 700 miles from their
place of birth.14 With a home territory this large, it is
hard to find enough deserted areas to provide habitat for the wolves.
Red wolves are pack animals, which means that they roam in groups of
anywhere from two to over twenty-five animals. In the wild, some
individuals leave their packs and band together to form a new pack.
In order to maximize birth rates, the USFWS has attempted to create as
many packs as possible by reintroducing pairs of mated wolves. The
wolves are socialized to one another by living less than a year in
holding pens, where they are given the carcasses of their intended
prey animals to feed upon. It is extremely difficult to find enough
land for a home territory, with adequate prey and little human
intervention, for each new pack of wolves. 25
Another ecological problem is the small size of the wolves'
population. The red wolves' “population is threatened by its
smallness, many events (e.g., disease outbreaks) can cause extinction
of small populations.”15 This has actually happened
in the Great Smoky Mountains National Forest group of wolves, when the
young of several years in a row have been killed by the canine parvo
virus.16 Other catastrophes, such as severe weather (e.g.
a hurricane) could also wreak havoc on the wild population of red
wolves. Another problem is that there is very little genetic variance
among the red wolves. All 270-300 red wolves in
existence17 are the offspring of 14 original
wolves.8 This issue is one without a solution, as the 14
red wolves were the only pure breeding red wolves in existence when
the project was started. Any detrimental recessive alleles present in
the population are sure to be expressed often. All of these
ecological problems must be addressed before the survival of the wolf
can be assured.
Fortunately, we can once again look to the relocation of gray wolves
into Yellowstone to help predict what wolves might do when
reintroduced into North Carolina. Currently, gray wolves prosper in
Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Yellowstone currently has nine
wolfpacks, which produced eleven litters of pups in Spring 1997. It is
estimated that these new pups will double the current population of
wolves, from 47 up to around 100. The abundant supply of elk and deer
are part of the reason for the wolves' success. From January to June
1996, the wolves kept pretty much to themselves, killing only four
sheep and five lambs inside the state of Montana. (The group
“Defenders of Wildlife” have agreed to pay up to $6,000
per year to reimburse ranchers who lose livestock to wolves. The
total amount of damage for the first half of 1996 came to only
$660.)26 Of course, there are differences between the two
programs: the gray wolves were all wild-born in Alaska and Canada, and
were simply moved into Yellowstone, while the red wolves that are
being released are all born in captivity. If trends are to be
believed, though, hopefully future generations of wild-born gray
wolves will end up causing as little damage, and being as successful
as, their gray cousins.
Is it successful enough to continue?
While the project has clearly been successful in some areas, its
success in other areas is less clear. When the project was started
there were only 14 wolves remaining,8 and now there are
almost 300 wolves alive.17 This, in itself, is an
accomplishment. Of those 270-300 wolves, 220 are part of the captive
breeding program and 50-70 exist in the wild. This project was the
first ever reintroduction of a species previously extinct in the
wild. Many problems have surfaced, largely due to a lack of experience
with wildlife reintroduction.
The project has created two growing populations in the Alligator River
National Wildlife Refuge and the Pocosian Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge. More importantly, the project has provided a rallying symbol
for the public for endangered species reintroductions. There have been
and are still many problems with the program, though. The wolves seem
to have had a hard time adjusting to life in the wild. All of the
originally released wolves were born in captivity, used to human
contact and to humans providing them with food. When the captive bred
wolves were first to be introduced, the trainers knew that
“transforming captive-bred wolves into wild wolves would involve
much more then simply opening the door and waving goodbye. Wolves
born in captivity needed time to acclimatize to their new
surroundings, to adjust from a regular captive diet to one of sporadic
road-kill carcasses and live prey.” 8 The
introduction “was not a completely
successful”18 project at first. The problem was that
“some of the animals weren't sufficiently savvy or cautious-in
short, they were not wild enough.”18 The wolves
released at Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge “had a hard
time. Although small game was plentiful, the captive-raised wolves had
to both learn how to hunt and to avoid roads. Some were killed by
motor vehicles. Others drowned in rivers or swamps or died fighting
rivals. Eventually they began to get the hang of surviving in the
wild.”13 The wild offspring of these original wolves
have done a much better job of surviving. As of February 1997, 45
wolves were in the wild and accounted for, and 89% of these were wild
born.3
For the most part, reintroduced wolves have had a difficult time
surviving in the wild. As of February, 1997, 33 of the 71 released
wolves were known to have died in the wild in Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge and Pocosian Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (a 46%
mortality rate).3 The good news is that 111 wolves have
been born in the wild, and of this number only 33 are known to have
died. As more wolves are born in the wild, we can expect the mortality
rate among the wolf population to continue to drop. The deaths have
been almost all been due to accidental causes: automobile strikes,
intraspecific aggression, drowning, and one gunshot wound.3
Diseases, including “hookworm, heartworm, distemper, and parvo
virus”, have also taken their toll on the population. The Fish
and Wildlife service addressed these concerns by vaccinating all of
the wolves against these diseases. 17
So, does the success of the wolves' reintroduction merit the
ongoing funding of the program? Currently, it seems that at least
some would answer that question with a "yes". Using what
they have learned from the experimental reintroduction in North
Carolina, the USFWS has scheduled a reintroduction of red wolves into
Arizona in early 1998. They have also drafted plans to reintroduce
wolves to New York's Adirondack Park, although these plans have not
yet been approved nor set into motion. However, the US Senate and
House of Representatives have approved funding for an environmental
impact study on the effects of wolf reintroduction into Olympic
National Park in the state of Washington. If these projects are
approved and actually take place, it will be a large step towards the
recovery of a healthy, functional population of wild red wolves.
In order for the red wolf to continue making a recovery,
this project is essential. There are some very serious obstacles
that stand in the way of the project. But many obstacles have already
been overcome. The political, legal, social, and ecological
dimensions of this program must be carefully considered before
anything further can happen. This project can work, but in the words
of Gary Henry, coordinator of the red wolf recovery program, “it's
going to take a lot of compromise and trust.”
Essay written on Dec. 2, 1997 by Bonnie Barsh, Joe Bayes, Kevin
Disher, Theresa Fu, Thomas Soltau
Sources
- Return of the Red Wolf. Nature Conservancy.
Sept./Oct. 1993, page 10
- Time Line for the Endangered Red Wolf, provided by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service.
- Narrative Summary of Red Wolf Reestablishment Program Fish
and Wildlife Service. February 28, 1997
- Smokies
Homecoming. Doug Markham. Defenders. Fall 1993.
- The Worst Environmental Congress Ever
http://www.house.gov/democrats/worstenv.html
- Red Wolf Showdown. Audubon. March-April, 1995. Page 22-23.
- Restoring the Red Wolves to the Francis Marion Forest. The
Lunz Letter. February 1997.
- Return of the Red Wolf Nature Conservancy
Sept./Oct. 1993, page 12
- Tourism Officials Agree, Wolves Draw Visitors In.
The Coastland Times. March 30, 1997.
- Reintroduced Wolves Face Little Opposition and Boost Tourism in
East, Cornell Survey Finds. The Coastland Times. March
25, 1997.
- Survey
Shows Support. Red Wolf Newsletter. Summer/Fall 1995.
Page 2.
- Majority Backs Wolves. Defenders. Spring 1995. Page
15.
- Hyde
County's Wolf War. Defender. Spring 1995. Page 14.
- The
Endangered Red Wolf. Brochure of the US Fish and Wildlife
Service
-
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
http://bluegoose.arw.r9.fws.gov/NWRSFiles/WildlifeMgmt/SpeciesAccounts/Mammals/
RedWolf/RedWolfSummarydata.html
- Red
Wolf Pups Vanish in Smokies. Davis, Marti. The Knoxville
News-Sentinel.
http://www.gosmokies.com/features/news/md081897.html
-
Brief History of the Red Wolf.
http://www.bjphoto.com/rdwolf.html
- Back
to Nature. Radetsky, Peter. Discover. July 1993. pages
34-42.
- A
Song for the Smokies. DeBlieu, Jan. American Way. Pages
66-72, 103-106
- Summary
of the Red Wolf Reintroduction Project in Northeastern North
Carolina. US Fish And Wildlife Publication.