There are not a lot of topics that are more polarizing than that of predator management. Generally you'll find two popular opinions that are complete opposites with not many people in the middle. On one side you have people that believe that any form of predator management is inhumane and evil and we should not only not control predators, but we should expand their ranges into evermore populated areas. On the other side you have people that believe that the eradication of all large predators is the best course of action . I believe both points of view are flawed and in this post I will try to make a case for a middle of the road position.
One of the most controversial predators especially in modern times is the wolf. This canid is an apex predator usually living off ungulates such as deer, elk and moose and they can have a noticeable impact on big game populations. Many people on the pro wolf side will say that wolves are an integral part of the environment and that without this keystone species then the ecosystem can degrade from overbrowsing by ungulates. And to a large extent they are right. The best example of this is yellowstone national park. Not long after wolves were reintroduced into the park the elk populations plummeted and much of the elk habitat started to recover from overbrowsing from an overabundant elk herd. Once this vegetation recovered it provided new habitat for many different animal species that needed that vegetation and the ecological diversity of the area improved.
On the other side, many people, especially ranchers and hunters are saying that the wolves have become overabundant and are killing too many livestock as well as wild game. And this is true as well. In fact many ranchers in wolf country are seeing severe predation on their livestock sometimes wiping them out completely and costing them their livelihoods. Also some areas have seen elk populations reduced by more than half after wolves recolonized the area and hunting in these regions have pretty much collapsed.
I believe the key here in solving this highly charged issue is about striking a balance. One thing that I think is very important to point out is that wolves are at the top of the food chain and compete with other predators near the top. Many predators will hunt down and kill other predators because they represent a direct form of competition for food. Wolves kill coyotes and coyotes kill foxes. In Africa lions will often kill hyenas and other predators if given the chance. So it's very natural for predators to want to kill their competition. And the most important realization is that we humans are top predators as well competing for the same food source. So I believe we as humans have a natural role to kill other predators that we compete with.
Since we share the same prey with wolves, mostly big game and livestock, then it is our natural role to control wolf and other predator populations, especially in areas with higher amounts of people. This however does not mean we should eradicate them. Wolves still have a role to play and fill the role of predator where we cannot or will not fill that role such as Yellowstone national park. I also believe that many wilderness and backcountry areas should be left to the wolves to provide their predatory role there because it is often difficult for humans to keep game populations in check in these areas.
My management strategy for wolves would be to not allow them in any populated areas such as cities, towns, suburbs and other densely human populated areas. These areas are too dangerous to allow wolves as they could harm pets, livestock and possibly even people. In more rural, but still populated areas such as ranch and farm country I would allow a minimal amount of wolves but have a zero tolerance policy for livestock attacks. That is allow for any wolf seen attacking or stalking livestock be shot on sight. Over time I believe wolves in these areas would eventually get the picture that livestock is off limits and they would also learn to avoid people and become very shy and secluded. Lastly in wilderness or timber country I would leave these areas mostly for the wolves but would allow some wolf hunting to allow game populations to rise high enough to allow some big game hunting.
The bottom line is that wolves are in direct competition with people for food. They eat the same game and livestock we do and in areas of high human populations would not be able to integrate into those types of ecosystems without major problems. Wolves and people can coexist, but it is not a peaceful coexistence and one's presence will always be at the expense of the others. Wolves and humans both have a place, but they are largely separate with humans dominating civilization and wolves dominating wilderness. Where civilization meets wilderness there will always be a grey area where humans and wolves are fighting for dominance, but that I think is ok. If we are smart about it we can largely reduce conflicts by keeping wolf populations quite low in all but the most remote areas of the country. But I would let wolves largely be untouched in these wilderness areas so there is always a stock to expand out if we remove too many.
I believe the current range of wolves in America is a fairly good start. Possibly a few more remote locations in the southern Rockies or Sierra range could see an expansion, but I would not introduce them, instead I would let them get there on their own, even if it takes many years.
Humans largely can control game populations from overbrowsing their habitats in most areas. But where humans can't or decide not to fulfill this predatory role then it important to let wolves and other predators take up our slack. And if things would go my way much of our agricultural regions would be turned back into wildlife habitat that could be managed for a high calorie per acre of big game and other wild foods. And that way we could let the predators have the rugged peaks and we could claim the vast open restored prairie and savanna as our hunting grounds. I think that would be a pretty good compromise.
