Wolf Hunting in Wyoming

Mackenzie Nichols
Psychology/Communications 353
October 25, 2013

Wolf hunting in the Western Mountain state of Wyoming began when the gray wolf was released from Canada into Yellowstone National Park, as well as surrounding areas, in 1995 and 1996. The original intention of the reintroduction of the gray wolf to Wyoming was because of past extirpation in the region. Because of the vast wilderness and an abundance of prey species throughout the area, it was seen as a suitable location for reintroduction. After the reintroduction, the numbers of gray wolves throughout the region soared. At the end of December 2011, numbers in Yellowstone reached an estimated 328 wolves, which included 48 packs and 27 breeding pairs. Outside of Yellowstone, numbers were estimated at 224, with 36 packs and 19 breeding pairs. (WGFD, 2013) These numbers are significantly higher than the required number to keep wolves off of the Federal Endangered Species List.
Wolves in Wyoming are considered dual classified by state management. In the Northwest region of the state, gray wolves are considered and managed as “Game Trophy Animals”. This essentially means hunters are required to have a wolf-hunting license and may only harvest wolves during the season. Once a designated number of wolves have been harvested, as determined by Wyoming’s Game and Fish Department (WGFD), the hunt season in that specific area is closed. Every hunter who harvests a gray wolf is required by state law to report the kill to WGFD within 24 hours, as well as turn in the skull for biological study purposes, within 10 days. In the remainder of Wyoming, gray wolves are classified as predatory animals. Any animal listed by state management as a predatory animal may be killed at any time, for any reason. They are required to report the kill to WGFD within 10 days, but are encouraged rather than required to turn in the wolf skull.
Approximately 92% of Wyoming’s gray wolf population resides in the Game Trophy region. (WGFD, 2012) The main reason wolves in any region besides the Northwest are considered Predatory is because the rest of the state is geographically unsuitable for wolf habitat, and they cause many issues with livestock and dogs.
In September of 2012, Wyoming Game and Fish Department took over management of the gray wolf from the federal government. This coincided with the removal of the gray wolf from the Federal Endangered Species List. Despite a hefty past of backlash against wolf hunting from animal rights activists, the removal of the wolf from the endangered list prompted many more problems in maintaining a healthy relationship between hunters, the state government, and animal activists.
Unfortunately there is a massive goal difference between the three parties. Hunters view wolf hunting typically on two different levels. One, hunters will participate in sport hunting. It has been a hobby of many generations and is typically extremely managed by the state. Like other Game Trophy Animals including elk and deer, hunters are limited to one wolf per season. There are many rules to follow, which protect the wolves from cruel and unusual mistreatment. Any rule breaking results in serious punishment for the hunter. Secondly, hunters will hunt wolves to protect their land, families, and livestock. According to the gray wolf management monthly update for the month of September 2013, wolves had killed 51 livestock and dogs for the year to date. Hunting for this reason is mainly seen throughout the state where wolves are classified as predatory animals; however, wolves still pose a threat to livestock and other animals even in the Northwest region. (Western Wolves, 2013)
Wyoming state government views wolf hunting as a necessity. Hunting wolves keeps a balance in the ecosystem. When an efficient predator is introduced to a region, with minimal predation on it, numbers will rise exponentially. This causes dramatic problems because with unlimited food, breeding ability, and limited predation on the gray wolf, the population will soar, which will eventually cause it is eat out its food source and starvation will drastically drop the population, or disease will take effect. In addition to affects on the ecosystem, the state government is also required to pay fines to ranchers who lose livestock due to wolves, which is costing the state tens of thousands of dollars in reimbursement. (J. Hurley, personal communication, October 20, 2013.)
Animal rights activists tend to view the problem with an all or nothing mentality towards a solution. In this situation, wolves are seen as animals that should not be hunted, period. As in any animal rights organization, the ultimate goal is to give animals the voices they lack and prevent hunting as a whole. No animal rights activist group or organization has been known to work with the Wyoming state government in preventing unnecessary hunting or cruel trapping and treatment of wolves. They prefer to have no hunting of wolves rather than help enforce responsible, safe, and smart hunting of wolves, even in terms of attempting to manage a healthy ecosystem. (PETA, 2012)
The perceived scarce resources are opposite for the parties. For hunters, the scarce resources are the dwindling numbers of game like elk that are being killed off by wolves. The cow to calf ratio in elk herds in the greater Yellowstone region has dropped 90% since the reintroduction of wolves in 1995. The government views the scarce resource as money that should not be spent on things like lost livestock, as well as other game animals. For animal rights activists, the scarce resource is the wolves that are being harvested. Throughout the times of conflict, it has somewhat turned destructive on the hunters and animal activists. In any group, there will always be the chance of someone or a couple of people exceeding boundaries that make the situation worse. Some hunters have been known to mistreat wolves intentionally, and some animal activists have broken privacy laws by stalking hunters to their hunt posts and intentionally destroying their weapons or posts.
It seems that neither group has a positive attitude towards conflict. Each group actively strives to make others see their point of view, but despite the exception of a few people, most view conflict as something negative. Culturally, hunting is something that has been done since the beginning of humans’ existence. Without it, we would not have survived. It wasn’t until the beginning of the modern world where food could be found elsewhere without needing meat to survive that there was a negative outlook on hunting by some people, and thus the conflict began between hunters and animal activists.
Hunting is still a major producer of food for many families, and it also prevents damage to other food sources like livestock. The expectation of many families, as well as most of America, is that hunting and protecting cattle is a must. Damage to our agriculture system in the states that wolves affect would be catastrophic to our country in almost every aspect imaginable. It would affect our food availability and cost, economy on a micro and macro level, as well as the rest of our ecosystem.
Goals are expressed through individualistic as well as systemic methods. There are massive animal activist groups, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and there are large hunting associations such as the North American Hunting Club. Many times though, people speaking out for what they believe in are just normal individuals who voice their opinions at local county or state meetings, online forums, and the like. Unfortunately though, animal activists and hunters typically blow the other parties goals out of proportion. Hunters view groups like PETA unrealistic and crazy. Animal activists view hunters as heartless killers, and think the only reason people hunt are to get pleasure out of killing animals. Despite this, what have not changed much are the actual goals of each party. They have stayed quite consistent throughout time, with small changes here and there that affect the outcomes of smaller goals. The large, overall goal of each party though have remained the same.
Animal rights activists and hunters would each love to hold the power, and it is often discussed during the conflict; however, who holds the power in this situation is essentially the Wyoming state government. Hunters and animal activists surely hold some power in being able to change and influence what goes on in government, but in the overall picture, the government has the power to decide what, when, why, where, and how wolves get hunted. Each party understands this, and they both do whatever they can to attempt to change the current rules and laws within the state.
Morally, each party underestimates the others amount of power. However, from the outside looking in, it seems as though hunters, as a whole, are more likely to respect and attempt to collaborate with the animal activists, whereas the animal activists typically shun all hunters. This could possibly have a huge influence when it comes to the parties attempting to compromise and work together. The government will see that hunters are trying to come to some sort of agreement, and are willing to give and take a little, while the animal activists are not.
Much like power, the majority of each party views the others style of doing things as obnoxious, ridiculous, and unrealistic. Posted on August 15, 2013 on The Sportsman’s Journal was an article about how an extremist animals rights group called “Earth First!” published a 12-page manual on how to stealthily stalk a hunter to his hunting post, and then sabotage the hunters traps and free any trapped wolves. On the flip side, there have been stories and alleged photos of hunters purposely torturing captured wolves before killing them. These actions do not reflect the actions of everyone else in each party; however, it does go to show the style of conflict management each group has amongst them.
The basis of all the conflict that surrounds wolf hunting can essentially be blamed on the emotions of the parties involved, as it can in any conflict. Hunters feel this is a right of theirs. It is something that has been passed down generation to generation. They also strongly feel that wolves have a major impact on the local ecosystem, and like any other large game animal, it needs to be properly managed. Without this management, hunters feel they will see a devastating impact on theirs and neighbor’s livestock and land. Contrary to popular animal activists’ belief, hunters view wolf hunting as something much more important than a redneck having a fun day shooting something. Animal activists, on the other hand, strongly feel that wolves should be protected and loved, not killed. They strive to give animals the voice they do not have, and their emotions are what strive them to fight as they do.
Coalitions are often seen within the parties. There are hunters who approve wolf hunting but not trapping them, and there are those who approve any method of trapping and killing wolves. Animal rights activists can be part of a group that states their opinions and leave it at that, and there are those who are actively fighting the war between them and hunters. Overall though, each party is set in their goals and opinions. There have been attempted solutions to the problems through negotiation though. Some people from each party will strive to compromise and work with the state government to make everyone happy. However, this is a situation that will never be a win-win. The opposing opinions are so vastly different, that there is basically no middle ground for the parties to reach. The fight will always be to make the other party agree with them, which, on a large scale will most likely never happen. This unfortunately leaves the state government in hot water. Who are they going to appeal to more? In this situation, it is obvious they are leaning on the pro-hunting side, as they are the ones actively trying to keep the wolf off of the endangered species list and agree with hunters on the benefits of wolf hunting. They do however make sure that any cruel treatment of wolves is absolutely not tolerated within the state.
Unfortunately, there is no forgiveness or reconciliation between the groups. As stated before, each party is quite set in their ways, and despite small changes here and there, hunters, animal activists, and the Wyoming state government have a long ways to go to achieve satisfaction amongst all parties involved and end this ongoing conflict. The state government strives to keep both parties happy, but with such differing views, the future looks dim.

Work Cited
Extremist Group Publishes Manual to Sabotage Wolf Hunting and Trapping. (2013, August 15). The Sportsmans Journal. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://www.ussportsmen.org/antis/animal-rights-activist-publish-how-to-sabotage-wolf-hunts-manual-2/

Gray Wolf Management Monthly Update September 2013. (2013, September). Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/WYGRAYWOLF_MONTHLY_SEP20130004654.pdf

Wolf Conflict Facts. (n.d.). Western Wolves. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from http://www.westernwolves.org/index.php/wolf-conflict-facts

Wolves in Wyoming. (n.d.). Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/WILDLIFE-1000380.aspx

Wyoming Wolf FAQs. (2013, February 4). Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1001287.aspx

"You're Next" (2012, April 1). Mail Online. Retrieved October 24, 2013, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2123772/Youre-Hunters-animal-rights-activists-war-words-cruel-pictures-wolves-traps-hit-internet.html